Hot Weather, Man Made Global Warming And Hot Air

It's been hot recently and not just here in the UK. So the Global Warming leeches come slithering out to say it is extreme (it isn't), it's due to Global Warming (it isn't), which is caused by Man pumping CO2 into the atmosphere (or Carbon as 'scientists' insist on calling it. Carbon is an element, C, and Carbon Dioxide, CO2, is a compound. They confuse the two because they think Carbon sounds worse to you. And they know you are thick, because you believe in Global Warming even though they can't prove it).

I mentioned in an earlier post what is causing our current weather and that, by observation, we can see there is no Global Warming taking place. Now, let's be clear Global Warming as a natural, cyclical event is real. It is warmer now than when the Thames froze over in 1814, but less warm than in medieval or Roman times.

Also, CO2 is a potential 'greenhouse' gas, meaning it can help trap heat inside the atmosphere and thus warm the planet. This was first postulated in the 1960's and after research it was decided that Man's output of CO2 is insignificant in the grand scheme of things and will have no noticeable affect on climate. We have no idea what might be a 'tipping point', as temperatures have been much lower at times when atmospheric CO2 was very much higher.

We don't know how all the interlocking natural relationships work to respond to changes. But greenhouse gas is a sound theory. More effective than CO2 is Methane and by far the most causative of weather and climate variations is water vapour. Or clouds as we more commonly refer to them.

So, if the theory is sound but we don't understand the mechanisms and interactions sufficiently, how is Global Warming a thing? Why are governments so stressed about it and reactive? (To be fair all government has actually done is increase taxes on us to give to rich people as subsidies for wind farms and solar farms that don't really help much and not all the time).

Global Warming is being used by anti-capitalists to get idiot Western governments to ruin their economies chasing a chimera and by scientists and activists (like Greenpeace and WWF) to get grants and funding. No Global Warming, no money.

How do the scammers have all this proof of Global Warming then? Well, they don't. Most stories they tell are demonstrable lies which the lazy MSM journalists just cut and paste. Any refutation is ignored by the media. The 'proof' the pushers produce is completely, 100% based on computer models that they programmed with biased inputs and consequently always predict Global Warming.

The models are predicated on CO2 having an influence way out of kilter with observable fact and beyond anything we have direct knowledge of. You might as well believe in fairies.

Odd Rod Liddle

I like much of what Rod Liddle writes, particularly recently. He seems to have matured and is a bit more conscious of the stupidity of much of the Left's output. Obviously much of the stupidity is just poorly thought out tosh, to hide what they are really up to, but nevertheless, it's there.

But at the weekend Rod, who has been claiming these days that he is not so sure about AGW, wrote a piece that said the Met Office has accounted for the lack of a temperature rise since 1997, by agreeing and predicting that it will be like that for another 5 years.

Well that's OK then. Now that there is categoric proof. I mean it must be, because the even-handed Mr. Liddle goes on to suggest anyone disagreeing is a 'loon'. I think he was suggesting that everyone who feels at liberty to question a scientific theory believes there is a world wide communist conspiracy behind it. I guess the possibility that the Judean Popular Front and a number of other organisations of a similar name, have the same desired objective without agreeing on details, is not likely

If there is no conspiracy, it isn't happening. Well, I'm sure there is no conspiracy, certainly not in the James Bond understood context that seems to be all that occurs to Rod, but it is clear a mindset exists that thinks Western civilisation is a cancer of the planet and should be (at least) reined in. I remember this being a popular view among the 14 year old girls in my art class at school. People generally grow out of it when they have to assume some responsibility in  life.

Some people though clearly don't get past this stage and, frustrated by both everyone else and reality not chiming with their views they dig in. Sometimes they just rant at the moon, but sometimes they kill people who try to find cures for diseases by experimenting on animals. They don't bother to look into, or understand the object of their rage (and there might be some legitimate things to oppose), it is their image of animals derived from too much Peter Rabbit that drives them.

Is it ironic to have a complete lack of humanity, whilst complaining that you think someone has a complete lack of humanity? But back to Global Warming. Rod says that you cannot argue that the world's temperature has increased. Which I don't think anyone does argue with. What the concern is Rod, is why.

Your faith in the Met Office is touching, being a sort of religious faith requiring no reasoning. The Met Office of course has until now been hiding the fact that there has been no warming since 1997. Why would you hide it? As a scientific institution? Why does a body such as the Royal Society say that this particular scientific subject is unique and must not be discussed; we have arrived at the absolute truth. To continue to research the area, or propose alternate theories would be, well, heresy.

The Met Office even produced figures to prove our recent rainfall was part of an extreme weather pattern, due to AGW. To get the figures to appear scary though, they omitted two dry years. But we should trust these people explicitly, yes? Their computer models are wrong, but it is ultimately the basis for all the stupid spending by government, of our taxes on energy policies of no utility.

Sure they make some individuals and energy companies rich, by giving them subsidies (a political measure, given to companies when it is clear it isn't self sustaining), but for the rest of us, it puts us in jeopardy of having no fuel in the near future and paying through the nose when we do get any. (Actually, for wind power, we pay even when they don't produce. Nice deal eh?)

The easiest way to get money in modern Britain, is to con the government. Obviously, management consultants have been doing this, on an enormous scale for many years. Now more people want in on the action, not least MP's. Now, riding on the backs of ideological ignoramuses, arch capitalists (or thieves, really) are using the poor confused government as a milch cow.

Not maybe what the greens wanted, but hey, if it undermines Western democracy and destroys their societies, it is all the same. And it allows post destruction finger pointing that much of it was due to 'capitalist greed', which would be true.

So, to help Rod a little, here is what a sceptic actually thinks; the world has shown some warming. It is not dramatic yet and could be considered benign, but it is valid to ask what is driving it and come to understand the implications. Currently we don't know, but the cyclical patterns we see from Earth's history and our understanding of solar activity, it is probably mainly the sun.

What it definitely isn't due to is Man's output of CO2. Despite the recurring theme of the central importance of Man on Earth throughout history, we really aren't that significant. Strange really, the current Left attempts to undermine civilisation by saying that Man is heating the planet, is based on their view that Man is insignificant, Mother Earth is the important 'one'.

We know, by using not abusing science that CO2 concentrations have spiked some 400 years after global temperatures rose. This was the area for a big lie by Al Gore, who slipped the graph the other way round when talking about it on his gloriously (and no doubt intentionally) mis-titled 'An Inconvenient Truth'.

Pollution however is unpleasant and probably largely unnecessary, but we are not looking hard enough for alternative solutions to our energy needs, partly because of the efforts of the Greens sucking funds to their organisations and projects. But also, partly due to the fact that a huge oil and gas infrastructure exists and that is not going to be rendered redundant overnight whilst politicians can still be manipulated and bribed!

So the 'conspiracy' is just the convergence of the activities of a large number of ideologically Left organisations working to undermine our current system of government and society. They have to work this way, to achieve power and then introduce their much better style of government, because no one would vote for it. What does that tell us?

And Global Warming might be happening and it might not. It is very probably something beyond our control and entirely natural if it is happening. There is an enormous amount of energy potential all around us (an apple contains the equivalent of a million tons of TNT) we just don't know how to get at it. And thanks to the Met Office and other harmful organisations, with the unthinking support of people such as Rod Liddle, we are not really looking into it.

Left ideology has been and continues to be, very harmful in societies, but for science to be subsumed by it is both  unforgivable and dangerous.

Christmas Lectures?

It is something of a tradition to interpose overindulgence with a little intellectual challenge in the form of Christmas lectures, so I thought I would drop a pebble in. Brian Cox is the scientist de jour and I intend to use some of his words to ask a question.

Prof Cox is a clever and amiable man and I like him. In his 'Why does e=mc2?' book (with Jeff Forshaw), that I am currently reading he says that all science rests on observation. He points out that, no matter how passionately you believe something, if you cannot prove it by experiment, then it has no scientific value. In fact he quotes Richard Feynman on the subject; 'no matter how beautiful your theory, no matter how clever you are or what your name is, if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong'.

Now, whilst Prof Cox is happy to unequivocally state such things in support of the material in his book, he forgets it when something with which he ideologically agrees comes along. Global warming for instance. Global Warming we have been assured is real and is caused by Man and is due to our output of Carbon (by which these clever scientific types mean Carbon Dioxide). This has been researched and having found that the temperature rose some 400 years before there was a rise in CO2, the scientists decided to wheel out Al Gore to lie for them, fronting a film with the word 'truth' in it, to dispel any thoughts that it might be contrary.

Then, when the never ending warming predicted by the ever increasing CO2 levels ceased in 1998, the scientists thought it too insignificant a detail to mention. As all their dire warnings and predictions are actually based on computer models that they themselves devised and nothing else (again, something they don't seem to make too clear), an experiment was conducted. Past weather and atmospheric conditions were fed into the models to see if they accurately predicted what we know actually happened.

They didn't. Which isn't that surprising when you consider the software was written to support a premise, not  to assess data in an unbiased way. Every objective observation tells us that the hysteria about AGW is just that, hysteria. It isn't scientific and it is far from settled. Yet for Professor Brian Cox and many like him, scientific tenets are sometimes not that important. Why?

Here We Go

The first objections to Shale Gas are appearing. I see news reported that the recent minor tremors in Blackpool were due to the 'fracking' that is a part of extracting Shale Gas. Though the report also said that these tiny rumbles were not likely to get larger if the extraction continued and that they would cause no damage, I'm guessing all the latter stuff will get lost. No, I think we will be seeing 'Shale Gas Causes Earthquakes' and that will be it.

In the Sunday Times (hell, that used to be a good paper) I read a story about how the climate was very much hotter 55 million years ago and that even the poles were lush with vegetation and the temperature and humidity that was likely would have meant large scale, long lasting hurricanes would have raged.

Entirely to be expected the article went on to say that this was due to there being more CO2 in the atmosphere and that we are causing that again through our burning of fossil fuels. Whilst it did point out that the current situation is something less than 500 parts per million of CO2 in the air and that 55 million years ago is was more like 1,500-2,000 ppm, it did skip some important detail.

It struck me that there was a glaring omission in the article; why did the CO2 concentration increase? And why so sure that this was responsible for the warming? Usually, it is the other way around, the increase follows the warming. Still, a computer model said it would cause the storms and you know computers, they are never wrong. Not least because the 'experts' knowledge of weather is absolute and complete and programmers only write perfect software, that is never influenced by ideology.

You And Tangled Webs

It is usual to find the Left supporting entirely contradictory positions, as putting ideology before reality as they do is a recipe for disaster. Some birds take a while longer to come home to roost. The Global Warming religion was useful for the Left as it simultaneously addressed a desire to hate ourselves as over mighty Man and to also believe that Man, in the form of clever Lefties would resolve the problem. This resolution was their second desire; to shut down Western civilisation and its economic roots.

This is why 'the debate is settled', the BBC should not allow debate on air and opposition to Global Warming must see you classed as a nutter. But as bills go up it has become personal and the electorate are getting restless. They are asking questions, the questions that the Left have outlawed. The people can see how shallow and unsubstantiated arguments of the Left are, when the best they are able to say is 'it is, because I say it is' and 'you cannot oppose us'.

So, Cameron, in thrall to Green policies as much as any other who skips thinking, trots along to accuse the energy companies of charging too much. That they are is also due to government not being bothered to do its job properly, but Cameron is not looking to blame himself and the companies are hardly likely to say that they do it because he doesn't control them well enough.

No they are arguing the highly plausible and partly correct point that it is green taxes and costs that are driving bills up. Cameron didn't want that in the light of day either and Chris Huhne will be livid. Something he is responsible for being questioned, how dare they! Obviously no sane person would put up a wind turbine unless someone guaranteed to pay for it and its operating costs, making it a money tree rather than a business proposition.

So we all pay vastly increased bills, to suit Cameron's and Huhne's version of politics, which is based on lies and a false premise. All of these costs could be taken off our shoulders at the stroke of a pen and have no consequences whatsoever. But none of this explains the enhanced profits these foreign owned, energy companies are making. (Interestingly, many of these companies come to Britain to buy such infrastructure organisations, as in their own countries they are more closely controlled and profits commensurately less).

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

Chris Huhne Anyone?

Chris Huhne is the Climate Change and Energy Secretary, he is a Lib Dem and he is a little undecided as to whether he likes the media. His ambivalence towards the media is the result of the conflicting needs he has, firstly to proselytise for his Green religion and then again to avoid questions about his alleged attempt to avoid a speeding fine. It is said he got his wife to say she was driving when the camera flashed, though she has publicly stated she was not.

The police and the CPS needless to say, in such a complicated case are still, after some months, considering the evidence. Just like when Prescott was filmed assaulting a member of the public, the forces of law and order become strangely inert and confused when presented with criminal activity by a Member of Parliament, (though of course when instructed by a left wing government to arrest a Conservative MP, they were straight in, despite no evidence and ignoring rules themselves).

Huhne though has told some rather more important and damaging lies. These are related to the Climate Change bit of his job role, he is a little hazy about what the Energy bit means. He thinks windmills will save the planet. That is pretty much it. Also that they magically appear if he summons them. Instead, they actually use rather a lot of energy to produce and install.

Once in they ruin the landscape, kill birds and bats and the noise of the blades is also an irritant to people and animals nearby. And then there is the energy deficit. Apart from some nasty metals, dragged around the world to produce the magnets in a turbine, and overlooking the energy involved in getting the materials for construction to the areas of natural beauty that Chris Huhne particularly likes to despoil for his projects, we have the foundation materials.

According to a US paper of 2004 (Brookhaven National Laboratory), a 1.3MW onshore wind turbine needs about 240 cubic metres of concrete (108 tonnes) for its foundation and about ten tonnes of steel. Both are energy intensive products to manufacture, the steel here producing something like 5 tonnes of CO2. Concrete generates 1 tonne of CO2 for each tonne of material, giving 108 tonnes of CO2. So this one turbine has a deficit, before a blade turns of something like 113 tonnes of CO2. Cement production is responsible, apparently for 8% of all CO2 produced by Man.

To put that in perspective, (and to show a fairness that AGW religionists will not) a single 747 flying from London to New York will emit something like 52 tonnes of CO2 by my reckoning. And the trails they leave act like clouds, so have a real and immediate effect, unlike the guesswork on 'greenhouse gases' by the 'experts'.

But back to windmills. Huhne believes they will meet our target commitment to the EU on using renewables. Maybe they will (if we were building at a rate that no one can manage and we aren't even attempting), but they won't achieve any CO2 target. For each of these ridiculous and pointless towers produces risible amounts of electricity and then only intermittently. So there must be a power station, of more conventional means, running all the time waiting to take over when the wind drops (or gets too high, or we don't need the extra electricity).

This alone renders the windmill pointless. The industry knows this as do government, which is why subsidies were introduced to build them and the power companies are forced to buy the expensive electricity they produce (or compensate them when they don't buy due to a lack of demand). It is a licence to print money and nothing else. You have been scammed and the rise in electricity bills is almost entirely due to windmills and Huhne's policy (most of the rest is due to the lack of control over energy companies, by, er Chris Huhne).

So, is Chris Huhne the stupidest person in this country?

Green Energy

It is becoming more of a topic talked about openly; the cost of 'green' energy. So, how much tax are you prepared to pay, to get 'sustainable' energy? It seems a lot of people answer 'very little', or 'none' to that question.

But nobody is asking that question, as we already are paying greatly inflated prices for our energy, to pay for fantasy 'solutions' to a non existent problem. Wind farms receive subsidies to get them built. They are then guaranteed a purchaser and at twice the price of 'normal' electricity. Naturally, many people are keen to have windmills on their land because of the large rents paid (such as the £1000 a day Cameron's father in law gets) and the people who run the monsters have guaranteed profits for decades.

But for those who believe in AGW (and presumably any other passing fashion) paying this tax and more may be acceptable. But wind power only works when the wind is blowing at the right speed, not too fast not too slow and this is unpredictable, so a back up, non wind related power station has to be up and running the whole time, for the moment the wind stops providing. And sometimes wind generates too much and overloads the system (because of its unpredictability) as has happened in Europe.

So, wind power, mainly pointless (produces about 21% of its theoretical maximum) and costs more in CO2, not less. But, hey a lot of rich people are getting richer and as Al Gore knows, that is the reason politicians support the scam (though it is entirely possible Chris Huhne actually believes in fairies).

Pollytical Toynbee

I followed a link on James Delingpole's Twitter to an article written by Pol Toynbee that was so ridiculous I couldn't even finish reading it. She spouted on about how the Tea Party are directly responsible for the wonderful Obama not being able to save America (his plan, keep borrowing) and that they only exist because of Murdoch and his Fox News. Now you could say that the people in the US are seeing two sides to the story (we can't in Britain as our broadcasters are all left wing) and are making their own minds up. This would still offend Polly as she is stridently of the opinion that only noble, well-meaning souls such as herself should be allowed to organise the world. In fact, she seemed to be suggesting that Obama did not have enough power personally, so that as a latter day Sun King he could order people at a whim and then all in the garden (that he and Toynbee would inhabit, naturally) would be rosy.

Her beef continued with the outrageous suggestion that a smaller state (thus needing less money) was in any way useful. To her the state and all it's works are a manifest good. She then started wittering on about climate change deniers and people who cherry pick which bits of science they will adhere to and quote to support their case. Of course there are very few climate change deniers, but many who adopt a scientific approach and question the theories of others. In fact, it is (as was proven by the Climategate emails) those insisting on AGW who cherry pick, for the very simple reason that they know they are wrong. Toynbee realises this which is why she is also an advocate of allowing no debate on such subjects. But the funding dries up when the phrase 'no AGW, nothing to see here, move along' is the result of your research. It would be like Oxfam curing hunger.

I did see she included the AGW shibboleth that the 'deniers' are funded by big oil (the inference being I suppose that small oil are an altogether different, more collegiate bunch). There is no and never has been any evidence for this, but plenty that the AGW promoters are extremely well funded. If she wants to attack 'big oil' she should ask why we are struggling to replace the internal combustion engine, or at least one running on fossil fuel. Now that may well be because anyone coming up with a replacement would overnight destroy a massive, worldwide infrastructure for the extraction, transporting and refinement of oil based products. A bit like when Dyson couldn't get anyone interested in his amazing bagless cleaner, that he was trying to sell to companies who make most of their money from selling bags for their cleaners. Think about it. Electric cars that are as useful as a concrete bookmark have actually made it into production. They cost much more than a useful car, they have a theoretical range of 100 miles (as long as you don't accelerate quickly, or use the aircon or lights), take a very long time to recharge (using electricity generated how?) and the batteries in which cost several thousand pounds and may last only 5 years. How has something so clearly impractical made it into production? Simple. The EU insists car manufacturers reduce the 'emissions' of the fleet of cars they produce and it distracts you from the fact that they haven't come up with a proper replacement technology yet. Or perhaps to convince you that to do so may be beyond the wit of Man.

Toynbee often gets accused of hypocrisy for the robust reason that it is true, but she is also so wrong-headed on so many things. I don't mind a differing political perspective, but when something is wrong, it is wrong. (Please don't now introduce the left's favourite 'narrative'. No there aren't differing truths).

Too Obvious?

Not being a financial genius, I wonder if things are as they seem or if that is too obvious? It strikes me that we have a populous in the UK that is increasingly fed answers not educated in the basics and thus able to make their own decisions. An example of this is the deletion of proper science from the curriculum and its replacement with pure propaganda about global warming. It is fed to children as a fact and they a) expect to be told the truth and b) lack the wherewithal to judge the veracity of what they are told. I once asked a physics teacher if you could effectively look back in time by viewing light obliquely, where it would appear to be travelling more slowly as do trains thus viewed. Similar to the Doppler effect, I suppose. He at least had to go away and discuss it with colleagues before coming back with a 'no'. I wonder if such challenges are encouraged today, or if such subjects are even considered?

Anyway, to finances. Greece seems to have succumbed to the Sirens for too long and is a basket case. The people don't like the idea of austerity but haven't suggested an alternative, just a cry of 'don't'. If Greece is allowed out of the eurozone it sets a precedent and suggests the EU is not infallible, which is a heresy. So we get Labour MP's, like the one on QT last night (apparently an economist) who talks eminent sense about Greece needing to grow her economy and export her way out of the crisis. Spot on, but then ideology disables her and she doesn't reach the logical conclusion that they devalue their currency (something they cannot do in the eurozone), but that they should borrow more to do it. Absolute madness, but the only way you can square the circle and comply with ideology, which the Left always put before all else. Naturally the Lib Dems are in the same trap, but are even more inexperienced at living up to their statements than Labour are, hence the constant abuse they are getting currently. But the audience miss the logic and lap up what they are told. Would they borrow more to get themselves out of debt?

Last night on QT again, a fireman said that he didn't want to have to pay more into his pension, he already pays 11% he said. Cue audience applause, as generally the left-packed QT audience don't want cuts and this self-serving cant seems to be infecting normal people too. But the problem is, the fireman doesn't want the level of payout his 11% affords him, he wants the level he was 'promised', which is way above what he is funding. This lack of basic understanding is what supports the Labour led shouts for no cuts, no increase in pension contributions. (We perhaps could feel more sympathy if much of this woe wasn't due to Labour in the first place). To me it is clear, having a population that must retire at deaths door doesn't make us an advanced society. A good few years of healthy and active retirement would be a decent way for all workers to end their days. Not rich, but comfortable. Why can we not do this? Because we recklessly spend on other, much less important things and to be honest, just waste a lot too. And by We I mean Britain and by that of course, I mean the government. Whilst every other week bin collection becomes a fixation of government and people, due to the money available, we are pumping money in 'aid' to a variety of undeserving causes abroad at an accelerated rate. Why is India a recipient of aid? It is currently looking to spend $100 billion on fighter jets. It has a space programme, nuclear technology and is a rapidly growing economy. Aid to African countries, whilst often a better target is handed to the 'President' who then, by strange coincidence acquires new personal jets, limousines and houses. We have pumped trillions of dollars from the West into African projects to save lives and feed the starving over the last 50 years. What would you say the result is? A much better continent, with peace and harmony? No, it is still the pit it was, but now with a few very rich people who are better able to rob their countries. Why must we keep banging our head on the wall?

And government does too many things, with too many people that we just do not need them, nor want them to do. The Quango's are the most obvious method of the implementation of these daft constructs and activities. They show up key areas of government being busy, but doing nothing (except consuming taxes that could and should go elsewhere). If we are under the rule of the EU, what is Westminster (let alone the Mickey Mouse Scottish and Welsh Houses) for? If we are a sovereign nation, then why do we do what a bunch of deranged foreigners tell us and why the hell do we give them so much money?

Of course, no such analysis can avoid mentioning the political scam of the far left that is climate change. Make no mistake, this is a political project to destroy capitalism and nothing else. It has no logic in science, but is designed to cause a massive disturbance to the Western economies by causing them to distrust the energy used in their methods of production. The enormous cost of this pointless effort is the easiest way to not only cut back on our expenditure but also grow our real economy. (By all means incentivise industry to combat pollution, which is  in need of some effort, thus promoting industry and technological innovation).

Smaller government means people can get on with their lives without constantly bumping into bureaucracy and its rules, all a result of them existing, allowing us to spend our own money, which we have more of due to lower taxes, on what we want to spend it on, growing the economy. African countries learn to rely on their people to develop and trade with the richer countries rather than just holding a hand out and keeping despots rich. And the dear old EU. A desperate attempt by the French to at last rule Europe under the Code Napoleon that has been denied them for so long. And it looks like this one is going to fail too. But you have to admit, as proof of the stupidity of the political class it is a good one. It has taken a very long time for a bad idea to be seen as a bad idea.

BBC

Sorry to bang on about the BBC, but last night I watched a programme that was going to explain why immigrants come to the UK, despite all the difficulties and dangers and then a bit of Newsnight. I don't usually watch Newsnight because I never thought of it as a serious, intelligent programme.

The programme on immigrants was amazing, not least because the one thing it didn't try to investigate or answer was why they come here. We saw how easy corruption abroad makes it for them to start their journey. We saw how they are then pray to criminals and the weather, dying in the Saharan heat or the cold of Europe. These were terrible stories, but the BBC didn't dig, they didn't think through what they were seeing, not least because the surface gloss (their hardships and the wealth of the West) immediately conformed to their ideological image. These travellers know all about Europe and how to get there (and where), they know about the smugglers and it is clear they have a pretty good appreciation of the stupidity of EU laws. What they didn't appear to know was that the criminals they paid might cheat or harm them. Those stories apparently never make their way back. Normally we would be harsh and critical of mothers who put their children in harms way, but an African woman weeping about her rape and the interference with her 4 year old daughter was included only to gain pity. Why was she there, why was she putting her child in such danger? Because the West waves a goal at her that she thinks makes it worthwhile. That should be our shame.

Afghans were shown, almost exclusively young males, proud that all they had with them was the equivalent of £3. Now, if you think of the newsreel images of refugees in the second world war, you see people with prams and handcarts bundled high with their possessions, old men and women struggling to save their lives. But in Afghanistan, things are so bad only the young men leave home and with nothing, no clothes, no food, no money. And they are careful to avoid taking anything with them. Why should they? Europe apparently will house, clothe and feed them. Then they can get a 'job'. They were shown wailing about the lack of facilities and the BBC joined them lamenting the lack of care of the rich West. Presumably we should have enough housing and food stockpiled, just in case the whole world decides to pop over for a visit. The BBC seems to be a shamefully ignorant organisation. The left-liberal bias they spin everything with, doesn't fully explain why this important subject was so badly handled. It was plain that most of these immigrants had a fantastic sense of entitlement and were genuinely confused as to why, in another country they cannot be handed free, vastly more than they could achieve at home. One said he had no choice but to leave Afghanistan, but that he had been so badly treated in Europe that he now just wanted to go back.  I thought he had 'no choice? It doesn't occur to these people that the West is more advanced than them not least because, many years ago and in a continuing pattern, Europeans fought for better conditions and opportunities in their own countries. Yet here we are faced with our soldiers fighting and dying for the freedom of Afghans and they neither assist to improve their lot, nor feel they should be burdened with that responsibility. In Africa it is the corruption and brutality of 'leaders', in Afghanistan and the like it is that they are stuck in the Middle Ages and Islam doesn't help, as it is the same.

So, was Newsnight a breath of fresh intellectual air. Nope, it was the usual left-liberal stuff and nonsense. Apparently, sunspot activity is decreasing and this means less energy will reach the Earth. So what of Global Warming? Well, at this point any suggestion that this was a reasoned view evaporated. The intention was to bolster the theology, not allow it to be mocked. Due to 'greenhouse gases' we may heat up more slowly but it will still be dangerous and of course, when the Sun is back up to strength we will be devastated. To back this up we dropped the plural (green house gases) and decided it was all due to carbon (meaning carbon dioxide) and us. The reason they drop to the singular is that of course, water vapour is by far the most active 'greenhouse gas'. Yes, clouds.

Further evidence was obtained from an expert who supports AGW, a member of the IPCC and an in-studio guest who was from Greenpeace. Very balanced. Just to show they know what they are talking about a mention was made of when sunspot activity was low previously; in the 1600's when we had 'frost fairs' on the Thames. They picked this of course because it was pre industrial revolution Britain. But the weather was severe in the 1800's with the Thames freezing repeatedly. Oh dear, can't mention that, stick to the Climatic Research Unit's tactics and hide anything that gives the game away. Mention was made, to secure the point that the AGW religionists are right, of the 'computer models'. These are the ones that cannot get next week's weather right but can be totally relied on to predict it 100 years in the future. No really, they are. Models that tell us to destroy our economy. Now where have I heard that before? Oh yes, the anarchists and dreamers who talk of destroying capitalism and living as one with nature.

They even started the much more dangerous talk of attempting to affect weather with mirrors, or pumping chemicals into the atmosphere. Man isn't currently doing enough to damage the climate but these loons want to. The level of threat they represent is ratcheting up. But do the BBC notice? Are they capable of so doing? Clearly, not.

Trusting Scientists

I find the recent bleating of scientists about how no-one trusts them any more, quite feeble. The poor luvs, they just do their best and people think they are lying, that they are not very good at their jobs. Bless. It is true that for quite some time, during an era of rapid technological achievement, we have come to view scientists as benign and wholly committed to their studies, to producing things that amaze us and move human civilisation forwards. Lovely people in fact. People who are only motivated by science.

Then we get Global Warming or Climate Change as they now prefer (can be used in any situation then). There is science in there but most of what affects us is driven by politics. Scientists have chosen a path and will not be diverted, so they lie about their 'science' and act hurt when someone challenges it. Is AGW a lie? Well, if a 'scientist' tells you that it is a 'settled matter' and must not be investigated further, you do not need to be a genius to know you are being sold a pup. Since when did science ever declare a subject as perfectly known and beyond further research? It is against the essence of science, yet it is the very position of the Royal Society.

And we should also remember what scientists did during WW2 in Germany, totally of their own free will. Scientists are not wholly wonderful people of unimpeachable character. And certainly when science and ideology are combined the child will be a monster.

Come Together

Where to start? So many things are happening at once. Let's start with the weather. Cold again with snow falling further North and predicted here soon. Then the EU and its self inflicted wounds. Here we have the crisis that they were waiting for and it isn't going according to plan as you see the EU has always used beneficial crises to grab more power. And this one is out of control. Instead of it making people beg the Eurocrats to unite Europe to save it (that is how their little fetishistic dreams go) the people are clamouring for less. Indeed the Daily Express is campaigning for us to leave. What a simply wonderful idea and so surprising that it needs a time of extreme events to make the most appropriate and apparent of decisions come to mind. Good. To quote the old fire safety slogan in another context, get out, stay out and get the Brigade out. Only in this case it means the Brigade of Guards not the fire brigade.

In another sphere the pathetic, Britain hating socialists seem on the wane with their useful idiots rioting on the streets and the politicians at each others throats because their cosy nest has been tipped up. They have undermined and ruined our education system, our healthcare, our police and Armed Services, with mindless rubbish that leaves them incapable and talking bollards.

Then of course the Climate lobby is falling apart as more and more people start to think about the subject, research it and realise, 'what a crock'. As the warmists have always said, it is just about money but despite their protests it is the lying climate change mob, led by the likes of the WWF and Al Gore who have seen financial gain in spinning this scam.

Also, there is a growing groundswell against the continued application of political correctness in our bureaucracies. There are more interventions in everyday life than ever before, more forms to fill in, more tax and tax investigation (well, of the little people. HMRC employ a boss specifically to ensure big boys don't have to pay. Except for little 'holidays' and such). The police can't deal with crime so enforce ridiculous petty defaults like speeding. That is not actually speeding and causing a danger, but speeding as in exceeding some arbitrary limit set for no particular reason. People are fed up with being let down by our 'services' and being patronised with self-serving, self-congratulatory letters, not answering our complaints but excusing their own behaviour. In short people have become fed up with the 'Me' generation of Tony Blair. This culture is the one where people don't help each other, where getting 'trashed' on a night out and assaulting others is 'acceptable', where we come to the point where everyone owes us respect but we don't have to give it to others. Clearly such an empty culture (as was all of New Labour) could never work and would inevitably self destruct.

As would, obviously, that lazy, corrupt and inept construct, the EU.

All we need now is some decent leadership and the other inevitability can be avoided. That is the one where, if the politicians carry on regardless, believing it to be their right, the decent people will rise up and remove their power.

Blowing People Up Isn't Funny

The hysterical levels that AGW Believers will go to, in support of their religion are amazing. They want to stop debate, fix the 'knowledge' and kill non-believers. There have been several references to killing people who will not convert but the Richard Curtis film tops the lot. Anyone against the theory that the planet is warming and that it is due solely to the output of carbon dioxide by Man should be blown up, he feels. And a very graphic little film by him shows how it should be done and very modern it is too. It should be done by remote control by true believers. Now, where have I seen that before?

If only there were some camps, with gas chambers. There certainly seem to be plenty of people with innately good hearts who would be prepared to run them.

This has to stop. The idiots that started all this and then couldn't get themselves off the teat of research funding when they found they were wrong, were bad enough. But now, in the inevitable way of these things businessmen and corrupt politicians who facilitate them have got in on the act and invented 'carbon trading', a giant financial scam that requires the lies to go on.

When Galileo made a discovery by understanding his observations, he was held as a heretic by the Church, all powerful as it was and responsible then as 'scientists' are now, for explaining the world to common people. But the Church knew what he was saying was true; they just needed a way to introduce it without upsetting Papal Infallibility. There are many crimes in this world, but undermining a ruling elite is one that cannot be countenanced. As it was then, so it is today. Being right and being able to prove it doesn't sway the Believers and only what the elites permit will become 'mainstream'.