A report by the vested-interest journalist Roger Harrabin on BBC news was laughable. It is more nonsense to support the global warming scam, which he benefits from financially.
He says that solar power could provide 4 percent of UK energy by the end of the decade and interviewed an industry spokesperson who said solar could be price competitive with fossil fuel electricity within ten years, if subsidies remain stable.
Now, if Roger was able to tell the truth, he would start by questioning the whole reason for vast, ugly, highly reflective fields of solar panels. Prices have dropped it is true, but not enough. Harrabin would then say that worldwide solar currently contributes roughly 0% of energy used and the UK will need to cover enormous areas of land to approach a 4% figure.
Even then, it will be 4% while the sun is shining. What the interviewee didn't say, he could disclose is that the companies building solar farms (and wind farms) do so only to farm the subsidies, not because it is a viable energy source. And the government must keep pushing the price of oil and gas up by taxing it. Oh, and not allowing fracking.
So Roger's headline comment wouldn't have been that 'solar has taken off massively in the UK', it would have been that the collection of state subsidies has been massive, for no benefit.
You think the Left have a use? That they help the small against mighty government? Then why are they the leading proponents of the redistribution of wealth from the poorest to the rich, via the raising of energy prices, which hit the poor disproportionately hard, merely to hand subsidies to the wealthy?
Showing posts with label Global Warming scam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Global Warming scam. Show all posts
Tuesday, 24 March 2015
Wednesday, 28 January 2015
Urgent Need For Government Action
I have come to the conclusion that the people of the United Kingdom are in very grave danger (is there any other kind?). My research has thrown up disturbing suggestions that the population is exposed to the possibility of lion attack.
You may be comfortable at present with your commute and nice holidays and trips to the cinema, but what if one of your children was eaten by a lion? You would be devastated and maybe worse, you left it late to have a child and now are too old to organise a replacement.
Now I'm aware you may say that in your daily travels you have yet to see a lion, or hear of anyone being attacked by one. However, if you study the literature it is clear they have been here, some still are and may become more numerous and more bold.
Clearly, we cannot take any risks with the safety of our children and our children's children, so we must act now and act decisively. It is obvious that the government must provide every household (at least) with a firearm to protect themselves from lions and palisade railings around every property.
This will be expensive but is there any alternative? I don't think so. Some people will say lions aren't a danger and there is no evidence to suggest they will become so, but we cannot afford to listen to them, we must invoke the precautionary principle and act now.
In fact people who do not believe in the imminent danger from lions want your babies to be eaten and in fact probably kill babies themselves already. I, on the other hand am an expert.
As an aside, it is possible that the level of expenditure necessary will be beyond the means of a free market capitalist system to provide. Obviously an elite of experts such as myself could take over and run a command economy from the centre, where important projects will be funded and each person will be given some of their money back, according to our interpretation of their needs.
Dissenters will not then be the problem they are now. People will be free from the fear of lions. We don't want it to go this way of course, but too many objections may interfere with the proper running of the project, for the people, so a strong force will be needed to enable us to ignore those objections.
You may be comfortable at present with your commute and nice holidays and trips to the cinema, but what if one of your children was eaten by a lion? You would be devastated and maybe worse, you left it late to have a child and now are too old to organise a replacement.
Now I'm aware you may say that in your daily travels you have yet to see a lion, or hear of anyone being attacked by one. However, if you study the literature it is clear they have been here, some still are and may become more numerous and more bold.
Clearly, we cannot take any risks with the safety of our children and our children's children, so we must act now and act decisively. It is obvious that the government must provide every household (at least) with a firearm to protect themselves from lions and palisade railings around every property.
This will be expensive but is there any alternative? I don't think so. Some people will say lions aren't a danger and there is no evidence to suggest they will become so, but we cannot afford to listen to them, we must invoke the precautionary principle and act now.
In fact people who do not believe in the imminent danger from lions want your babies to be eaten and in fact probably kill babies themselves already. I, on the other hand am an expert.
As an aside, it is possible that the level of expenditure necessary will be beyond the means of a free market capitalist system to provide. Obviously an elite of experts such as myself could take over and run a command economy from the centre, where important projects will be funded and each person will be given some of their money back, according to our interpretation of their needs.
Dissenters will not then be the problem they are now. People will be free from the fear of lions. We don't want it to go this way of course, but too many objections may interfere with the proper running of the project, for the people, so a strong force will be needed to enable us to ignore those objections.
Thursday, 18 April 2013
La , La, Not Listening
Over on EU Referendum, Christopher Booker is pointing out that Mrs. Thatcher was never above admitting and rectifying her mistakes, hence her change of view on man made global warming. Her modified view was as a result of finding out about the issue rather than asking a biased advisor, as had been her previous choice.
He also points out that one of the ridiculous Tories of her latter time in office, William Waldegrave has recently commented about how global warming is man made because some scientists loudly shout that it is. They don't have any specialism in the subject, Booker points out merely the 'prestige' of holding lofty positions in the Royal Society.
Of course, the Royal Society has changed its stance too. It was once a bastion of scientific enquiry and is now a Left wing political lobby group. Booker suggests that Waldegrave would do well to emulate Margaret Thatcher and read up on the subject a sort of 'get out more' for an intellectual.
But that is the crux of the problem. The believers in the cult of Warmism are not looking for debate, they do not want to study the science, they just want more to believe as they do; they are missionaries. We on the so called sceptical side make the mistake, constantly of thinking that we should prove our case, that we must show our 'workings out'.
This is why we are sceptics, because we look to see, we are not big on blind obedience. Religion held back science before and a new one is trying to capture it wholesale. But it is a religion in support of the godless. The useful idiots like Sir Paul Nurse are being manipulated by the people behind the scam, the Left, anti-capitalist ideologues.
So, when you see the trolls getting super excited at the latest bit of climate change that they cannot explain, another activist is caught lying, or plausible explanations contrary to their beliefs crop up, don't be surprised. In their minds they are Dirty Harry with no bullets, but they will still bluff with the 'do you feel lucky?' line.
Sir Paul Nurse should use his eminence to spout off on something closer to his heart and tell the believers that Man never set foot on the moon. It wouldn't be true, but then nor is man made global warming, but at least he might be expected to know as opposed to a science he isn't involved in. And whilst you might say, so what a scientific mind, an intelligent man doesn't need to be a climate scientist to understand, I would agree.
I would agree all the way and then ask, so why does a 'scientific mind', an intelligent man of status say that there should be no further investigation, that the science is settled? If he doesn't hold to scientific first principles, why should I trust what he says?
He also points out that one of the ridiculous Tories of her latter time in office, William Waldegrave has recently commented about how global warming is man made because some scientists loudly shout that it is. They don't have any specialism in the subject, Booker points out merely the 'prestige' of holding lofty positions in the Royal Society.
Of course, the Royal Society has changed its stance too. It was once a bastion of scientific enquiry and is now a Left wing political lobby group. Booker suggests that Waldegrave would do well to emulate Margaret Thatcher and read up on the subject a sort of 'get out more' for an intellectual.
But that is the crux of the problem. The believers in the cult of Warmism are not looking for debate, they do not want to study the science, they just want more to believe as they do; they are missionaries. We on the so called sceptical side make the mistake, constantly of thinking that we should prove our case, that we must show our 'workings out'.
This is why we are sceptics, because we look to see, we are not big on blind obedience. Religion held back science before and a new one is trying to capture it wholesale. But it is a religion in support of the godless. The useful idiots like Sir Paul Nurse are being manipulated by the people behind the scam, the Left, anti-capitalist ideologues.
So, when you see the trolls getting super excited at the latest bit of climate change that they cannot explain, another activist is caught lying, or plausible explanations contrary to their beliefs crop up, don't be surprised. In their minds they are Dirty Harry with no bullets, but they will still bluff with the 'do you feel lucky?' line.
Sir Paul Nurse should use his eminence to spout off on something closer to his heart and tell the believers that Man never set foot on the moon. It wouldn't be true, but then nor is man made global warming, but at least he might be expected to know as opposed to a science he isn't involved in. And whilst you might say, so what a scientific mind, an intelligent man doesn't need to be a climate scientist to understand, I would agree.
I would agree all the way and then ask, so why does a 'scientific mind', an intelligent man of status say that there should be no further investigation, that the science is settled? If he doesn't hold to scientific first principles, why should I trust what he says?
Thursday, 11 April 2013
Science, Scientists And Method.
Should we not be applying scientific method to scientists? I ask because the Global Warming scam rolls on and more and more nonsense spews out, often from people who you think cannot just be doing and saying what they do to further the aims of Marxism. Clearly they are intellectual morons. But the man in the street is shielded from the fact because the legacy media, the traditional 'newspapers' no longer investigate stories and often are Left oriented anyway.
In a recent Horizon programme on BBC it was stated that the Apollo missions to the Moon cost £100 billion in today's money. From that we made the important step of setting foot on another body in space and along the way discovered a number of new techniques and products. Today though, even little old Britain is planning to take many times that amount and urinate it up against the wall, whilst pursuing the chimera of stopping the climate changing.
Politicians have committed this phenomenal sums of other people's money purely on the say so of a few scientists and a very large number of politically motivated activists. So shouldn't we at least apply some measure to the claims? The nearest we get are people like Al Gore who gets very close to the 'science', decides to support it and pushes remedies that, strangely, he has also set up companies to profit from it. Or Baron Deben, better known as John Selwyn Gummer, who is up to similar shenanigans here in the UK.
So, if we look for instance at the Met Office who not only number crunch to bring our daily weather reports, but also are at the forefront of the Climate Change 'science' output. I put the word science in commas because there is a doubt that science is what we are getting. We don't really check what we are getting for our money with the Met Office, but some of their output we can check.
Certainly the Met Office doesn't seem shy in boasting about its' abilities but when they actually make forecasts beyond what we have been able to do for decades, they get it spectacularly wrong. Yet we trust their computer models (there is nothing more to it, just computer programmes predicated on someone's idea of what happens in weather systems) to tell us to spend billions of pounds fighting a monster.
Basically it is their version of the old maps that had the legend 'here be dragons' on them, because they didn't know but they thought it likely. Of course, the passage of time and discovery proved different and now history is repeating itself but with much more damage attached and some very malicious people in tow.
If we treat the predictions of the Met Office as a scientific experiment and examine the results, we cannot but come to the conclusion that it is a very unreliable source. In short, not a science at all. The idea is fine but the level of understanding is not high enough and the computer modelling the weakest link; it is clearly of a woeful standard. Not least because it would appear that the result had been decided before the experiment was set. Rising CO2 will cause rising temperatures, now model how bad it will get.
Another test would be to run the models over weather we have had. It doesn't work, which is why climate scare 'experts' from Mann and his hockey stick to the University of East Anglia's emails stating that 'we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period' have sought to obscure the facts. It quite simply showed that their theory just wasn't right, so nor could any of their predictions be.
So, do politicians pay any attention to stuff like this, do they have any checks and balances on such an extreme and costly suggestion that, as the sandwich board man had said before the Met Office got there, the end is nigh? Do they hell as like, they are far too used to wasting your money without thinking let alone blinking. Perhaps they should be embarrassed into doing so. It seems the only thing that works with them (unless you come up with a lunatic and very costly scam, of course). Suggestions welcome!
In a recent Horizon programme on BBC it was stated that the Apollo missions to the Moon cost £100 billion in today's money. From that we made the important step of setting foot on another body in space and along the way discovered a number of new techniques and products. Today though, even little old Britain is planning to take many times that amount and urinate it up against the wall, whilst pursuing the chimera of stopping the climate changing.
Politicians have committed this phenomenal sums of other people's money purely on the say so of a few scientists and a very large number of politically motivated activists. So shouldn't we at least apply some measure to the claims? The nearest we get are people like Al Gore who gets very close to the 'science', decides to support it and pushes remedies that, strangely, he has also set up companies to profit from it. Or Baron Deben, better known as John Selwyn Gummer, who is up to similar shenanigans here in the UK.
So, if we look for instance at the Met Office who not only number crunch to bring our daily weather reports, but also are at the forefront of the Climate Change 'science' output. I put the word science in commas because there is a doubt that science is what we are getting. We don't really check what we are getting for our money with the Met Office, but some of their output we can check.
Certainly the Met Office doesn't seem shy in boasting about its' abilities but when they actually make forecasts beyond what we have been able to do for decades, they get it spectacularly wrong. Yet we trust their computer models (there is nothing more to it, just computer programmes predicated on someone's idea of what happens in weather systems) to tell us to spend billions of pounds fighting a monster.
Basically it is their version of the old maps that had the legend 'here be dragons' on them, because they didn't know but they thought it likely. Of course, the passage of time and discovery proved different and now history is repeating itself but with much more damage attached and some very malicious people in tow.
If we treat the predictions of the Met Office as a scientific experiment and examine the results, we cannot but come to the conclusion that it is a very unreliable source. In short, not a science at all. The idea is fine but the level of understanding is not high enough and the computer modelling the weakest link; it is clearly of a woeful standard. Not least because it would appear that the result had been decided before the experiment was set. Rising CO2 will cause rising temperatures, now model how bad it will get.
Another test would be to run the models over weather we have had. It doesn't work, which is why climate scare 'experts' from Mann and his hockey stick to the University of East Anglia's emails stating that 'we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period' have sought to obscure the facts. It quite simply showed that their theory just wasn't right, so nor could any of their predictions be.
So, do politicians pay any attention to stuff like this, do they have any checks and balances on such an extreme and costly suggestion that, as the sandwich board man had said before the Met Office got there, the end is nigh? Do they hell as like, they are far too used to wasting your money without thinking let alone blinking. Perhaps they should be embarrassed into doing so. It seems the only thing that works with them (unless you come up with a lunatic and very costly scam, of course). Suggestions welcome!
An Expert
Here is an expert for you. An expert who is involved in
organisations that produce reports about rising sea levels and droughts and
disasters, caused by Climate Change. Yes, I picked this one because it is an
excellent (though not outstanding, there are others like it) example of what I
don't think many people realise. Do what climate activists don't want you to do
by all means, investigate, do your own research. But this is priceless I feel.
The following is about someone who is a member of the US
National Climate Assessment panel. Of interest is the sheer number of
associated bodies (and there are countless numbers of them, all sucking up
taxpayers money), the things she evidently has impact on and that clearly the
financial institutions, ever quick to spot opportunities to profit by
misleading, are fully on board for reasons of self interest.
Finally, having all this say, we see on what grounding, what
basis she holds these positions and has this input. Then ask yourself, if your
CV was such a mismatch would you get the job? Ah, Mr Smith I see you are a
carpenter, well as we need someone to teach biochemistry, I think you should
fit in well.
Lindene Patton is Chief Climate Product Officer for Zurich
Financial Services (Zurich). She is responsible for product development and
risk management related to climate change.She is a project Board Member for the
World Economic Forum Low Carbon Finance Initiative and the Forest Carbon
Finance Initiative. She is an advisory board member for the University of
California at Santa Barbara's Bren School of Environmental Science and
Management. She is a member of the International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) for Sustainable Governments Adaptation
Experts Advisory Committee.
Ms. Patton serves as the Vice-Chair of the Climate Change
and Tort Liability Sub-Committee of the Geneva Association. Ms. Patton also
serves on numerous government and non-governmental advisory boards, including
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Financial Advisory
Board, the Bureau of National Affairs' monthly publication, the Environmental
Due Diligence Guide, and the US EPA Environmental Technology Verification
Program.
Ms. Patton is an attorney licensed in California and the
District of Columbia and an American Board of Industrial Hygiene Certified
Industrial Hygienist. She holds a Bachelor of Science in biochemistry from the
University of California, Davis, a Master of Public Health from the University
of California, Berkeley, and a Juris Doctor from Santa Clara University School
of Law.
So we learn
that Ms. Patton is working on climate related 'products' for Zurich Financial
Services and serving on several US Federal panels to advise on climate issues.
She studies risks and opportunities for her employer, in relation to the
activities of government as it is effected by 'climate change'. An area in
which she has input and at the very least being inside the loop, as it were, in
government circles is well placed to 'help' her employer make 'rational'
decisions.
And all this
is based on her being an attorney with a qualification in Industrial Hygiene.
So, if you aren't convinced we are all gonna die, it is not for the want of
trying by a very large number of people with backgrounds unrelated to their
jobs. I'm sure Ms. Patton is good at her job, which doesn't make Global Warming
any more real, but does mean if your company is stupid enough to go along with
the scam (and the government will be pushing you to), then the likes of Zurich
Financial Services will have a product for you.
*Please
note, I do not wish to infer that ZFS have a monopoly in this respect
Water Water Everywhere
A major scare report has popped up with lovely dramatic pictures of cities under water, due to rising sea levels, due to Climate Change. I wonder these people don't run around the streets, clutching their heads screaming, 'We're all gonna die, we're all gonna die'.
Anyway, it is a report by 'experts' apparently so we can be fairly comfortable ignoring it. Amusing is it not, that we are implored by 'scientists' to stop believing in God because it is so implausible, but then they tell us they believe in Global Warming (caused by Man). Of course, to the activists who run this scam it is important that it is Man made so a) we feel guilty, b) we must atone c) they can claim we can do something about it and d) they can impose capitalism destroying economic measures to achieve their real goal.
Imagine if we still lived in days when scientists discovered something and said, 'we think the earth is heating up and we think it is due to solar activity. If this is right it could lead to all sorts of problems and we cannot do anything about it'. Or maybe it will just be a bit of heating and everyone will feel a bit better, more crops will grow and it will be really quite nice. That would be science and more than that, science that served the people.
How would that serve the Marxists? In what way does that help destroy capitalism? When you are proposing a system of control (they would say government) that is known not to work, over a system that has worked very well indeed, you cannot do it through debate. (Otherwise you wouldn't need to demonise a successful politician and her policies, for instance).
It is customary in discussing revolution to see the enemy as a king or evil military ruler and this is certainly what the Left promote as a vision. But the enemy of the Left today is the people, for they have power to a large extent in a democracy and have resolutely rejected, repeatedly the ideas and ideals of Marxism. So the riots in Britain, exclusively the domain of the Left (to the extent that it was Left led police who were instructed to attack the peaceful countryside marchers), are aimed at the common people.
They terrorise the local population and destroy the property of innocent businesses, at random. The images on the television spreading the fear to communities fearful that it may visit them.
Now, these self appointed fund-suckers, these leeches on society may feel that their climate crap is a harmless bit of cant, that keeps them in work and they don't mean any harm, but they are doing the work of the Marxists. Doubtless some are with the cause but many I would guess are just useful idiots.
Anyway, it is a report by 'experts' apparently so we can be fairly comfortable ignoring it. Amusing is it not, that we are implored by 'scientists' to stop believing in God because it is so implausible, but then they tell us they believe in Global Warming (caused by Man). Of course, to the activists who run this scam it is important that it is Man made so a) we feel guilty, b) we must atone c) they can claim we can do something about it and d) they can impose capitalism destroying economic measures to achieve their real goal.
Imagine if we still lived in days when scientists discovered something and said, 'we think the earth is heating up and we think it is due to solar activity. If this is right it could lead to all sorts of problems and we cannot do anything about it'. Or maybe it will just be a bit of heating and everyone will feel a bit better, more crops will grow and it will be really quite nice. That would be science and more than that, science that served the people.
How would that serve the Marxists? In what way does that help destroy capitalism? When you are proposing a system of control (they would say government) that is known not to work, over a system that has worked very well indeed, you cannot do it through debate. (Otherwise you wouldn't need to demonise a successful politician and her policies, for instance).
It is customary in discussing revolution to see the enemy as a king or evil military ruler and this is certainly what the Left promote as a vision. But the enemy of the Left today is the people, for they have power to a large extent in a democracy and have resolutely rejected, repeatedly the ideas and ideals of Marxism. So the riots in Britain, exclusively the domain of the Left (to the extent that it was Left led police who were instructed to attack the peaceful countryside marchers), are aimed at the common people.
They terrorise the local population and destroy the property of innocent businesses, at random. The images on the television spreading the fear to communities fearful that it may visit them.
Now, these self appointed fund-suckers, these leeches on society may feel that their climate crap is a harmless bit of cant, that keeps them in work and they don't mean any harm, but they are doing the work of the Marxists. Doubtless some are with the cause but many I would guess are just useful idiots.
Thursday, 13 December 2012
Fracking Hell
Ha! What sport in the media today. The government, pushed by necessity and reality to open the way for gas extraction through fracking has unleashed a wailing from the piggies at the trough. The companies milking us all through subsidies are squealing like stuck pigs that fracking will probably end the world (rather than just be a big step in removing their cancer).
I saw, hugely amusing this, that the twits in the warmist scam are saying that fracking will despoil the countryside, which of course it actually has minimal impact on unlike wind turbines that actually do. The other strange thing they say is that it will also accelerate global warming and drive up energy bills. This is their claim, the reality is this. Wind turbines use up large amounts of natural resources and create enormous clouds of CO2 to build and erect them.
Then there is the fact that conventional power stations have to be running all the time, to keep the lights on when the wind suddenly drops, or picks up. And, basically, in relative terms the wind turbines will be providing no energy. (OK, maybe 1%).
So these propaganda experts are telling us that all the things wind turbines currently and provably do, will happen with fracking. The BBC radio news of course tried to hint at impartiality on the subject in their headlines, but then only allowed an anti-fracking comment in the piece.
Naturally the tiny, almost undetectable tremors caused by fracking continue to be played as 'earthquakes'. The actual tremors are similar in scale to those caused by coal mining. You hadn't heard coal mining had caused 'tremors'? Maybe that is because they were insignificant and the warmist propaganda didn't exist then. They hadn't created their own virtual reality then.
The sign of pure domination (and genius) with the warmist campaigning is not that they have been getting their way. It is that they suggested an absolutely unbelievable scenario that no mildly sentient being could possibly be taken in by and said it was real. This proved how powerful they were. Wind turbines will keep the UK's lights on, even though everyone can see for themselves that the wind isn't constant, or remotely so. And it became mainstream.
OK so politicians have been pushing it and they don't actually seem to have any brains of their own. But clearly, otherwise intelligent people have swallowed it whole.
But will we see cheaper energy? Well, firstly current energy costs have risen largely due to warmist taxes and subsidies to pay for the profits in wind turbines. Gas will stand on its own two feet. However, the government has also become strangely inept at controlling big business and I'm sure that the cheaper gas produced through fracking will just increase the energy companies profits. Even though, in the US it has halved gas prices and cut CO2 output to 1990 levels. Not that that is a particular concern. The whole global warming thing is a scam, not just wind turbines.
I saw, hugely amusing this, that the twits in the warmist scam are saying that fracking will despoil the countryside, which of course it actually has minimal impact on unlike wind turbines that actually do. The other strange thing they say is that it will also accelerate global warming and drive up energy bills. This is their claim, the reality is this. Wind turbines use up large amounts of natural resources and create enormous clouds of CO2 to build and erect them.
Then there is the fact that conventional power stations have to be running all the time, to keep the lights on when the wind suddenly drops, or picks up. And, basically, in relative terms the wind turbines will be providing no energy. (OK, maybe 1%).
So these propaganda experts are telling us that all the things wind turbines currently and provably do, will happen with fracking. The BBC radio news of course tried to hint at impartiality on the subject in their headlines, but then only allowed an anti-fracking comment in the piece.
Naturally the tiny, almost undetectable tremors caused by fracking continue to be played as 'earthquakes'. The actual tremors are similar in scale to those caused by coal mining. You hadn't heard coal mining had caused 'tremors'? Maybe that is because they were insignificant and the warmist propaganda didn't exist then. They hadn't created their own virtual reality then.
The sign of pure domination (and genius) with the warmist campaigning is not that they have been getting their way. It is that they suggested an absolutely unbelievable scenario that no mildly sentient being could possibly be taken in by and said it was real. This proved how powerful they were. Wind turbines will keep the UK's lights on, even though everyone can see for themselves that the wind isn't constant, or remotely so. And it became mainstream.
OK so politicians have been pushing it and they don't actually seem to have any brains of their own. But clearly, otherwise intelligent people have swallowed it whole.
But will we see cheaper energy? Well, firstly current energy costs have risen largely due to warmist taxes and subsidies to pay for the profits in wind turbines. Gas will stand on its own two feet. However, the government has also become strangely inept at controlling big business and I'm sure that the cheaper gas produced through fracking will just increase the energy companies profits. Even though, in the US it has halved gas prices and cut CO2 output to 1990 levels. Not that that is a particular concern. The whole global warming thing is a scam, not just wind turbines.
Saturday, 17 November 2012
What Being A Leader Means
David Cameron is the leader of the Conservative Party, even though he doesn't seem to have any alignment himself with Conservative values. But his bigger problem appears to be how his leadership is going.
Cameron came to government with a number of key issues close to his heart. He thinks it is really important that we give lots of money to foreign countries and he declared he would increase the amount sprayed overseas. He declared his love of the EU and he showed his deep seated dedication to 'green' issues by installing a small turbine on his house.
Today we hear that a minister is proposing to cut aid to a second country, because it is either unnecessary or being stolen, just like everyone except Cameron thought it would be. The EU is massively opposed in Britain (on the grounds that it has no utility, nor a single reason for existing) and is destroying itself over the Euro and trade barriers. Added to which a party exists which easily steals votes by not just calling for an independent UK, but also having other policies that make it actually the Conservative Party. But it is called UKIP.
And now we have ministers starting to point out that wind turbines are completely and utterly useless. Except that they make landowners a bit richer and foreign energy companies a lot richer. Oh and rather a lot is added to your energy bill to pay these leeches.
I think the reason that they are saying this is that the political benefits of supporting 'renewables' is drying up and they are either checking the facts themselves, or just admitting what they already knew. Of course the breakthrough will come when they also admit that 'Climate Change' alarmism is a fantasy and is driven not by science, but by lobby groups such as Greenpeace and WWF, who are merely seeking influence and money.
Being lied to by politicians is what we pretty much expect, by the Global Warming scam has been particularly pernicious and is by far the most dangerous. It is so bad it almost transcends any hint of mendacity and becomes insanity. Can we hope that reason returns within our lifetimes? Can we leave the EU and stop believing junk science at the same time?
Cameron came to government with a number of key issues close to his heart. He thinks it is really important that we give lots of money to foreign countries and he declared he would increase the amount sprayed overseas. He declared his love of the EU and he showed his deep seated dedication to 'green' issues by installing a small turbine on his house.
Today we hear that a minister is proposing to cut aid to a second country, because it is either unnecessary or being stolen, just like everyone except Cameron thought it would be. The EU is massively opposed in Britain (on the grounds that it has no utility, nor a single reason for existing) and is destroying itself over the Euro and trade barriers. Added to which a party exists which easily steals votes by not just calling for an independent UK, but also having other policies that make it actually the Conservative Party. But it is called UKIP.
And now we have ministers starting to point out that wind turbines are completely and utterly useless. Except that they make landowners a bit richer and foreign energy companies a lot richer. Oh and rather a lot is added to your energy bill to pay these leeches.
I think the reason that they are saying this is that the political benefits of supporting 'renewables' is drying up and they are either checking the facts themselves, or just admitting what they already knew. Of course the breakthrough will come when they also admit that 'Climate Change' alarmism is a fantasy and is driven not by science, but by lobby groups such as Greenpeace and WWF, who are merely seeking influence and money.
Being lied to by politicians is what we pretty much expect, by the Global Warming scam has been particularly pernicious and is by far the most dangerous. It is so bad it almost transcends any hint of mendacity and becomes insanity. Can we hope that reason returns within our lifetimes? Can we leave the EU and stop believing junk science at the same time?
Monday, 15 October 2012
The BBC And Science
A little while ago, after spending some time pointing out that neither the theory of evolution or climate change could be wrong, the BBC overtly stated that it was giving up on science. 'It would be wrong', they declared, 'to support views that oppose our own'.
Had people as intellectually conflicted as those running the BBC today, existed and wielded the same influence throughout history, imagine how backward we would be today. Imagine the damage they would have done.
Climate change is right, because lots of 'scientists' say so, is the BBC line. So, when the lone nutcase Galileo popped up, the BBC would have had him ridiculed for disagreeing with 'everyone' else. You may say that the Catholic church served the role of the BBC, but that wasn't quite the case. The opposition to Galileo was not because they thought his proof irrelevant, as would the BBC, as they understood and knew he was right. What the Church wanted, was to control the release of the information so their position of authority was not undermined.
It comes across that generally, throughout history people have striven to find answers and accept new ideas that made sense and carried proof. Now, we have an 'Establishment' remarkable for its obsessive closed mind stance.
We know Man Made Global Warming is a crock, because it stopped well over a decade ago and the inputs from Man are too small. But mainly we know that the people claiming with such certainty to know the future of climate don't, because they do not even understand how it works, so couldn't possibly create an accurate computer model. It is like claiming to know every word spoken by Julius Caesar throughout his life.
The BBC is formed of the same people behind the global warming scam; Left wing activists seeking to destroy democratic capitalism. It is politics, not science or journalism that drives both.
Had people as intellectually conflicted as those running the BBC today, existed and wielded the same influence throughout history, imagine how backward we would be today. Imagine the damage they would have done.
Climate change is right, because lots of 'scientists' say so, is the BBC line. So, when the lone nutcase Galileo popped up, the BBC would have had him ridiculed for disagreeing with 'everyone' else. You may say that the Catholic church served the role of the BBC, but that wasn't quite the case. The opposition to Galileo was not because they thought his proof irrelevant, as would the BBC, as they understood and knew he was right. What the Church wanted, was to control the release of the information so their position of authority was not undermined.
It comes across that generally, throughout history people have striven to find answers and accept new ideas that made sense and carried proof. Now, we have an 'Establishment' remarkable for its obsessive closed mind stance.
We know Man Made Global Warming is a crock, because it stopped well over a decade ago and the inputs from Man are too small. But mainly we know that the people claiming with such certainty to know the future of climate don't, because they do not even understand how it works, so couldn't possibly create an accurate computer model. It is like claiming to know every word spoken by Julius Caesar throughout his life.
The BBC is formed of the same people behind the global warming scam; Left wing activists seeking to destroy democratic capitalism. It is politics, not science or journalism that drives both.
Tuesday, 17 July 2012
What Would Marx Have Done
Karl Marx wrote something that inspired a great many people to believe some amazing things and some to murder large numbers of people. I'm sure that is not what he meant. Marx of course was an arch sponger who deplored the idea of work (or at least, him having to do it) but was keen on wealth. Truly a New Labour man.
He believed in the inevitability of communism taking over the world. It was just one of those counter-intuitive things that excite people of a traditional 'Left' leaning. Why would any rational person believe what the Green lobbyists and activists have been saying about climate? It wasn't really based on anything and couldn't be substantiated.
Further, it was never a consensus scientific point of view, it was that those who dared speak out were vilified and threatened that held the line for this daft idea. As usual, the Left seized the institutions, here the 'scientific' media and the UN panel, before acting. Able to control the flow of information meant that they controlled minds. When has the Left not used propaganda? Hitler, as a militarist socialist used it directly and Stalin used it via the useful idiots.
And of course the fear that Marx might be right led to the depth of the Cold War and to events like Korea and Vietnam. For their part the Soviets accepted it and worked through violence to accelerate it and the West reacted strongly to contain it.
Yet communism is so at odds with human nature that it could never last itself. Sure we should always be alive to the dangers inherent in the ideology, look at the Global Warming scam and its costs, but also we should not fear it overall. It eats itself.
He believed in the inevitability of communism taking over the world. It was just one of those counter-intuitive things that excite people of a traditional 'Left' leaning. Why would any rational person believe what the Green lobbyists and activists have been saying about climate? It wasn't really based on anything and couldn't be substantiated.
Further, it was never a consensus scientific point of view, it was that those who dared speak out were vilified and threatened that held the line for this daft idea. As usual, the Left seized the institutions, here the 'scientific' media and the UN panel, before acting. Able to control the flow of information meant that they controlled minds. When has the Left not used propaganda? Hitler, as a militarist socialist used it directly and Stalin used it via the useful idiots.
And of course the fear that Marx might be right led to the depth of the Cold War and to events like Korea and Vietnam. For their part the Soviets accepted it and worked through violence to accelerate it and the West reacted strongly to contain it.
Yet communism is so at odds with human nature that it could never last itself. Sure we should always be alive to the dangers inherent in the ideology, look at the Global Warming scam and its costs, but also we should not fear it overall. It eats itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)