Click to get your own widget

Saturday, April 09, 2011


  A few days ago I was told by somebody who should know that BBC internal polling shows 82% of Scottish people get their political "news" overwhelmingly from the BBC. That explains a lot about what is wrong with Scottish politics, why we have 5 parties with barely a policy difference between them, all of whom voted specifically to destroy 58% of the Scottish economy over the next 9 years why this undeniable fact is not allowed to intrude into the campaign and how it is possible to keep parties who do not support this destruction out of debate. Orwell''s Ministry of Truth would be lost in admiration.

    Which brings us to the most recent BBC reply on the correspondence about their official decision to maintain that catastrophic warming is the single most accepted theory in all of science, despite admitting it to be a total lie and not being able to name even one scientist, worldwide, who is independent of government and supports it. Also that when the BBC say "balance" they mean "100s of thousands of hours devoted to propaganda lies and a total censorship of the truth".

   Colin's latest:

"I'm sorry if my response to your email was not as clear as it could have been. The point I was trying to make was that I think it is reasonable to rely upon the scientific opinion of organisations which are "independent" in the sense that they are outside of the framework of government. Such organisations may not be independent in terms of funding but can, I believe, be considered independent from government persuasion or influence which might materially affect their decisions or opinions. I appreciate that you don't share that view (or my understanding of the meaning of "independent") but I stand by my description of the Royal Society etc as "leading independent scientific bodies...outside the framework of government".

I have not responded to your broad allegations about the BBC because they fall outside the remit of the Editorial Complaints Unit. We are confined to considering potentially serious breaches of the standards expressed in the BBC's Editorial Guidelines about specific items broadcast or published by the BBC; it would therefore be inappropriate for me to address your general comments about the BBC.

If you wish to take your complaint about Making Scotland's Landscape further, then you can, as I have explained previously, ask the BBC Trust to conduct its own review of your complaint and the ECU's finding."    

To which I replied:

"Dear Colin,

That is OK I found your letter entirely clear. The assumption that "he who pays the piper calls the tune" is sufficiently well understood to be universally recognised. Your and presumably the BBC's re-definition of "independent" as "paid by but trying not to give the appearance of being under control" is indeed an example of the redefinition of words to mean their opposite previously described as "Newspeak". I believe a current advertising term is "astroturfing". You know perfectly well that organisations you describe as "independent" aren't.

Of course if the BBC were even trying to be consistent in their dishonesty you would never allow any suggestion that anybody funded by somebody else was not "independent" by your skewed definition. Well I guess we can put that down as just another instance of the highest standard of honesty to which the BBC aspire as this entirely gratuitous dig at anybody who gets funds from a tobacco company shows
You made a major issue of having the broad support of "independent" scientists for your propaganda position and have quite clearly proven that you are unable to name one single such scientist anywhere in the world who supports the BBC's warming claims or even anything remotely close to them.

On your decision not to defend against the accusation that the BBC have continuously lied and censored to promote war crimes, genocide and worse atrocities. As pointed out the BBC have already guaranteed to promptly answer specific accusations, were it possible in May 2006. Every day since, at latest July, simply reinforces the proof that the entire BBC are wholly corrupt, racist, genocidal, child raping Nazis with absolutely no trace of honesty, integrity or human decency. You had the option to stop piling up the proof and have chosen not to.

Wishing you good health.
No reply to that.

   Which puts in perspective Fox News firing of Glenn Beck of whom Sarah Palin said "Glenn Beck is doing an extraordinary job this week walking America behind the scenes of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and outlining who is actually running the White House". The apparent reason for his firing is because of pressure from advertisers - the Guardian assures us that it happened  "after advertisers and even viewers started staying away in droves". The "even viewers" is, as normal, a lie for though viewing figures had fallen slightly from their peak (as one expects with peaks) he was still one of the 3 most popular TV news figures. Whether it really was advertisers, which ones and whether they were being pressured in turn must remain a mystery.

   James Delingpole explains why firing Beck is a worrying sign for the US media (and strong proof that Fox News, while denounced by America's big statists as "right wing" is not so in any objective terms, it is just that it is a bit less censored than most of the media.

  By comparison in Britain people like Beck or Ann Coulter never get airtime to be fired from in the first place - anybody getting on our airwaves has to be vetted first even if it means crap programmes..
  I commented on Dellers quoting him
"we have no real equivalent of Beck and we could do with one. One of the reasons this country is so totally screwed at the moment is because of the shocking political apathy and ignorance of almost everyone outside Westminster and the media village: everyone has a vague sense that things are wrong, but almost no one has the vocabulary or ideological base to articulate what the problem is"

Because in Britain we don't have a serious free media. I am told that the BBC have found that 82% of people in Scotland get almost all their "news" from the BBC (I assume it is similar but perhaps a little less in England). Bear in mind that C4 is also a government quango, paid by a slightly differnet sort of tax on ITV & that ITV itself is heavily regulated to ensure it doesn't stray from the "balanced" BBC pravda.

Imagine what America would be like if 90% of their media was PBS and that 90% felt less reason to report accurately than PBS already does because there was no competition.

Murdoch may have folded on government demands they censor Beck but at least they initially made the attempt.

BBC delenda est.

“The press is the best instrument for enlightening the mind of man, and improving him as a rational, moral and social being” - Thomas Jefferson

"“The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses” - Validimir Illich

Does anybody doubt which one the BBC is more aligned with?

Labels: , ,

Friday, April 08, 2011


   This is my latest article on Brian Monteith's ThinkScotland site. Please put any comments there:

I recently said this about the Scottish Renewables lobby organisation in a letter in the Scotsman
Its membership, on their online site, shows a large part of their subsidy comes directly from government departments & quangos. Most disgraceful is subsidy by the Scottish Development Agency whose £350 million is nominally to develop the Scottish economy rather than subject it and us to power bills 10 times larger than they need be.
Government is using ever more taxpayer's money to finance "independent" organisations (known in the blogsphere as "fakecharities") who propagandise for ever bigger government bureaucracy taking ever more taxes to solve what are usually non-existent problems.

There is barely a scare story, whether it be about global warming, passive smoking or salt which cannot be traced back to some government funded front organisation.

As Mencken said "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."

I have a high opinion of Mencken and regard this as his single most profound statement. So how widespread is the reach of government funding in organisations which daily tell us we should be seeking more government regulation.

A few years ago I ran a checklist, linked here, of organisations taking stalls at one of Scotland's non-socialist party conferences and found "looking at the list of exhibitors sponsoring the conference. Of 26 such 7 are openly government depts. or quangos; 9 are what are known in the blogsphere as "fakecharities" i.e. getting between 10% and all of their money from government; 2 are unions of government employees & 2 are lobbying for an "industry" whose existence depends entirely on the fact that they get more money from government subsidy than from selling electricity, their nominal product. There are only 6 charities which are real or of unknown provenance.

There is also a website, fakecharities, which lists a small part of the many charities which receive government money.

There is some dispute as to how much of an organisation's money has to come from government before it can be assumed not to be fully independent. I assume that any charity getting around the same proportion of its money from the state as it spends on advertising and public relations, which in a well run charity, should be around 10%, cannot be considered truly independent.

While almost any organisation issuing reports and press releases of their "findings" will have a website where you can learn everything they want you to know about them not all of them put their accounts online or say who their sponsors are as Scottish Renewables did. They can be checked through the Charities Commission but life is short. One could simply assume that any organisation not willing to list its donors is likely to have something to hide but this may be unfair. I tend to take it that if the website does not have a prominent call for people to give it money but does for people who want to be employed by it, a very common phenomenon, it is almost certainly being funded from the taxpayer's bottomless wallet.
Some are obvious like the Carbon Trust. Some are apparently radical and vaguely subversive apparent foes of established government like Friends of the Earth whose European organisation is largely funded by Eurocrat organisations and is a preferred lobbyist in Brussels, lobbying for more regulation & controls. Some have barely ever had an independent existence, like the Terrence Higgins Trust, established by Terry's parents (for that is the name they knew him by) and heavily briefed by civil servants in the early 1980s, back when there was still considerable doubt by both the media and ministers that AIDS was, as threatened, going to kill millions in Britain by the year 2000. Some are ancient and widely respected like the Royal Society, who get £45 million a year from the government. Some are really quite small like the curiously named charity CASH (Consensus Action on Salt and Health) who appear to be the original source of the curious media "consensus" that we are eating dangerous amounts of salt - they survive on £240,000 a year, £30,000 from the Food Standards Agency and £200,000 from Nissan"! Some are international "N"GOs like those that found the Ukrainian election, won by someone we opposed, a few years ago to be dubious but not the Georgian one, won by our ally with 82% of the vote or the Montenegrin independence referendum won by "us" with 55.5% of the vote (they needed 55%). Some are very local like Housing Associations.
Of course it can be argued that just because government pays the piper that does not mean they call the tune. Indeed that is precisely the argument I have recently had from the BBC when I complained that their assertion that "there is no part of science in which there is a stronger consensus" than catastrophic global warming, even among "independent" scientists. When asked to support this claim by naming any scientists, at all, anywhere in the world who support this "alleged" consensus and aren't paid by the state they failed to find even one to go with the one I had named. But no matter - there may be zero such scientists independent in a financial sense, BBC responded officially, but merely because a body is not "independent of government funding" if it can still be described as "outside of the framework" of the state it should be treated as "independent of government influence." That may sound different from how the real world works but it is the official BBC position. Which presumably justifies the fact that the BBC regularly headline "reports" from government funded bodies pushing for more government. Such media power ensures extensive publicity not available to those to those who are independent in the traditional sense.

And who funds the BBC?

Labels: , ,

Thursday, April 07, 2011


   This is on The Register (H/T Pournelle):

Russia, NASA to hold talks on nuclear-powered spacecraft

 Muscovites have the balls but not the money
Russia, the US and other nations are to discuss cooperation on building a nuclear-powered spacecraft, according to the head of Roscosmos – the Russian space agency.

Anatoly Perminov, Roscosmos chief, tells state-owned newswire RIA Novosti that nuclear spacecraft plans are to be discussed with NASA on April 15. Perminov added that "countries with a high level of reactor manufacturing technology" are to take part in the talks. The report mentions China, France, Germany and Japan: technically the UK can also make reactors but its capability is weak compared to the main nuclear players and its space presence even more so.

Perminov went on to add that Russia intends to complete its design of a "nuclear engine" for use in space by 2012, and that in order to actually build this, funding of 17 billion roubles ($600m) {£370 million] will be required. He envisages this funding coming primarily from Rosatom, the state nuclear agency, rather than Roscosmos. The international discussions suggest that funding or at any rate cooperation will also be sought from overseas.
It's widely acknowledged in the space community that propulsion more powerful than chemical rockets and power generation more capable than solar panels will be necessary if travel beyond Earth orbit is to become a serious activity. From the earliest days of spaceflight and before, in fact, it was assumed that nuclear power would provide both – and that space travel, mining, industry and so forth would soon spread through most of the solar system.
In the real world, humanity's deep-seated fear of nuclear power has meant that very few reactors have ever flown in space....
The Russians are showing every sign of being willing to finally break through the barriers of fear and deploy a powerful nuclear spaceship of the sort which might one day move the space operations of humanity beyond Earth orbit: what the Russians are not showing much sign of is having the money to do so.

The necessary $600m isn't a lot of money to NASA: but in fact NASA has plenty of nuclear space engine designs of its own on file if it wanted to build one. It's hard to see the discussions later this month bearing much fruit, much though space enthusiasts might hope for such.

     I have previously said how Britain could get a commercial orbital craft simply by putting up an X-Prize of £300 million, just above what we already annually give to the European Space Agency with no prospect of getting anything similar from them this century and at current rates not next either. The Russians do have the world's cheapest launch system - Soyuz. They have been producing Soyuz craft for 45 years and have it on a production line with all development costs long paid off. Not exactly state of the art but it works.

    Robert Heinlein said "When you are in Earth orbit you are half way to anywhere in the solar system" An orbital craft is needed for that. A nuclear spaceship is what will get the other half. If the Russians are preparing for the second half they are sure the first half is fixed.

   The £370 million being asked for is not a big sum - well not compared to what is on offer. It is only a bit above what we already spend in space (well ESA HQ in Paris) annually for virtually nothing; les than the £450 million spent by NERC annually (only 1 of many quangos existing to promote warming and other environmental alarms); 1/6th of a new Forth crossing; 50% more than the MP's office block Portcullis House; or I would guesstimate about 19 days worth of Britain's share in the war to promote Libyan democracy and our Al Quaeda friends lately from the "Balkans, Afghanistan & Iraq".

    On offer is, among others - easy trips to the Moon, feasible ones to Mars and the ability to get to the asteroid belt where one asteroid of 5km radius can hold 5 billion tons of metals which is roughly 5 times what the world uses annually. There are at least 40,000 asteroids that size or larger. The development of space will make everybody on Earth richer than almost anybody on Earth is now and the first countries involved will get in on the ground floor. Is that not worth it?

    According to the article Britain is an also ran in competition for partnership here. Partly because the last Labour government used regulations to bankrupt Britain' nuclear industry and sell of its technical capacity (eg Westinghouse which now makes probably the best mass production nuclear reactor in the world) at fires sale prices. Partly because no British government has shown any vision in space development. Even when we launched a satellite it was done in the teeth of government, who were cancelling the project and who made sure we never heard of it!

   So why should Russia choose us as a partner. Germany has gone to some lengths to be their main EU ally with things like the gas pipeline. China is their main political ally in the Shanghai organisation.

   Well firstly we would have to work at convincing them If we just go through the motions we will get nowhere. However if we actually try there are some things going for us. However friendly the germans may be being they aren't exactly lovable, least of all to the Russians. China is now the big and growing partner in anything involving the 2 countries and the Russians don't really want to see their future as a Chinese satellite if there is an alternative. Politically any such ship is going to drive the eco-fascist movement out of their tiny minds - it would be best to have the support of other Security Council permanent members to stop any Luddite resolutions, which excludes Japan and Germany. The US won't be involved because, as the article points out, they only do studies they don't ad actually doing things any more. So it is, or can be if want it, France or Britain. France has a fine nuclear industry while we have driven most of our experts to the USA and Canada. On the other hand if we don't have much of a nuclear industry we do have the English language. We could relatively easily hire nuclear scientists and engineers from the USA and Canada and rebuild our industry. To hire the very best people requires more than money and the chance to work on atomic space ships would attract a lot of the best.

      Going for this would not just get Britain in on the ground floor of the greatest expansion of the human horizon since we left Africa, arguably since we left the trees. It would also rebuild an industry in which we were once the world leader.
 From  the Warren Ellis graphic novel Ministry of Space

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, April 06, 2011


  UKIP's  Scottish election Manifesto is available here on pdf 

  As a policy wonk I approve of the fact that there are more actual policies in the 8 pages here than in the other 5 100+ manifestos together, My favourites:

- Retain the Scottish Parliament
- referenda (binding referenda on things the public choose - which solves the problem of the "independence" referendum without making it the only choice Scots get - the SNP would have to allow smoking and EU referenda as well as their own hobbyhorse)
- Resign from the EU while keeping free trade
- Recoup Scotland’s share of the £48 million a day paid to the EU
-  Release Scottish businesses and our economy from Brussels red tape
- Require the direct election of all health, education and police boards in Scotland
- Require the direct election of all key officials in national and local government
-  Restrict immigration so Scotland will be for the Scots and the British first
- Replace the Human Rights Act with a new British Bill of Rights
- no more wind-farms
- Repeal the Climate Change (Scotland) Act,  (which requires the destruction of 58% of our electricity supply over the next 9 years)
-  Abolish the Department of Climate Change.
-  End all subsidies to monstrous, climate-irrelevant, cost-ineffective wind-farms. (that is about £1 billion a year)
- Support new nuclear power stations, particularly next to existing nuclear stations. (note "particularly" rather than "only". We could have up to 7 units on one site which would be 14 in Scotland - roughly 3 times our present power. However limiting it to those 2 sites give Ariva a monopoly over nuclear electricity here and would also mean greater than necessary hysteresis losses getting power to Peterhead. This shows they do understand how important this issue is while the very best of the feeble five, Labour and the Tories, are still dithering)
- Spare taxpayers the huge bill for needless carbon capture and storage.
- Spend no taxpayers’ money on the non-problem of man made climate change
-. Life will mean life. Six months will not mean six weeks.
- Introduce a ‘three-strikes-and-you’re-out’ rule for habitual offenders. There will be boot camps
to jolt young offenders out of a life of crime.
- Let pupils leave school early provided they are entering approved apprenticeships or training schemes.
-  Scrap loans and restore full grants for all Scottish university students.
-  Let universities select their own students on merit. We will abolish the absurd 50% attendance target. (full grants would be affordable without 50% in "Universities", not otherwise)
- Give parents the right to choose the school they want their children to attend.
-  Scrap useless paperwork and enable teachers to do their jobs.
-  Cut NHS bureaucracy and waste, but make no cuts in front-line treatment.
- Introduce Health Vouchers allowing patients to opt out of the NHS and use the vouchers towards the cost of private treatment.
-  Scrap the smoking ban as a needless restriction on freedom, giving owners of pubs and other buildings the freedom to set aside rooms for smokers if they want. (that implies they would not have the right to end the ban in the main room - pity)
-  Use the Scottish Parliament’s tax-varying power to cut taxes in Scotland, increasing our competitiveness within and beyond the United (Hooray - a 3p income tax cut would cost roughly £1 bn, matching the saving made in not subsidising windmills)
- Aim to make Scotland a low-tax, small-government nation.  (hooray)
-  Help Scotland’s small businesses by removing the extra taxes, levies and fuel and energy price increases imposed in the name of climate change.
-  Abolish costly, useless Home Reports for property sellers in Scotland.
-  Bring back control of Britain’s fishing waters to Britain, on environmental as well as economic grounds
- End Labour’s mass immigration, which let in three million in 13 years
- support airport links. It is a scandal that the Edinburgh main line passes the airport runway, but has no station.

       I don't think there is anything there that an informed patriotic Scot could disagree with. There are very few of them that any of the other parties say they support support (they all claim to be against mass immigration, ditto they have all repeatedly promised to oppose the common fisheries policy, to make growing the economy the "number one priority", having "a bonfire of the quangos etc but well all know they are lying). To be fair the Tories have a similar policy on letting kids leave school to go on apprenticeships which they may possibly mean).

       I personally regret that they haven't made a specific promise to oppose blowing £2.3 billion on a pointless bridge; that they made no promises on corporation tax, on allowing people to build inexpensive houses, after all we have so much more land available than in the south of England; that they aren't doing something to cut the 700% parasitism on government building projects; thereby allowing us to build the sort of tunnel system that has done so much for Norway; and OK that they don't want to turn the Saltire Prize into a spaceship prize - we all have our hobbyhorses :-)

        But when you look at the fact that there is barely a paper between what all 5 of the "official" BBC approved parties promise (I recently asked a LudDim to name the most important difference and he said his lot wanted to consolidate all the police regions into 1 which would have absolutely no effect on the streets) offer and none of them are actually offering to do anything, what other choice is there?

      I am told that 82% of Scots get most of their news from the BBC, an organisation that, even by its own admission, will maintain any lie and censor anything, up to and including genocide so  it looks like the only party not committed to destroying 58% of Scotland's national income will be censored. Does anybody doubt that if UKIP got 4 times the supportive coverage the Greens do, for their 4 times greater vote at the last election, Scotland would have a genuine opposition and a healthy democracy.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, April 05, 2011


       A few days ago, following yet another formal public debate, yet again won by the sceptics (and yet again unreported by the media) on of the warmist speakers, Simon Singh, sent his opposite number 5 questions, all of which boiled down to "do you accept what the great and good government funded experts say". He got a reasonable answer from Fraser Nelson  and from James Delingpole

     However Singh's action has implications. If he considers sceptics have a moral duty to answer such questions then he and other warmists must have too. So on Sunday i sent 5 questions to him and when he hadn't replied on Monday, put them on his blog, extending them to 7. This, done very much in the style he used, is what I asked:

1 - Do you accept Professor Jones' acknowledgement that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

  Imagine my surprise that he has, so far refused to answer. Just for fun I also sent the same questions to 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) & last and least Ann Glover (Scotland's Chief Science Advisor and the one who said warming would increase day length).

   Imagine my surprise that not one of them has answered any of the questions. To be fair I did get an email from the BBC's Harrabin saying it was "offensive" to even ask doubting questions and blocking me.

  Could it be that though alarmists believe, correctly, that they have the right to question sceptics, they all believe they personally are so elevated that nobody should ever ask them anything, even if they could answer it? Or are they all perfectly well aware of what the true answers are and that answering even one of those questions would show how bereft of truth and intellectual rigour the entire catastrophic global warming scare story is?  If there is a 3rd option I would like to know what it is.

   Ah well I will just have to keep searching for 1 promoter of the warming scare who is actually willing to try and answer difficult questions. That is the reason for this letter. Perhaps a reader will try if this publication's environmental correspondent declines.

   Perhaps a senior member of one of our political parties who (apart from UKIP & the BNP) claim to believe the story and wish to tax us more and destroy most of our electricity supply on the back of it.

   Perhaps somebody, anywhere, in the BBC will feel able to.

   Perhaps 1 member of the Scottish Parliament, all 5 of whose parties voted unanimously to destroy 58% of Scotland's electricity capacity, which also means about 58% of the Scottish people's national income over the next 9 years can. Certainly anybody, with any honesty, making a decision so destructive of our lives must have developed an expert understanding of the alleged problem and be eager to explain their decision. It will be interesting to see how many of the 129 have such integrity.


Posted as a letter to almost all our national and some international  media, as well as the BBC, ITV,C4, C5
 and the political leaders and parties.  ANY of these who actually honestly believe any of the warming scam and answer the questions will be reported here, as will papers who feel able to publish it (I will make a point that reasonable cuts would be  ...well.... reasonable.

Labels: , ,


   Scotsman today
Elizabeth Marshall assures us that "Nuclear health specialists anticipate many thousands of deaths" from the Japanese reactors. This would be in line with the million cancers anticipated by similar self styled "experts" from Chernobyl, none of which have in fact happened. Perhaps it should be treated as seriously as her previous claim that we must expect a tidal surge matching that in Japan (77 feet) to roll up at Lieth.
The fact is that the entire scare story about minisucle levels of radiation are simply that - scare stories with no scientific foundation whatsoever.

There are many places in the world with natural background radiation level far higher than that at Chernobyl let alone Fukushima - Kerala in India, Ramsar in Iran, Yellowstone in the USDA, even parts of Cornwall and Aberdeenshire. By the theory millions of excess cancers should have been recorded but in fact the number of cancers is lower than average.
There is not and never has been any scientific evidence for the bureaucratic decision that low level radiation is harmful. I would challenge Ms Marshall, or the Green Party or indeed anybdy scientifically qualified to produce the evidence which would be needed to make this claim scientific.

The truth is that the opposite theory, known as radiation hormesis, has a vast amount of evidence, from numerous unrelated sources, to prove it. The truth may not get the publicity that false scare stories do but the facts are unequivocal.

The anti-nuclear movement and its fraudulent claims have cost the human race 40 years of inexpensive electricity. It can be proven that, simply because of increased deaths among pensioners because of fuel poverty, it has killed 19 million people. By comparison Fukushima has killed precisely zero,
  They edited out my criticism of her previous letter which claimed tidal surges in the Notrtth sea were closely comparable with the Fukushima tsunami. That keeps the letter straight to the point of hormesis. Having spent years sending letters on the subject, and having one published by the Daily Mail, it seems that the issue has finally become discussable. It will be interesting to see if any scientist or politician feels able to dispute it.

The other very good news from Scotland is a recent opinion poll showing that Scots supporters of nuclear outnumber opponents by 2:1. This poll was taken a few days into the Fukushima failure and must be the best possible timing for the Luddites. If only Scotland's political class were even half as progressive as her ordinary people. I would like to think that the tireless efforts of Steuart Campbell, myself and others have influenced a few per cent of that.

This is an unpublished letter I sent in reply to Tim Flinn's published letter replying to my reply to his original letter.  Tim's had attempted to justify his claim that 1 unit of nuclear costs more than the number of "all the atoms in the universe" on the basis that inflation over the 150,000 years he wrongly claimed waste needs to be guardedc would do that. His calculation was both meaningless and wrong:

"Well I must admit Tim Flinn has actually answered my query about his claim that the cost of disposing of nuclear waste would, for each unit produced, cost more than the number of atoms in the entire universe. In doing so he has shown far more courage than most "environmentalists" who, when their scare stories are proven bogus, simply change the subject moving on to new and invariably equally bogus, scare stories.
His case depends on nuclear waste being dangerous for 150,000 years, despite the fact that, as I pointed out, it is dangerous for only decades and less radioactive than the ore it was mined from in centuries. "Guarding" it beyond that time is no more necessary than it is to guard Ben Nevis to prevent it eating people.
His "assumption" that, even in that period, it would cost 0.01p per kwh produced annually to guard the waste is simply snatched from the air. At under a cubic metre of waste a reactor year, all the waste produced over the next century, if all our power was nuclear, would not fill a cube 18 metres on a side and could thus be safely stored in any of hundreds of abandoned mines. In fact since such "waste" contains actinides which are potentially very valuable we should not bury them too deep. The greens agree that any disposal should not be beyond reach, though I suspect this is because they think it would increase the cost of guarding it rather than because they understand that the "waste" is not waste but a valuable resource.
I must admit there are parts of Tim's calculations which defy my analysis but his final figure seems to be based entirely on the assumption of 5% inflation. By that standard in 150,2012 AD things now available in a Pound shop willl cost £2.28 X 10^3178, exactly 24.8 times the cost he gives of disposing of the "waste".
Another example of "environmentalist" scare stories not being constrained by reality Is Elizabeth Marshalls letter (Friday) warning us that our reactors are endangered because the Japanese tsunami was "in reality not too dissimilar to a North Sea storm surge". In real reality it was measured as high as 77 feet..That the Japanese reactors survived, while around 20,000 people didn't is a tribute to the designers. Western Luddites show their humanity by being much more concerned about the anti-nuclear scare story, with a death toll of zero, than about the true catastrophe
Of course the level of inflation, underlying Tim's assumption, can vary immensely depending on the amount money governments print to pay unfunded promises. Currently the Greens are getting £1 billion a year of various subsidies to "renewables" (equal to the 3p Tartan Tax, before the SNP made it unusable). This is a very small part of all the costs, regulations and subsidies done to placate Luddites, which, by the best calculations halve the size of economy we could have. This is why we are in recession. I have never met a Green activist, of any party, who was placated by that or looked likely to be by any higher amount. All the parties in Holyrood currently kow-tow to the Luddite religion, unanimously voting through an Act to destroy 58% of our electricity capacity, including the nuclear, over the next 9 years. This automatically means losing around 58% of all our national income..

The traditional way for governments to get round such a collapse is to print more money, with no way of redeeming it. In Zimbabwe they achieved a quindecillion novemdecillion per cent (10^108%) which would allow us to reach the dizzy heights of having more £s than "the number of particles in the universe" in about nine months. Such are the benefits of having a political class who think their wishes trump mere arithmetic, as our MSPs unanimously do and why I shall be voting UKIP."

     Having disposed of him I used most of the letter to put the case, discredit the numptocracy and declare my intention to vote UKIP. I have previously had letters published advocating voting LibDem (a long time ago) and SNP but this may be an unpublishable step.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, April 04, 2011


   I have previously said that I thought Megrahi, the alleged Pan-Am bomber, was not guilty. The alleged fleeing of Moussa Koussa, Gaddafi's former inteligence chief, to Britain makes this a live isue again.

  There is no possible way it could have been done by Libya without him being in the line of command.  So if he is guilty why on Earth would he choose to fly to Britain of all places. And if there has been no deal why are the police still waiting around for HMG to let them interview him, regarding the largest single mass murder in history? The best reportage of this I have found is in The Australian, which may itself be indicative.:
After a quick talk with Tunisian Customs officers, the cars were waved through. Moussa Koussa, Libya's suave foreign minister and member for more than three decades of the inner circle of dictator Muammar Gadaffi, must have sighed with relief. He was on his way to Britain.

What possessed him to commit an act which, on the surface, seemed to be such a spectacular betrayal of his leader has become the subject of intense speculation. It is hoped other high-ranking Libyan officials will follow, and that Mr Koussa's defection from the regime will hasten its downfall....

Gadaffi is known for possessing a fox's cunning -- In recent weeks he entrusted Mr Koussa with diplomatic initiatives abroad, even sending him in his jet to lobby African leaders at a summit in Ethiopia.

In Tunisia, Mr Koussa's mission was far different. On Monday, he had a telephone conversation with British Foreign Secretary William Hague. He had previously spoken to Mr Hague from Tripoli, asking in vain for an end to the allied bombardment of Libya.

It is understood the second conversation was more friendly. On Wednesday, Mr Koussa chartered a private jet from Tunisia to London, paying for it himself....
But commentators wondered whether Mr Koussa would have abandoned his family in Libya if he were betraying Gadaffi, who would be certain to take revenge on them. It turns out that Mr Koussa is estranged from his wife, and at least one of his sons is already safe in Britain...
Western officials were keen to emphasise that Mr Koussa had "resigned" rather than defected from the Gadaffi regime, but the distinction seemed unclear as he spent his fourth night being debriefed by officers from MI6 and the Foreign Office....

As one of Gaddafi's closest lieutenants and a former intelligence chief, few people know better than Mr Koussa the inner workings and secrets of the Libyan regime.

At the same time, few could be more implicated than he is in some of the regime's most horrendous actions, and his arrival in Britain has provoked demands for his prosecution for Libyan-linked terrorist crimes.

But a British official says he is unlikely to be charged with any crime and the British government is not expecting to receive extradition requests from other countries because he faces no charges in foreign courts.

There can be little doubt Mr Koussa's arrival followed negotiations with senior British officials. He has information they desperately need.

"Put it this way," said a British government source. "He had a welcoming commitee"...

But British officials do not believe Mr Koussa has a case to answer in the killing of Yvonne Fletcher, the policewoman who was shot dead while on duty at a protest outside the Libyan embassy in London in 1984...
Two years From the Lockerbie bombing, in which 270 people died in 1988, to the bombing of a French airliner in 1989, when 170 died, families of the victims are desperate to know who was to blame beyond those suspects tried in court. They suspect Mr Koussa may be the key to finding out....

Scottish police want to interview Mr Koussa about the Lockerbie bombing, although a British official says: "He is a source rather than a suspect."...

Mr Koussa, who is linked to Saif Gadaffi, the influential son of the Libyan leader, has often been used as a chief negotiator for the regime. He orchestrated the return of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi from Scotland to Libya, a move that led to the Western rapprochement with Libya.
I said
As somebody who believes the Lockerbie bombing was Syrian not Libyan and Megrahi was always innocent I am watching this one eagerly, since, if Libya were guilty he would have been in line of command.

Will he say Libya didn't do it and go to trial? If he does can the government produce any evidence? Will the police decide there is insufficient evidence? Will he "confess" on the basis of a deal and throw some other names under the bus - this would suit both him and HMG? Might he even be convicted, with or without evidence? Will there be a long trial, concluded by his poisoning in custody with rifampicin  as happened to Milosevic?

The fact that he chose to exit to Britain rather than over the border to Algeria suggests to me he knows there is no case and has more faith than I that this matters.

No evidence our Syrian allies did it

Labels: , ,

Sunday, April 03, 2011


"In the early 1980s, George P. Mitchell, a Houston-based independent energy producer, could see that his company was going to run out of natural gas. Almost three decades later, the results of his effort to do something about the problem are transforming America's energy prospects and the calculations of analysts around the world.

Back in those years, Mr. Mitchell's company was contracted to deliver a substantial amount of natural gas from Texas to feed a pipeline serving Chicago. But the reserves on which he depended were running down, and it was not at all clear where he could find more gas to replace the depleting supply. Mr. Mitchell had a strong hunch, however, piqued by a geology report that he had read recently.
In an interview with David Wessel, Daniel Yergin, author of "The Prize," states that the turmoil in the Middle East is a "sea change" for the global oil market and that the U.S. and emerging markets are most economically vulnerable to rising oil prices.

Perhaps the natural gas that was locked into shale—a dense sedimentary rock—could be freed and made to flow. He was prepared to back up his hunch with investment. The laboratory for his experiment was a sprawling geologic formation called the Barnett Shale around Dallas and Fort Worth. Almost everyone with whom he worked was skeptical, including his own geologists and engineers. "You're wasting your money," they told him over the years. But Mr. Mitchell kept at it.

The payoff came a decade and a half later, at the end of the 1990s. Using a specialized version of a technique called hydraulic fracturing (now widely known as "fracking" or "fracing"), his team found an economical way to create or expand fractures in the rock and to get the trapped gas to flow.

Today, in an age that craves innovation in energy, George Mitchell's breakthrough in the Barnett Shale has opened the door to a potentially profound change in the global energy equation...

But shale has changed the equation. Abundant, relatively low-priced supplies now make natural gas a highly competitive alternative to both nuclear and wind power and even to coal generation. It has the added advantage of being relatively low-carbon (though even natural gas will be constrained if the U.S. adopts a policy similar to the European Union's objective of an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050)."

  That is as good a single article as there is about shale gas. The U.S. Department of Energy’s April 2009 report, “Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer,” stated that at 2007 U.S. natural gas production rates of about 19.3 Tcf, the current recoverable resource estimate provides enough natural gas to supply the US for the next 90 years. Separate estimates of the shale gas resource extend this supply to 116 years. Production of shale gas is expected to increase from a 2007 US total of 1.4 Tcf to 4.8 Tcf in 2020. This is not unique to the US though they, being a high tech country, are ahead of the curve in finding this.

  So peak gas is not a problem. Since gas and oil are both hydrocarbons, the gases having lower boiling points because they are shorter chain molecules, it would be perfectly possible to either use the gas in cars and planes or refine gas into petrol. So no peak oil at all.

   We are incredibly lucky in nature's bounty, though it would be and was useless without the technological breakthrough that enabled its extraction. I would say we are unlucky in having governments "constrained" to produce artificial shortages but we put up with such parasites.
    Scotland, which has a large geographic area for our population and far larger coastal waters, is likely to have considerably more than our share. Whether our numptocracy will prevent us benefiting is another matter:

"total world shale reserves at more than 16,000trillion cu ft. The distribution included 509 in Western Europe, 627 in the FSU, 2,547 in the Middle East and 3,526 in China. Total OECD annual gas use is 50TCF, of which the UK has 2.5TCF.

That’s one heck of a lot of gas and, according to Tony Hayward – the chap who now runs BP – “There has been a revolution in the gas fields of North America. Reserve estimates are rising sharply as technology unlocks unconventional resources”. ...

Reports suggest there is also shale gas in Hungary and Poland, and closer to home, there are suggestions that shale gas could well exist both onshore and offshore in the southern UK and perhaps even in Scotland’s Central Belt, which was the birthplace of shale-oil extraction in the 1800s. Remember James “Paraffin” Young?"

Labels: , ,

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

British Blogs.