A Place to Stand

Comments from Scotland on politics, technology & all related matters (ie everything)/"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."Henry Louis Mencken....WARNING - THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS HAVE DECIDED THAT THIS BLOG IS LIKELY TO BE MISTAKEN FOR AN OFFICIAL PARTY SITE (no really, unanimous decision) I PROMISE IT ISN'T SO ENTER FREELY & OF YOUR OWN WILL

Friday, June 27, 2014

CAGW Not A Scientific But A Political Issue

Mike Haseler has written on his blog of the reasons why the global warming fraud grew. I think this is interesting enough to put up a long answer but that it must be long enough to post here as well. His full post is here and well worth it. My answers in italics. His assessment of the factors causing growth of the CAGW fraud and opposition is:

Climatology was a new discipline, where results took decades to come in. It had had very few of its ideas tested and had not the experience of other subjects of finding cherished theories were eventually disproven. So this new subject not only did not have an established culture, but the culture that was developing did not have the caution that comes from having established theories overturned by the evidence. - Though new, and thus also lacking good long term records, it is worth noting that Hubert Lamb, who founded the CRU, before his retiral, never believed the warming scare.. Climatology was not doing badly till the politicians came along, poured money into it and appointed their own creatures. My opinion is that the reason "climate science", "social science" and "the science of economics" aren't science is because promotion is determined by what government wants and government wants results that support them rather than ones which are accurate. If promotion in astronomy were political it wouldn't be a science now either.

The manned space flights and lunar landings, were one of the first truly global events and created an entirely new perspective for humanity: that of us looking down on our planet as a single entity - The effect of the lunar flights and pictures of Earth were important but the effect of "environmental" scares such as DDT and the Linear No Threshold nuclear radiation one predate the Moon landings. LNT seems to have been faked in 1945. The growth rate in developed countries peaked in 1958/9 which I suggest can only be caused by government/eco parasitism at that point surpassing the increasing rate of technology growth.

Global communication networks meant that the peoples of earth were no longer isolated from each other. - Agreed. perhaps the most scary thing is how close we are to a de facto world government since such a thing would mean there is no outside competition to keep government efficient and non-parasitic.

The internet strengthened that sense of global “unity”, but also very importantly, it bypassed traditional communication networks through the press and TV. - The internet was minor in the 1980s when CAGW was made the official "Pravda". It has been irreplaceable un the rise of scepticism as a movement.

As a result of the global perspective and globalisation of industry, Global environmental groups grew up, particularly aimed at air pollution and nuclear fears. - As the Indians have demonstrated the importance of western "N"GOs and established wealthy individuals (eg the Club of Rome founders and promoters has been extensive worldwide.

But by the late 1990s, air pollution was already being effectively tackled, and the end of the Berlin wall brought an end to the immediate fear of nuclear disaster. As such environmental groups were bereft of any serious threat on which to focus. - Not just "environmental" groups. Here I would like to direct anybody who hasn't read it to Michael Crichton's State of Fear, which, while masquerading as a thriller is a surgical dissection of not just the "environmental" movement but the carious government promoted campaigns designed to keep us scared and obedient. In particular the chapter Oct 13 9.33AM page 536 in the UK edition is simply a lecture on the history of the media promotion of scares - including how it was provably ramped up several fold within days of the fall of the Berlin Wall when a (possibly) real scare was no longer available. It was not just, or even primarily, "environmental" groups who were bereft of a useful scare, it was all the apparatus of state bureaucracy. It is also likely that the fall of the USSR ("the end of history") removed the competition on government keeping it a bit honest and not wholly parasitic.

In the 1990s the internet (largely developed for academia by academia) was developing, and increasingly it allowed international communication between academics. As such subject specific inter-university “communities” of academics developed to replace the older intra-university communication which predominated before easy national and international communications. - Crichton's book, same chapter, develops the theory that, under the state pressure mentioned above, academia gave up its traditional role as a manufacturer of knowledge and became a manufacturer of scare stories. As can be seen our press, almost daily, report some silly new "report" by a "researcher" at some uni on how, having asked 20 students they have found that there is a 10% above average statistical correlation between smoking/getting laid/eating salt/owning a hat and feeling ill/having politically incorrect ideas/expecting to die before 100.

These new international academic communities, being very focussed on their own area of interest, became very insular and inward looking. They found new freedom from the constraints of their old colleagues from other subjects (who hampered them with “traditional” standards) and started defining their own internal community methodologies, working standards, ethical standards with little reference to other subjects. So, those areas without a long history and so without an established culture or established standards of work, were quick to adopt new ideas and those included ideas such as “post normal science” – which rejects many of the traditional foundations of science such as the requirement for the scientific method as the standard for the validity of scientific theories. - Also if you want to be a scientist you can be one in a government approved "new" discipline, and better paid than those stuffy old disciplines - see Mike Hulme's article on how wonderful the Post Normal Science he does is, where all you have to do is say whatever politicians want and how it is able to prove things that, like CAGW could "self evidently" never have been discovered by traditional science.

As environmentalists looked for new issues, some moved into campaigns for anti-globalisation, anti-industrial, and anti-oil (largely from the increase in oil use and the growing number of oil spills). The common thread here was that they were against an industrial economy powered by fossil fuel. - Even more against one powered by nuclear fuel. Essentially simply against anything that would allow human beings to control more energy because, as Mike and others have demonstrated, human progress marches in lockstep with increases (or reductions) in energy use. Inherently those at the top of society are conservative since any change in society can only take them off their perch.

From the 1970s-2000 there was a period when recorded temperature appeared to rise sharply. This coincided with the fall of the Berlin wall, the need for environmental groups to find new issues to campaign on, the rise of the internet. - I would say from 1979 - prior to that we had a decade of what appeared to be decline - which was used as a campaign scare story too.

When it was recognised global temperatures were rising, the scene was set. The environmentalists rushed into this new issue, encouraged by the academics (with no culture of holding back). - True.

The issue of global warming, quickly picked up momentum and unified the academics, environmentalists, and anti-fossil fuelers into one mass global campaign using the new power of the internet. Free from the old gatekeepers of the press, global warming was able to very quickly dominate public discussion. - I maintain that the unifying power was the state. The internet was not a major factor, except perhaps in academia, until well into the 1990s - for example NATO's Yugolsav wars were possible only because there was no internet competition to the state approved media, but this changed for both Iraq and Syria.

This created a new culture in which environmentalist felt free to use their access to the establishment press and their new freedom on the internet to engage repression and “witch hunts” of any who questioned the idea of CO2 induced warming. - Again I think state power was far more important.

However, something else had changed. In the past, whilst the press often created such “bandwagon” scares, it was ironically often the huge investigative resources of the wealthy press that finally uncovered the truth and brought the scare to a shuddering end. But this time the scare originated from outside the press and after 2000, the internet began seriously eating into the advertising revenue of newspapers as online advertising began to take over. In the past, if one wanted to sell a house, a car, find out what was on – then there was no choice but to buy a newspaper. Newspapers therefore had huge revenues and could afford to employ many journalists to investigate stories to fill the news sections. After 2000, as the internet took over the newspaper revenues crashed. Serious investigative journalism was now a luxury that could only be afforded on major scandals. As the internet took over, newspapers found themselves unable to do much more than copy and paste press releases without checking. - I'm not sure the press was ever that good but you make a good point that now they cannot afford to even try journalism, rather than just rewriting press releases.

Not only did this stop newspapers investigating, it also meant that papers could only afford to print “copy and paste” news. This meant that they focussed on the large institutions whose size guaranteed credibility. This was important as the journalists did not have to waste their limited resources checking up on the source of these stories. Also these institutions were large enough to afford to employ the staff who began doing the journalists job and writing the stories in a ready-to-print format. - Ok so they don't always much rewrite the press releases. The concentration on large institutuions, almost always officially part of the state or state funded sockpuppets. There are not likely to be more truthful but, because od state power they may be more "credible" - a self reinforcing process. In fact I would say most serious online sources are more reliable than most approved ones, if only because online you can check primary sources. Today even in matters of military intelligence online private sources have a better record of knowing what is going on than the CIA.

Smaller, less credible groups, without the resources of PR staff, failed to get press coverage. This further exacerbated the divide because only the big established organisations could afford to get the press coverage that got establishment funding. This has always been the case.

As a result, these new campaign groups had no real alternative. They could not get heard in the traditional print media, and so went online. This established a very sharp division in social communication: On the one side the old press, now reduced to “copy-and-pasting” establishment press releases and stories fed to them. On the other the new “peer-to-peer” internet completely bypassing all the establishment and talking to the public directly. This new internet was a “wild-west” atmosphere where anything went and there was no controls over what was said and whilst a lot was said, much of it lacked authority and credibility. The great thing is that we now do have an online alternative.

This is where those opposed to the now establishment orthodoxy of climate now got their message across.

UPDATE - Mike's reply

Neil, a great contribution. I kind of threw that together in a hurry. Yes, the time the internet started to come into play was 1990. Early on it was entirely academic (and military – but we don’t hear about that). What I assume is that environmentalists either through universities or because so many academics are environmentalists, was a very early adopter of the internet. In effect, they saw the internet as a way of bypassing the “oversight” of the press and that is how they campaigned. So, e.g. by the time wikipedia came along the environmentalists were so good at using the internet, that they just took over these websites. Finally, we saw the “old fogeys” like us skeptics starting to use the internet. Now, the internet is possibly dominated by skeptics.

It would be interesting to compare the behaviour of “new” climate departments and old “climatology” type departments. If I’m right, then most of the worst “hot-heads” should be from universities that started up climate departments.

Your point on nuclear power is correct. What I was trying to show is how “CO2″/fossil fuel, became a beacon around which a whole lot of disparate groups could unite. I suppose I should also have added “wind developers” and “oil companies – seeking to look green”.

In terms of government, I tend to view what government & politicians do as a cock-up. I do think many politicians were extremely gullible and thought “being green” was a very cheap way to get votes. There was a time every government minister wanted to be photoed in front of a windmill – because they were falsely led to believe by the wind lobbyists that it was a no-lose way to be portrayed as “caring” and being “with it”.

All politicians were told that wind was:
a) free
b) clean
c) “wanted”
d) attractive
e) would create jobs
f) They were left thinking it was just a few small windmills that no one would notice.
g) had no drawbacks.

Politicians and civil servants ALMOST ABSOLUTELY NONE OF WHOM ARE ENGINEERS. Were left believing it was total madness not to go all out for wind. And they left themselves be poisoned by the evil wind developers (whose biggest contributors were oil companies) and gullible “greens” into actively excluding anyone who questioned their policy as they were told we were “EVIL OIL-PAID/mad/deniers/witches/bogey men”

No, the press were never that good. But as the lady from “No Fracking consensus” said to me – these days each journalist needs to get 10 stories out each and every day. They simply do not have the time even to rewrite a badly worded press release. Unless it’s word perfect — in the bin!!

In the past, a journalist would expect to meet local campaign groups (and local campaign groups would be really keen to talk to journalists – as there was almost no other way to get their message to the public). What is more the people in the campaign – would buy the paper to hear the latest news.

These days, if you need to organise a campaign – you go online. The press are an after thought, and less and less people buy newspapers to get updates from these types of campaigns.

For a journalist, these local campaigners are a real nightmare – they really expect the journalist to write the story for them, that takes up a huge chunk of time (From what I saw, about a full man-day, when journalist and photographer are added together). That compares to perhaps 30mins for a professional press release.

Labels: eco-fascism, global warming, Government parasitism

// posted by neil craig @ 3:29 pm 170 comments

Thursday, June 26, 2014

Matt Ridley's Articles

Labels: eco-fascism, History, Science/technology

// posted by neil craig @ 1:36 pm 113 comments

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Proven - Global Warming Caused By Government "Scientists" Faking the Figures - No News At Ten

Much of the alleged warming trend has been proven a fraud caused by government pseudo-scientists faking their numbers.

Which, in turn, means that all other figures from government or "environmental" sources are, at the very least, unproven and to may be assumed wrong unless there is sufficient supporting evidence.

Scientists at two of the world’s leading climate centres - NASA and NOAA - have been caught out manipulating temperature data to overstate the extent of the 20th century "global warming".

The evidence of their tinkering can clearly be seen at Real Science, where blogger Steven Goddard has posted a series of graphs which show "climate change" before and after the adjustments.

When the raw data is used, there is little if any evidence of global warming and some evidence of global cooling. However, once the data has been adjusted - ie fabricated by computer models - 20th century 'global warming' suddenly looks much more dramatic.

This is especially noticeable on the US temperature records. Before 2000, it was generally accepted - even by climate activists like NASA's James Hansen - that the hottest decade in the US was the 1930s.

As Hansen himself said in a 1989 report:

In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.

However, Hansen subsequently changed his tune when, sometime after 2000, the temperatures were adjusted to accord with the climate alarmists' fashionable "global warming" narrative. By cooling the record-breaking year of 1934, and promoting 1998 as the hottest year in US history, the scientists who made the adjustments were able suddenly to show 20th century temperatures shooting up - where before they looked either flat or declining.

But as Goddard notes, the Environmental Protection Agency's heatwave record makes a mockery of these adjustments. It quite clearly shows that the US heat waves of the 1930s were of an order of magnitude greater than anything experienced at any other time during the century - far more severe than those in the 1980s or 1990s which were no worse than those in the 1950s."

Which makes Mike Haseler's $10,000 prize for anybody proving catastrophic anthropogenic global warming into an even safer bet than he thought. I commented:

"Your money is safe but its a good idea. With hundreds of billions spent (much more if we count foregone growth) there should be volumes of proof of it happening by now if it were not a fraud."

At the very least, every politician, churnalist, broadcaster and pseudo-scientist who promoted this fraud owes us an unstinted public apology. By definition, every one who doesn't is a wholly corrupt thieving totalitarian Fascist parasite who can NEVER, under any circumstances, be trusted, without overwhelming supporting evidence, to be telling the truth on any other subject either.

Labels: eco-fascism, global warming, Science/technology

// posted by neil craig @ 4:52 pm 243 comments

Monday, June 23, 2014

Greenpeace and Other Ecofascist Organisations Destroying 2-3% of India's gdp, Far More Here

I saw this today regarding India's decision to stop Greenpeace using money raised in developed countries to act to prevent development in India.

The Indian government last week banned direct foreign funding of local campaign groups, after a report by its Intelligence Bureau warned that organisations funded by Greenpeace and other international institutions were growing throughout the country and "spawning" mass movements which now pose a "significant threat to national economic security."

The decision was revealed after the Indian government indicated it was ready to further exploit its large coal reserves and asserted its right to increase carbon emissions for economic development. Prakash Javadekar, the environment minister, said India had a "right to grow" and that it could not address climate change until it had eradicated poverty.

According to the Intelligence Bureau report, Greenpeace and other environmentalist groups had stalled the development of new coal mines, challenged its plans for more coal-fired power stations, and delayed other vital infrastructure projects in campaigns which had reduced India's GDP growth by two to three per cent. Much of their work, it said, is funded by the US-based Centre for Media and Democracy, which the report described as a Democratic Party-oriented group supported by liberals like George Soros and "multiple far-left foundations".

2 or 3 per cent a tear is a lot. A country's gdp would be half its potential after 28 years. Maybe, since India HAS been growing at near to China's 10%, they are exaggerating a bit.

But the influence of "environmental" groups here is far greater. Several times greater. Which suggests we are losing at least 4-6% annual growth.

Here are 2 comments and a reply on Spiked on an article pointing out that, even if there were to turn out to be some truth to the claims of Russian gold funding ecofascists, western government gold is orders of magnitude greater:

neilcraig 2 hours ago

What does not get media coverage is the extent to which western governments are funding alarmism. ( of the top 10 "environmental charities" (Greenpeace being, allegedly, the exception) get 70% of their dosh from the EU (the EU originally suggested 50% but they said they could not work with such stingy funding). There are also grants from UK government, councils quangos and "N"GOs. All in all it looks like the eco "charitable" movement is almost entirely funded by western governments to promote scares. Of the dozens of world destroying eco-scares, obviously, not 1 has proven truthful. On the other hand every one has allowed government to enhance its power.
There may, or may not, be some truth to the attack on Putin (the lack of any actual evidence being produced suggests not) but the unreported but undisputed facts about our own government's totalitarian scaremongering is clearly far more important. The fact that it is being censored simply proves its importance

gscales631 No one bats an eyelid when renewables companies invest in these protest groups. We almost seem to think that it is expected. They stand to make millions upon millions if fracking goes ahead though so there is still a clear conflict of interest. Now imagine if energy companies invested in protest groups outside wind farms, or Greenpeace HQ.

I am a geologist. I have drilled about 115 wells including many in the UK. I know for a fact that the protesters mostly know nothing about drilling. It is easy to tell by what they say.

What bugs me most though is that if an energy company makes a leaflet about fracking it is pretty much guaranteed to be sent to the ASA with a list of things they disagree with. Yet somehow they can stand in the middle of the street with posters and banners or in the middle of town centres with giant canvases saying things to scare people which are not accepted by the majority of scientists and they get away with it time and again.

in this conversation

⬇ Drag and drop your images here to upload them.

neilcraig
- Indeed. Those in power are always conservative in the small c sense since who wants change when you are at the top.
  Without massive government funding, massive support from the state owned BBC and the rest of the government influenced media and perhaps a certain amount from dead billionaires, there would be no Luddite movement. I don't say no environmental movement because it was there, passing Clean Air Acts and the like, long before the ecofascists came along and grabbed their flag. One way to tell real environmentalists is whether they would rather have clean nuclear or polluting coal and landscape destroying windmills.
  Government should be absolutely forbidden to fund scare stories that enhance their power. This is positive feedback and is virtually always destructive.

I have previously called for that legal ban on state funding of ecofascist (or other) organisations being funded to raise scares which lead to the increase in government power. It is inherently totalitarian as well as being economically destructive.

Labels: eco-fascism, Government parasitism, Rise of modern fascism

// posted by neil craig @ 2:46 pm 38 comments

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Look Who Is Lying To Scare Us

   "According to recent data compiled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control CDC), people who eat organic and "natural" foods are eight times as likely as the rest of the population to be attacked by a deadly new strain of E. coli bacteria (0157: H7). This new E. coli is attacking tens of thousands of people per year, all over the world. It is causing permanent liver and kidney damage in many of its victims. The CDC recorded 2,471 confirmed cases of E. coli 0157: H7 in 1996 and estimated that it is causing at least 250 deaths per year in the United States alone.

Consumers of organic food are also more likely to be attacked by a relatively new, more virulent strain of the infamous salmonella bacteria. Salmonella was Americaâ€™s biggest food-borne death risk until the new E. coli O157 came along.

Organic food is more dangerous than conventionally grown produce because organic farmers use animal manure as the major source of fertilizer for their food crops.....

    The real surprise is that nobody is telling the public about the new dangers from organic food, or trying to persuade organic farmers to reduce these risks. Activist groups, government, and the press, all of which have shown no reluctance to organize crusades about matters such as global warming, tobacco addiction, and the use of pesticides are allowing organic farmers to endanger their customers without any publicity whatever." continued

   And fairly recently we had an outbreak in Germany which proves it:

   "A novel strain of Escherichia coli O104:H4 bacteria caused a serious outbreak of foodborne illness focused in northern Germany in May through June 2011. ....

Epidemiological fieldwork suggested fresh vegetables were the source of infection. The agriculture minister of Lower Saxony identified an organic farm^[2] in Bienenbüttel, Lower Saxony....

In all, 3,950 people were affected and 53 died...." continued

    250 organic food deaths in the USA a year suggests 5,000 a year worldwide (this is pretty much seat of the pants because I am quite certain that far more people die that way in the 3rd world but don't realise they are eating "organic food" but merely think it is "food" so lets assume the same rate as the developed world. So over the last 25 years that is 125,000.

   Compare that to nuclear power - Fukushima zero deaths; previous Japanese accident 2 deaths Chernobyl 51 deaths.

   That makes organic food (125,000/53) 2,358 times more dangerous than nuclear. That should actually be "an absolute minimum of 2,358 times because (A) by including the date of Chernobyl we are bringing the average way up and we should also correct for nuclear providing 20% of the world's electricity while official organic is under 1% of its food so (125,000/2 X 20/1) 1,250,000 times more dangerous is equally defensible but lets not be churlish.

   So we can say for certain that any anti-nuclear "protestor" who hasn't spent at least 2,358 times longer protesting against organic food in equally hysterical terms isn't remotely concerned about any alleged health threat but simply a Luddite lying.

Google on "Dangers of nuclear power" 4,360,000 items
        "       " "Dangers of Organic Food" 2,500,000 items (I must admit surprise the discrepancy wasn't greater but still, the nuclear one should only have been one thousand and sixty worldwide.

Labels: eco-fascism, hobgoblins, nuclear

// posted by neil craig @ 4:41 pm 1 comments

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Everybody Working For Mother Jones Is A Fascist Whore - Is There Single Alarmist Anywhere Who Isn't?

The well known "environmentalist" Mother Jones site has put up a thread saying that the 1970s global cooling scare never happened.

They are, of course, wholly dishonest.

       Well I guess that shows the normal level of honesty to which they aspire.

      Then Mother Jones censored my posts while, at the same time allowing some disgusting and, as they knew, wholly dishonest attacks on me to stand.

      Clearly that is not something which anybody in the alarmist movement who was not a wholly dishonest Fascist, would ever fail to dissociate themselves from.

     That would be none so far.

     Not one Beeboid; not one alarmist politician in the LabNatConDems who has the remotest trace of honesty or human decency.

      Not one who isn't an obscene, lying, thieving Nazi whore, willing to support any lie and with less human decency than a rabid dog.
      Not one of the windmillers, warming alarmists, antifrackers, child scaring teachers, parasitic "civil" servants, anti-nuclearists, peak oilers, who can be trusted to ever tell the truth more than a pile of dog shit can.

      Just saying.

     We'll see if that holds up, or if there turns out to be a single one of them willing to go on Mother Jones here and say they are not only corrupt, lying, thieving, murdering Nazi whores but also represent something other than the highest standards of honesty the "environmental" movement aspires to.

Labels: eco-fascism, global warming, Rise of modern fascism

// posted by neil craig @ 6:38 pm 1 comments

Tuesday, June 03, 2014

EU Chief Science Advisor - Bosses Say "Find me the evidence"

Anne Glover, the EU's Chief Science Advisor has denounced the EU's rulers in a job destroying manner. Via Bishop Hill & EU Referendum.

“Let’s imagine a Commissioner over the weekend thinks, ‘Let’s ban the use of credit cards in the EU because credit cards lead to personal debt’. So that commissioner will come in on Monday morning and say to his or her Director General, ‘Find me the evidence that demonstrates that this is the case.’”

    Quite remarkable since she is not some sort of competent, dedicated scientist. quite the opposite as I have previously described:

    Here is a review of a lecture on CAGW she did some years ago when she was still Scotland's Chief Science Advisor. http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/scottish-governments-chief-science.html Her assertion that warming would increase day length seemed to show a remarkable ignorance of science but it was clear the lecture she was giving was one used for her main job - going round schools frightening children with the CAGW scare.

    That she is less able to thole the eurocrats than 10 year old schoolkids, and has presumably decided to get them to fire her, is interesting.
---------------------------------
      I did invite her to answer this depiction apparent ignorance of orbital mechanics but she decided not to.

Labels: eco-fascism, EU, Government parasitism

// posted by neil craig @ 12:04 pm 0 comments

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Fisking Election Leaflets

    I got 4 election leaflets through the door. Obviously the UKIP one was perfect in every way. As for the others:

Labour "We have no limit on our ambition for Scotland and we want no Scot to have a limit on their's" and "Labour will build a moral economy where the national wealth is used for the benefit of all" and promises growth with "a rising standard of living". Who can be against any of that except that if equality of outcome is enforced to ensure nobody has a below average income, then nobody can have the ambition to have a higher than average one and if we have that much state control of economic outcomes we can't have the free market incentives needed for growth. So this is just cynically promising everything to everybody, knowing it is impossible. We have to make choices. I think we should choose growth because that maximises the benefit for everybody. Labour are perfectly entitled to say they prefer total equality to being better off but it is dishonest to treat us like children and promise to maximise both.

      Of course they support the EU but the only reason they can come up with for doing so is that we benefit from the British, partial, rebate!

       And they promise more foreign "aid" and to be "global leaders in tackling climate change" which is dishonestly portrayed as making money rather than destroying it.

Tories
List a number of things they have done for us. Including to have cut Labour's deficit by 1/3rd, omitting that they promised to end it in this parliament. But most interestingly is "We've taken all the action we can under the current EU agreements to fix our immigration system". They promised at the last election to cut immigration to "10s not hundreds of thousands" which is actually a tougher promise than UKIP's to reduce it to 50,000. Of course they broke it and immigration is still well above 200,000 but the EU regulations were in place when they made the promise. This is thus a public admission that their promise was a deliberate lie - that it was always impossible to carry out their promise while in the EU.

Greens
. It is all about nationalisation, forcing us to eat "local food", and "creating thousands of jobs in green industries" (this is a cynical lie as they know perfectly well that each subsidised "green" destroys 3.7 real jobs).

     In an accompanying "newspaper" they attack the SNP for pouring insufficient billions into windmill subsidy and define the catstrophic global warming we are supposed to be experiencing as "the defining issue of our age". On that we agree. Catastrophic warming is not happening, indeed there has been no warming, of any sort, for 19 years - it is a totalitarian lie designed to give the political elite more power and more of our money (as they all provably know or it would not be necessary to suppress discussion). It does indeed define all the parties promoting this lie.

     Sorry I didn't get anything from the SNP and LibDems.

Labels: eco-fascism, election, Scottish politics

// posted by neil craig @ 2:29 pm 0 comments

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

We Should Be 4 Times Better Off

    This graph was put up by Tim Worstall from an article in the New Yorker.

   He was making a point about rates of return being higher when property rights are insecure, as they once were, and are looking like becoming again.

   However I was interested in the yellow line which fits in with stuff I have been saying before about growth in western countries having peaked in 1959 and that, by all the normal rules of statistics we should expect such curves to rise at an increasing rate, as this did till the 1950s and then the rate of growth to tale off. If that yellow curve had continued at the rate of acceleration form 1950-2012 as up to 1950 we would have an average growth rate of 7-8% now.

     The further decline in growth after 2012 - is obviously not actual but only what the miserabilist who did it is extrapolating. Nonetheless valuable since it shows what is intended if we allow it.

    When you have different research coming to similar endpoints you can be fairly sure you are onto something. In this case that it is only because of the Luddism, primarily but not exclusively in suppressing the very cheap electricity we should all have now, and the growing degree of state regulatory parasitism that is responsible. Technologically we could have that 7-8% annual growth at any time. Actually probably quite a bit more for some years as we catch up on using technology that has been suppressed. 60 years of growth averaging 3.5% when we could have had 6% means the entire planet could have been 4 times better off by now.

Labels: eco-fascism, economics, Government parasitism

// posted by neil craig @ 3:20 pm 0 comments

Monday, May 19, 2014

Recent Reading On EcoFascism

"After a decade of study of the subject, I can assert that DDT has no adverse effects on human health, period.” - Also shows even the claim of it thinning eggshells was a fraud.

Meanwhile the eco-Nazis continue to 1.5 million people (mainly African kids so nobody cares) every year.
--------------------------------------------
The medieval warm period in Japan. The Japanese consider cherry blossom as a national symbol and have always celebrated, and recorded, the day each year it appears. Shows beyond dispute that the ecofascists, who always claimed it was only a European phenomenon (on the basis that European records only recorded it in Europe) were, once again, lying.
--------------------------------------------
Rather fun - a reservoir has been emptied because a kid peed in it. The management acknowledge that they regularly find animal's bodies there, presumably some of them have peed to at some time. This lunacy is drawn from the way the opponents of the nuclear industry are unable (or unwilling) to understand the concept of dilution. It is the application of the false LNT theory in a new area and inevitably, as with nuclear, means ignoring far "worse" instances that have always occurred naturally.

An indication of the way public sector engineering is now done by political apparatchiks not engineers. Some time there will be an unamusing tragedy.
---------------------------------------
The magnificent Matt Ridley showing that e-cigarettes save lives by getting people off the far more lethal normal cigarettes. This, of course, is opposed by the ban-everything fascists, whose smoking ban has always been about power and care nothing about health. That means thousands of unnecessary deaths annually but that is not the tragedy I mentioned but, as Stalin said, only a statistic.

"If somebody invented a pill that could cure a disease that kills five million people a year worldwide, 100,000 of them in this country, the medical powers that be would surely encourage it, pay for it, perhaps even make it compulsory. They certainly would not stand in its way.

....... In Britain alone two million now use these devices regularly. In study after study, scientists are finding e-cigarettes to be effective at helping people quit, to show no signs of luring non-smokers into tobacco use and to be much safer than their noxious competitors.....

The NHS is confident that these devices are about 1,000 times less harmful than cigarettes. The government confirmed this figure in a parliamentary answer to me. It’s the tar in smoke that kills, not the nicotine — a substance that is about as harmful as caffeine.

.... e-cigarettes proved 60 per cent more successful as a method of quitting than nicotine patches, gums or going cold turkey. By a country mile, free enterprise devices are outstripping the health results of medicinally regulated devices. And for many vested interests that is the problem...

Do the maths. If e-cigarettes are 1,000 times less harmful than cigarettes, then for every youngster who goes from smoking to vaping, there would have be a thousand going the other way before there is net harm
----------------------------------------------------
Shale could add £50 bn to the UK economy if the bastards would let it.
----------------------------------------------------
According to our government approved media abortionists are always good and black people are always the nice victims. Here is news where even the media have difficulty supporting the black abortionist.
----------------------------------------------------
EU becoming even less energy competitive
----------------------------------------------------
900 year study shows no sign at all of current warming. Both Mediaeval warming and Little Ice Age do show up.

Labels: eco-fascism, global warming, Reading

// posted by neil craig @ 1:58 pm 1 comments

Thursday, May 15, 2014

New Warmist Scare; Last Excuse Was A Lie; Government McCarthyist Pressure

Jerry Pournelle has used and answered my comments here. I was writing in response to a new "scientific" claim that the West Antarctic ice sheet is collapsing which is "irreversably" going to soon increase sea levels by 10 feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Putting "Inevitable" Glacier Disappearance in Perspective

Remember when, for several years the IPCC continued to proclaim that all the Himalaya glaciers were going to have melted by 2035? They even denounced skeptics who disputed it as doing "voodoo" science.

"Indian Scientists: Himalayan Glaciers are Not Melting

Andrew Orlowski, The Register

Top Indian physicists have concluded Himalayan glaciers show little sign of retreat – in one of the largest studies of its type ever carried out."

http://www.thegwpf.org/indian-scientists-himalayan-glaciers-are-not-melting/

I would be willing to take a bet that this new Antarctic glaciers melting story will also not stand up to scrutiny. And that when it is dropped it will get less media hoo-ha than the initial announcement has.
Neil Craig

I had much the same feeling. The credentials of the framers of the latest report seem to be in order, but how can you tell? The Manmade Climate Change Believers have engaged in many questionable, and some outright fraudulent, practices, and the Scientific Consensus establishment does not seem to have come down on them hard, as they should. I try to keep this a place for rational discussion, and I fully agree to the proposition that one is entitled to one’s own opinion, but there are facts – data – that must be agreed to.

In the case of Climate Change some data are not disputable. It has been getting warmer since early in the 19^th Century. This is observed all over the globe, in almanacs, growing seasons, scientific expeditions that recorded both land and sea temperatures, etc.

What cannot be agreed to is the precision of the measured lower temperatures in, say, 1825. Most of those were taken with mercury thermometers, and we have no idea of just how precisely they were calibrated. I know that the old mercury thermometer that we used at our house in the 1930’s purported to give body temperature to 1/10^th degree Fahrenheit. I also know it was subject to mechanical manipulation, and it was relatively delicate. The large red liquid thermometer outside the house was marked in 1 degree intervals, but it was large enough to let you estimate another decimal place.

Apparently the climate science community has decided that by 1870 data gathering and recording were good enough to allow establishment of an annual average global temperature accurate to 0.1 degree C. I have my doubts about this, but they are all what you would call “common sense” arguments, not data. Having had to establish temperatures accurate to 0.1 degree C in a laboratory, I know something of the difficulties involved. We only wanted a point skin temperature of an astronaut in a full pressure suit. Actually we wanted the temperature of a small copper disk to which we had soldered a thermocouple. The disk was smeared with a thermal conducting paste and taped to the back of the astronaut’s arm (others were placed at locations about his body); we assumed that the temperature of the disk was closely enough coupled with the actual skin temperature, and since all the disks and thermocouples were as identical as our technicians could make them, and all were taken on a setup that included a reference copper plate/thermocouple in a bowl of ice made from distilled water, this would have to do. After all, it was the relative temperatures taken in different conditions that we needed.

But that experience has made me leery of any temperatures said to be accurate to a tenth of a degree (C or F), and particularly of averages taken over vast areas. I would be hard put to come up with “the” temperature of Los Angeles right now to a tenth of a degree. It’s hot outside my house, hotter in the sun than in the shade. There’s a warm compressively heated wind from the high deserts fighting a cooler wind from the sea. If you then ask me to give you the average temperature in Los Angeles for the day (which would include the night) I’d have to argue that it can’t be done. We can take a series of measurements and average them, but the exposed to the sky temperature will depend on the cloud cover both day and night, while the temperature in the shade will depend entirely on air temperature and thus be more sensitive to which wind, Santana or ocean, prevailed at that location. I could go on listing difficulties, but you get the idea. Anything exposed to the night sky will be colder if there are not clouds. If there are clouds and it is not exposed to that 4 degree Kelvin dark, that changes things. But if it is exposed to the night sky at night it is exposed to the blazing sun by day. Unless there are clouds. At this point I begin to babble.

And when I see that the consensus of temperature rise from 1870 to present is measured to 0.1 accuracy (about 0.8 C), I just have to wonder how reliable that is. Surely different techniques and data gathering locations are used now from those employed back then. Yet it is widely reported that the Earth’s temperature rose by 0.8 degree C between 1870 and present

(https://www.google.com/search?q=earth+temperature+1870+to+present&sa=X&biw=1005&bih=473&tbm=isch&imgil=RxbUv-HjO79I9M%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcRPof3yjHmOVhfkNlH6-Yg4gmzdvUElWTBGMKbu3Ve7y0Bk1ydBpw%253B670%253B717%253B4Jwy4vvzj7WnOM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fen.wikipedia.org%25252Fwiki%25252FCurrent_sea_level_rise&source=iu&usg=__9Nry8HpHXiTQoKuPzztCXDHFEQ4%3D&ei=VdpzU4OfHcKgogSG94DICw&ved=0CIMBEPUBMA0#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=RxbUv-HjO79I9M%253A%3B4Jwy4vvzj7WnOM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fupload.wikimedia.org%252Fwikipedia%252Fcommons%252F5%252F5e%252FTrends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level%252C_1870-2008_%28US_EPA%29.png%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fen.wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252FCurrent_sea_level_rise%3B670%3B717). That makes 0.1 degree fairly significant. And even this rise is disputed by those who find a cycle at work http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/03/german-scientists-show-climate-driven-by-natural-cycles-global-temperature-to-drop-to-1870-levels-by-2100/

Meanwhile current reports are that the ice is building up in Antarctica (Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday ).

I suspect you have good reason to doubt the inevitability of Antarctica land ice melting into the sea. All that ice forming down there must surely cool the water at the critical interface?
==========================================

Bishop Hill has a scoop, (or perhaps just news the MSM refuse to report) which shows our government deliberately lying to promote windmillery. We were told, officially, the recent blackout in eastern Scotland was nothing to do with the variability of windmills. If this newspaper letter from an engineer, is true, which it feels like, we were lied to:

SIR, I was amazed to learn that a Scottish Hydro Electric transmission spokeswoman said “repairs are being carried out on the faulty relay” that allegedly caused the power cut on April 16 (“works to fend off blackouts”, PandJ, May 10).

I have been an electrical engineer for over 40 years and have never heard of anyone “repairing” a hermetically sealed relay switch.

The relay switch operated perfectly on the windy night of April 16 when it detected a sudden surge of voltage and frequency that fell outside acceptable parameters.

A relay switch has two states: on and off. All of these relay switches operated perfectly on the night, independent of the relay switch at Knocknagael Substation which is, itself fed by at least two windfarms, Farr and Moy.

This was what is known as a “rolling blackout”. It is ludicrous to suggest that all lights went out all over the north at 8.30pm exactly. My area went out at 8.43pm when the blast of wind reached Novar windfarm and toggled the relay switch to off to protect its local circuit and so on up the coast.

Grid operators can switch windfarms on and off remotely – if there is a risk of too much wind generating too much “wrong time” low-grade electricity with what is known in the industry as “flicker”. The grid cannot handle more than 10% of flicker contaminated electricity at any given nanosecond and this limit was exceeded on the night.

The operators were caught on the hop. With no electricity, all the windfarms had to be isolated manually.

The spokeswoman goes on to say that they will be making changes to how the protective equipment operates. This is code for shutting down windfarms even earlier in windy conditions so that the operators get more and more constraint payments for not generating when the wind speed is just right.

Andrew H Mackay, Tain
========================================

Meanwhile, also via Bishop Hill, in an example of the totalitarian pressure being put on science by, in particular, the Obama government:

Professor Lennart Bengtsson, 79, a leading academic from the University of Reading, left the high-profile Global Warming Policy Foundation as a result of the threats, which he described as 'virtually unbearable'....

The Swedish climatologist, who has published more than 200 papers, said he received hundreds of emails from colleagues criticising his decision to switch to the organisation.

.... described him as a 'crybaby'.

However, the main pressure came from the US, where a government employee refused to be a co-author on a paper because of his links to the controversial group.

Prof Bengtsson, who had only been in the position for three weeks, told Mail Online: 'There were quite a lot of people who were upset when I joined GWPF.
'I received emails from colleagues all over the world telling me it was a "questionable" group.

'But what made me the most upset was when a colleague from the US resigned as co-author of a paper, simply because I was involved....

He believes one of the reasons for this is the US Government's expanding role on climate change.

'The public are concerned that recent weather phenomenon have been as a result of climate change. But it is a natural occurrence,' he said.

'Some people like my views, other people don't, that is the way when it comes to science.' ....

'I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy.

Lord Lawson, the former Tory Chancellor condemned the behaviour as 'appalling' and said the reference to 'McCarthyism' was 'fully warranted'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2629171/Climate-change-scientist-claims-forced-new-job-McCarthy-style-witch-hunt-academics-world.html#ixzz31mcRIQ1M
I guess that is how you get a "97% consensus of ~~climate scientists~~ the particular state funded computer modellers they chose to ask

Labels: eco-fascism, global warming, Rise of modern fascism

// posted by neil craig @ 1:14 pm 0 comments

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

BBC Head Of Censorship Says Censor To Promote Our lie

This was on Andrew Montford's blog Bishop Hill some time ago (a Scottish blogger who is one of the world's leading sites on the "catastrophic global warming" fraud):

-----------------------
In his Mail on Sunday article today (keep scrolling) David Rose reveals that the BBC - at least in Scotland - has a new policy of protecting climatologists from challenge on air.

A BBC executive in charge of editorial standards has ordered programme editors not to broadcast debates between climate scientists and global warming sceptics.

Alasdair MacLeod claimed that such discussions amount to ‘false balance’ and breach an undertaking to the Corporation’s watchdog, the BBC Trust.

Mr MacLeod, head of editorial standards and compliance for BBC Scotland, sent an email on February 27 to 18 senior producers and editors, which has been obtained by The Mail on Sunday.

It reads: ‘When covering climate change stories, we should not run debates / discussions directly between scientists and sceptics.

If dissenters from the climate consensus are not to be allowed to put their case directly, there is presumably little point in having those arguments put by BBC interviewers. So from now on the pronouncements of climatologists will be treated as holy writ and the most alarmist scientists can be allowed to scaremonger without fear of contradiction.
----------------------------------------------------------

      "Head of Editorial Standards and Compliance" can barely even be described as a euphemism for "Head of the Censorship Department".

      The BBC Charter does specifically make it a legal requirement that they report impartially and with "balance". The very existence of a Censorship Department proves that they are engaged in extensive and illegal censorship, and have no worries about being brought to account for their illegalities.

      The existence of a department large enough to require a Head, let alone a regional Head, simply to provide instructions on what must be censored means the amount of across the board censorship at the BBC must be massive.
-------------------------------------------------

      Another example, from the same site some days later would be the extensive BBC coverage of the possible poisoning of 6 birds (I have also heard the same news being gone over again yesterday) while the fact that windfarms in Scotland kill in the high thousands of birds a year, goes entirely censored.

     Since this is roughly 1,000 times more it would clearly be impossible for the BBC to give equal coverage to both news items unless it were no more than 1/1000th honest (ie 99.9% corrupt).

    By not reporting the windmill news at all they have clearly proven they do not aspire to even that level of integrity. Because the 28 Gate fraud became public we know that across all departments, the BBC have been aware, for a proven 7 years, that the warming story is, at least in large measure, fraudulent. There can therefore be no possible suggestion that any of these 99.9%+ corrupt totalitarian liars have any excuse or that any other state owned broadcaster anywhere in the world is as dishonest as our the BBC.

Labels: BBC, eco-fascism, economics, Scottish politics

// posted by neil craig @ 6:26 pm 4 comments

Friday, March 28, 2014

More Statistical Proof - Recession Is Caused By State Parasitism & Ecofascism - We Should & Could Be 4 To 16 Times Better Off

This graph was put up by Tim Worstall from an article in the New Yorker.

    Ignore the original article - it is about some economist complaining about rising inequality. Inequality is less important than overall growth unless you are one of those people who would rather have us all poorer than all of us better off, but some betterer off than others in which case you are motivated by hate and jealousy rather caring about society.

    Also ignore the purple line. It is about long term interest rates which is simply about how the wealth is divided up. The rate of interest is probably more a function of the reliability of the banking system before and after 1820. Also ignore the extension of the line beyond 2012 - that is just evidence free pushing of a political line.

    The important bit is the yellow line, which shows the long term growth rate in what is described as the world but I suspect is just the developed western world.

     This fits well with a previous graph on a previous post I presented. Indeed this post is pretty much a repetition of that one - but it is important enough to do so.

     Both graphs show that western growth rates have been going up throughout recorded history up until 1958.
And have been falling since.

    Now that just doesn't happen without very good reason.
    It isn't inevitable because as the 2nd graph shows, growth outside the developed west has not been affected, indeed is faster than at any time.
    It isn't because we have reached the end of technological progress because, measured by things like Moore's Law or increases in strength of materials, progress is far faster than at any time inn human history.

    Rising graphs like that are indicative of being at the foot of an S curve - human wealth should be increasing not just at the 1913-1950 rate (which would mean 6% annual growth now - pretty much what the non-EU/US countries are doing) but well above it - a bit speculative but at least 12% seems likely looking at the increasing of the slope between 1820-1913 & 1913-1950. Had we had growth of 6% average over the last 62 years we would all be 4 times better off. If we had had growth starting at 3% and rising to 12% (ie averaging 4.5% ahead of reality) we would ALL average 16 times better off.

   The only reason we know of to explain that is the growth in state regulatory parasitism. I have also noted the same tailing off of growth in nuclear power where, had the pre-1980 trend continued we would now all have at least 4 times as much power and be 4 times wealthier. Government parasitism has banned cheap power; it has banned cheap GM foods, it has destroyed at least 75% of the economy we could have had. And so on.

   As I say a bit of a repetition of what I have said before but every bit of extra evidence supports the position.

    We could get back on the natural growth rate at any time. Indeed I think that government parasitism must have repressed our growth and if released, like a spring, we would expect it to go well beyond the average 12% rate for some years. Which in turn supports my 24 point programme out of recession plan which suggested a maximum of 23%.
--------------------------------------------
      In a more modest vein John Redwood says that with cheaper power (the lack of which he wrongly blames on the EU) our industry would be 15% better off and creating half a million jobs. I have a comment.

Labels: eco-fascism, economics, Government parasitism

// posted by neil craig @ 4:37 pm 0 comments

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:

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."

Labels: eco-fascism, Fear, Government parasitism

// posted by neil craig @ 4:34 pm 0 comments

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

98% of Sceptics Believe In Climate Change - Naturally

      Mike Haseler is doing a statistical collation of the opinions of global warming sceptics.

      Interestingly while we are told 97% of "climate scientists" believe in "climate change" the percentage of sceptics believing in that is 98% - its just we accept it happens and always has but don't say it is catastrophic.
---------------------------------------------

A sceptical consensus: the science is right but catastrophic global warming is not going to happen
The Scottish Climate & Energy Forum has been conducting a survey on the background and attitudes of participants to online climate discussions. The survey had a massive response which will take time and resource to process. However initial analysis already shows that the actual views and backgrounds of participants are in sharp contrast with some high-profile statements being made about the participants. Therefore I felt we should make these initial results known as soon as practical to avoid further damage, both to the reputation of those involved in the online debate, as well as those making the unfounded and presumably mistaken accusations of “denial”.
As such, I am releasing the following statement regarding the survey.

A sceptical consensus: the science is right but catastrophic global warming is not going to happen

A recent survey of those participating in on-line forums showed that most of the 5,000 respondents were experienced engineers, scientists and IT professionals most degree qualified and around a third with post graduate qualifications. The survey, carried out by the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum, asked respondents for their views on CO2 and the effect it might have on global temperatures. The results were surprising. 96% of respondents said that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing with 79% attributing the increase to man-made sources. 81% agreed that global temperatures had increased over the 20th century and 81% also agreed that CO2 is a warming gas. But only 2% believed that increases in CO2 would cause catastrophic global warming.
So what's going on?

Above all, these highly qualified people - experts in their own spheres - look at the published data and trust their own analysis, so their views match the available data. They agree that the climate warmed over the 20th century (this has been measured), that CO2 levels are increasing (this too has been measured) and that CO2 is a warming gas (it helps trap heat in the atmosphere and the effects can be measured). Beyond this, the survey found that 98% of respondents believe that the climate varies naturally and that increasing CO2 levels won't cause catastrophic warming.

What next?

Overwhelmingly participants in this large scale survey support the science, however this is not how they have been portrayed in the media and this has led to deep and bitter divides between those who hold different viewpoints. This debate should be based on the evidence and that not only includes the scientific evidence on the climate, but also the evidence of the real participants involved in the debate. Given the huge number of responses and detail of questions a full assessment will take up to one year to complete. This is a huge commitment from an organisation that has no outside funding and is reliant on one full-time volunteer (Mike Haseler). We will therefore be approaching the Scottish and UK government with a view to obtaining funding to complete the analysis.

             http://scef.org.uk
==================================

    By coincidence Mike also wrote a blog article on how online education is going to provide a far better and cheaper service than conventional universities. I forwarded this to Jerry Pournelle who thought it worth linking to on his remarkably good Chaos Manor site:


Online learning
http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/the-end-of-the-uk-university-ii/#more-2972
A friend of mine discussing online learning replacing traditional universities. Pretty much what you have said but if you have a few minutes to kill…..

Labels: eco-fascism, global warming, Progress

// posted by neil craig @ 4:27 pm 0 comments

Monday, February 10, 2014

A NeW Way To Hide The Decline - Destroy Your Own Measuring Instruments

    Some time ago it was noticed that the number of sites recording temperature worldwide were being reduced. The suspicious might conclude that this was not because modern measurement systems allow measurements at sites where measurement has been ended,

    Here are 3 new examples, all from the latest SEPP Newsletter. Anybody interested in whether we are experiencing alleged catastrophic global warming or whether it is a totalitarian lie promoted by state parasites (I don't think there is a 3rd option) should follow SEPP. You can sign up for it on
SEPP www.sepp.org
The Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
---------------------------------------------------------------

Last week, TWTW reported that the Tropical Atmosphere Ocean array of buoys is failing for lack of maintenance. These buoys monitor the warming and cooling events in the equatorial Pacific, known respectively as El Niño and La Niña, which are important natural for climate change. About 50% of the NOAA-maintained buoys are not reporting. The budget for maintaining the buoys fell from about $10-$12 million to $2-3 million. Somehow Washington can spend $22.6 billion in 2013 on climate change but not maintain critical instruments on understanding weather and climate change. The amount for buoys is tiny compared to DOE spending on renewables.

TWTW Reader Timothy Wise reminded us of a GAO report last February, which stated that there is a significant timing gap between the end of scheduled life existing satellites, and replacement with new satellites. The US has two complementary sets of satellites, polar-orbiting ones, and geostationary ones. They are used by weather forecasters, climatologists, the military, etc. According to the GAO report, the timing gap between end of scheduled life and replacement with new satellites could span from 17 to 53 months or more, depending on how long the current satellite lasts and any delays in launching or operating the new one. As reported in past TWTWs, based on three separate, but somewhat overlapping government reports, the US has spent some $165 billion on climate change since 1993, but the US cannot spend the money needed to maintain critical instrumentation. Another source for funds is the $8 Billion in "Energy Payments in Lieu of Tax Provisions in the FY 2013 Federal Climate Change Expenditures. A new report will not come out until early 2015. See link under Measurement Issues.

and

+++Government abandons temperature records+++
By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Feb 4, 2014
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/b...
Carbon dioxide is still a greenhouse gas of course, but it is startling to realise that the government has effectively abandoned the temperature records as evidence for global warming. Everything comes down to the climate models.
[SEPP Comment: If the data does not agree with the models, discard the data?]

---------------------------------------------

    That does indeed look like it - even the alarmist pseudo-scientists & political parasites do not not expect that future measurements will support their claims and would rather have absolutely no evidence, even evidence they "collate and interpret", than what they expect to come out.

    Note, in particular that the only explanation they have for zero warming over the last 18 years is that, in some manner not explained by the Laws of Thermodynamics, all the heat has been going into the oceans. If they believed that they would certainly want the buoys to remain in place so that they could prove it. On the other hand if they believe their explanation is a lie they would certainly wish to nbe able to let the measuring system fail by not paying for maintenance.

Labels: eco-fascism, global warming, Rise of modern fascism

// posted by neil craig @ 4:27 pm 0 comments

A Place to Stand

Friday, June 27, 2014

CAGW Not A Scientific But A Political Issue

Thursday, June 26, 2014

Matt Ridley's Articles

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Proven - Global Warming Caused By Government "Scientists" Faking the Figures - No News At Ten

Scientists at two of the world’s leading climate centres - NASA and NOAA - have been caught out manipulating temperature data to overstate the extent of the 20th century "global warming".

Monday, June 23, 2014

Greenpeace and Other Ecofascist Organisations Destroying 2-3% of India's gdp, Far More Here

in this conversation

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Look Who Is Lying To Scare Us

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Everybody Working For Mother Jones Is A Fascist Whore - Is There Single Alarmist Anywhere Who Isn't?

Tuesday, June 03, 2014

EU Chief Science Advisor - Bosses Say "Find me the evidence"

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Fisking Election Leaflets

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

We Should Be 4 Times Better Off

Monday, May 19, 2014

Recent Reading On EcoFascism

Thursday, May 15, 2014

New Warmist Scare; Last Excuse Was A Lie; Government McCarthyist Pressure

Meanwhile current reports are that the ice is building up in Antarctica (Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday ).

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

BBC Head Of Censorship Says Censor To Promote Our lie

Friday, March 28, 2014

More Statistical Proof - Recession Is Caused By State Parasitism & Ecofascism - We Should & Could Be 4 To 16 Times Better Off

Friday, March 21, 2014

Taking On The Big Government Sock Puppets - A Qango Against Sock Puppetry

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

98% of Sceptics Believe In Climate Change - Naturally

Monday, February 10, 2014

A NeW Way To Hide The Decline - Destroy Your Own Measuring Instruments

About Me

Links

ARCHIVES