Twitter Twits

I love it, I absolutely love it. The full on prats who try to demonise the Tories at every turn couldn't contain themselves and incontinently wet themselves in public on Twitter. They knew a Tory, a senior Tory who was a paedophile and they wanted in on the social networking action to mention it. That was their reward, they mentioned it.

But (as ever) they didn't know anything. And the target of their bile this time was the totally innocent Lord McAlpine who is not taking it lying down. I'm sure they think he should just drop it, no harm done really, because they are lefties and that makes everything they do OK. Look at the extremely unpleasant Mrs. Bercow. She has declared that she didn't do anything libellous.

Problem is you loose-mouthed ignoramus  it isn't up to you. I wish that she could go to prison for a decent spell, to shut the obnoxious woman up. But failing that, Lord McAlpine could do us all a favour by suing her for the most money he can get. It would be so satisfying and clearly justice, if she was absolutely financially ruined by this. Her and that twerp she trails around to show she is more powerful than men, Speaker Bercow. Mind you, he would probably just claim it on expenses.

I like the settlement with the BBC too; £185,000. Of course, it is considerably less than they paid their failed DG when he 'resigned', above and beyond his entitlement, including pension contributions. ITV, who have decided to show they are at least as stupid as the 'national treasure', the BBC, have kept Schofield on air and have taken the 'appropriate' action regarding the outing of rumoured paedophiles on air. As Schofield still has a job, I'm guessing appropriate is not an appropriate word in this context. Sue the nuts off them too your Lordship.

And Monbiot! He has said of himself that his Tweets didn't reflect the rigour he usually applies to his output. Rigour? Presumably he doesn't understand the word. He spouts about Climate Change without any substance whatsoever, constantly. It is so bad he cannot possibly not know he is talking tripe. He is part of a deliberate propaganda campaign, based on ideology and activists.

The BBC let an outside organisation provide them with a package that was shoddy and unchecked beyond belief. Then the Guardian puts out a story (about anti-wind farm politicians and a blogger) that was entirely untrue and was written by Greenpeace.

Please understand, you may disagree with 'right' wing politics, and that is your right, but do realise that a lot of what you think has been conditioned by extreme and continuing leftist propaganda that is specifically designed to make you dislike the Tories and accept state control over your life.

Here is what I mean; on a recent TV debate about wind farms, James Delingpole explained why they were bad (including cost, destroying the countryside, killing birds and bats, requiring a fossil fuel power station to run all the time because you don't know when the wind will drop, and, as if it mattered, cause more CO2 output, plus enriching rich landowners and foreign energy companies) and Caroline Lucas said 'that's not true'.

That was it. It always is. When you don't have any substance you just decry the facts of your opponent. If you look at what passes for a debate on Climate Change you see those happy to talk science and encourage you to verify facts for yourself are not, ever, the alarmists. That is because like the stories mentioned above, the debate is fuelled, is written by activists like Greenpeace and they are supporting an ideology, not science.

Energy

If you follow the logic of the Greens then you must be of the opinion that Man should not use energy. Delingpole says that we should rely on the technical inventiveness of mankind, which has, at least up until now, resolved our looming problems.

It has become clear that the global warming scare turned into a scam long ago and it isn't something to concern anyone. It was definitely right to look into it though, as it is absolutely the case that one thing affects another and we just didn't know what level of harm our activity was having. However, when we realised that we are not having any impact, we should have also said we don't understand the mechanisms either, so we need to keep an eye on things.

Contrarily though, we did the opposite and allowed a bunch of political activists from the Left tell us that they did understand the entirety of global climate and that Man was having a devastating effect on the planet. None of this, not any of it was true and it is very probably the enormity of the lie that caused people to think it might be true. But hey everyone said, in this post intellectual world I'm not going to do anything stupid myself, like try to find out!

Going back to the assertion that technology will save us, it has to be the right technology and again, unbelievably the Left has achieved something incredible. They have sold you technology that cannot possibly do what you need it to do. We know, absolutely and without doubt that our current photovoltaic technology is woefully inadequate for domestic, let alone industrial power applications.

Is your roof plastered with solar panels? And how is that working out for you? Great when the sun shines and you are not at home I would guess, just the fridge and the fish tank drawing a little power. What about when you get home and want to cook dinner, put the kettle on for a cuppa in front of the TV, watching that new Blu ray film through the cinema sound system?

Don't tell me, you can't even have a (low energy, low output) light bulb on, because the sun has gone down (which is why you need a light on!). Then there are the wind farms. Fabulous output when the wind is just right, none at all when it is calm or quite windy. So, they require a real power station as back up, just like solar, negating the need for these 'technologies' in the first place.

Gas is a relatively low CO2 output fossil fuel, so should we be building those type of power station? Delingpole again is keen, because the shale gas reserves found around Britain means we would have our own fuel for hundreds of years. But as CO2 output is not causing a thing called global warming or climate change, we don't need to worry about emissions. But you know what, a lot the by products of burning anything are not that pleasant when emitted to the atmosphere.

We may not be looking at the catastrophe the Left tried to make you believe, so they could create the failing system of government they need to seize power, but pollution is still undesirable, so let's try to avoid it. Nuclear of course gets us away from the emissions problem but produces its own problems of radioactive waste. Well, there may be good news here.

The use of Thorium as a fuel for nuclear reactors would have an immediate benefit in that it produces between 10 and 10,000 times less waste than uranium, which is what we currently use. As it uses up all the Thorium rather than the 0.7% in a uranium reactor, meaning we have at least a 1,000 year energy supply at current usage, worldwide.

There are other benefits too. It doesn't need to be used in a pressurised environment so no explosion should a plant be overwhelmed as at Fukushima. Also, it stops reacting if you stop bombarding it with neutrons. As a scientist involved pointed out, if the reactor 'runs away' and gets too hot, a plug in the reactor melts and the thorium drains away, so stopping the reaction process. It saves itself.

Are we developing this technology? No. We are pumping all our money into wind farm and solar array subsidies, into funding Green activists and their useful idiot academics. Nadine Dorries recently suggested that a major failing of the Conservative leadership was that they didn't know the price of milk. It seems more likely that the bigger issue is, they don't appear to know how to find out. The most obvious things escape them.