I do like Boris Johnson believe it or not - but he does talk the most absurd crap at times. Perhaps one of the most annoying things about him is that he has a regular spot in The Telegraph which he could use to put across proper conservative ideas, but instead chooses to talk the most inane drivel. Today's is about his appearance on Top Gear - with a plug for electric cars thrown in.
As they have discovered on Top Gear, electric cars are not just glorified milkfloats these days. There is already something out there called the Tesla, which can apparently do 125mph and go for 250 miles without needing to have its batteries recharged.
Yeah? Then what? Let's say you're on a trip from London to Aviemore to enjoy a little Scottish skiing - which is about to undergo a renaissance with the coming cold spell of the next few years. It's roughly 600 miles or so, give or take. That means it's going to take you three days to reach your destination - sure, it only costs you a tenner in fuel costs, but the £150 in hotel bills plus food more than compensates for that.
The internal combustion engine is not king because it is the only choice. It is king because, right now, it is the only sensible choice. Until there is an electric car which can travel 250 miles (at least) and recharge in 10 minutes then no one is going to switch to them. That technology - even if it becomes available - is still a long way off.
Add on the fact that the batteries themselves (the lithium-ion ones) currently cost around £4000 and only last for around five years and that kind of puts a damper on the whole thing. Imagine the depreciation on a £20,000 electric car? Who is going to buy a three year old electric car knowing they'll have to shell out another £4000 inside two years? And that's assuming average motoring! Do a lot of mileage and your electric dream machine will be so much scrap in two years!
Electric cars haven't caught on because they are completely impractical outside of the city - and as most cities have pretty decent public transport systems (or should have, Boris!) they haven't really caught on in cities either.
You buy your electric buggy, Boris - I'll stick to my internal combustion engine and I'll meet you in Aviemore for some skiing. I'll give you a days start and will still be on the slopes long before you!
Showing posts with label AGW. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AGW. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
Secret report reveals CO2 is NOT the major cause of global warming
Actually, it's not in the least bit secret, but you wouldn't know that from the MSM who have categorically failed once more to report on a study which contradicts the IPCC approved narrative.
The paper suggests that, although there is a small underlying trend of warming connected to CO2 (which we are all aware of anyway otherwise this planet would be a freezing hell hole), the conclusion is that most of the warming is not from CO2. They even go as far as to say ....
These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: "[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
In other words, the IPCC is wrong, CO2 is not the driver of climate, the majority of the increase is natural and there really isn't any need to cut our economic throat by clamping down on CO2 emissions.
Of course, this one study is no more conclusive proof than anything else, but it amazes me that what should be considered as essentially a good news story is given absolutely no coverage. Why is it that the very real probability of climate change being almost entirely natural and, therefore, the need to spend trillions of dollars mitigating it unnecessary being ignored?
You'd have thought - what with the ballooning credit crisis - that governments all over the world would be dancing with joy at the news, but it seems that they are not. Why would that be?
The paper suggests that, although there is a small underlying trend of warming connected to CO2 (which we are all aware of anyway otherwise this planet would be a freezing hell hole), the conclusion is that most of the warming is not from CO2. They even go as far as to say ....
These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: "[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
In other words, the IPCC is wrong, CO2 is not the driver of climate, the majority of the increase is natural and there really isn't any need to cut our economic throat by clamping down on CO2 emissions.
Of course, this one study is no more conclusive proof than anything else, but it amazes me that what should be considered as essentially a good news story is given absolutely no coverage. Why is it that the very real probability of climate change being almost entirely natural and, therefore, the need to spend trillions of dollars mitigating it unnecessary being ignored?
You'd have thought - what with the ballooning credit crisis - that governments all over the world would be dancing with joy at the news, but it seems that they are not. Why would that be?
Friday, November 07, 2008
Fall of the Gore Dynasty
Physorg.com has a neat little reference to a paper from the National Science Foundation about Chinese dynasties and Asian monsoons. Unfortunately for global warming alarmists it includes a graphic which doesn't fit the narrative.
Check out those Northern Hemisphere temperatures! And how they correlate with the fall of dynasties - Yuan, Ming - who's next?
Monday, November 03, 2008
The (Little) Ice Age Cometh
As I'm sure you are all well aware by now, I'm not convinced that relatively small increases in an essential trace gas caused by mans activity on this earth are responsible for making the planet warmer. Actually, I find it completely and utterly implausible. What is more, despite many claims by warmists to the contrary, there is no evidence whatsoever that warming is caused by mans activities. None at all.
The only "evidence" they have comes from computer models and, as most of us realise, the general rule of computers is garbage in, garbage out. Other evidence they point to, such as the melting Arctic icepack and retreating glaciers, is not proven to be man-made. The Arctic icepack and the glaciers have melted and retreated many times in the past all through entirely natural causes.
What we are seeing from the alarmists is an inversion of the "null hypothesis" - the belief that what is happening is normal unless proven otherwise. Instead the alarmists are declaring that everything is caused by man unless proven otherwise - a complete reversal of the usual scientific methodology. Thus the retreating glaciers are "evidence" of man-made climate change even though they have retreated many times in the past through natural causes.
The simple fact is that there isn't any real world evidence, anywhere that the warming of the last 30 years has been caused by man - or even that it is set to continue. If anything, the evidence increasingly points to natural causes and suggests that the warming of the last century is over and we are now entering another, natural, cycle of cooling. Even the alarmists are starting to accept that this is the case - although they claim it is merely a brief pause in the unstoppable global warming caused by man.
I don't believe it is. I believe we are entering a period of cooling that will see the return of freezing winters to Britain similar to those endured during the Little Ice Age - the very period of intense cold the emergence from which is the reason for the warming of the last century (and wholly beneficial it was too!).
I don't think we can stop this period of colder climate arriving, nor do I think it makes sense to even try - any more than it makes sense to try and stop the warming which, in my opinion, was entirely natural. What I do believe we should do is ensure that Britain has sufficient, efficient, affordable and reliable power supply to get us through a new Little Ice Age.
The first October snowfalls in London for more than seventy years is the final warning we are going to get from the weather. It was a mercifully brief cold spell, but it is, I believe, a precursor of what is to come this winter. And with prolonged cold spells will come a demand for power which will place such strains on our energy supply system that a collapse is inevitable.
Our government is unprepared for this. Worse still, even as the climate cools and our energy industry lies on the brink of collapse our government are looking to introduce a bill that would not only leave our economy in ruins, but would ensure that thousands of people will die needlessly from the cold.
The sole MP who tried to raise the matter of the cost of the Bill - which could run to trillions of pounds if all its measures were implemented - was Mr Lilley. He was ruled out of order by the Speaker.
Remember that this winter, when the lights are out again, there is no heating and no power to cook a hot meal. Remember what it is that our elected representatives are doing.
The state of many of our power stations is already so parlous that, if this winter continues as cold as it has begun, we can expect major power cuts within months.
We're not even in winter yet - this is still the autumn; many of the trees still have leaves on them, but Scotland is enjoying an early start to its ski season with the prospect of a "bumper" year for Scottish winter sports. That may be good news for Scottish ski resorts, but it is not good news for the rest of us - especially the old and infirm.
Get yourself a good winter coat, plenty of warm socks and stock up on tins of food that you can warm up on a Calor gas ring - you're going to need them.
The only "evidence" they have comes from computer models and, as most of us realise, the general rule of computers is garbage in, garbage out. Other evidence they point to, such as the melting Arctic icepack and retreating glaciers, is not proven to be man-made. The Arctic icepack and the glaciers have melted and retreated many times in the past all through entirely natural causes.
What we are seeing from the alarmists is an inversion of the "null hypothesis" - the belief that what is happening is normal unless proven otherwise. Instead the alarmists are declaring that everything is caused by man unless proven otherwise - a complete reversal of the usual scientific methodology. Thus the retreating glaciers are "evidence" of man-made climate change even though they have retreated many times in the past through natural causes.
The simple fact is that there isn't any real world evidence, anywhere that the warming of the last 30 years has been caused by man - or even that it is set to continue. If anything, the evidence increasingly points to natural causes and suggests that the warming of the last century is over and we are now entering another, natural, cycle of cooling. Even the alarmists are starting to accept that this is the case - although they claim it is merely a brief pause in the unstoppable global warming caused by man.
I don't believe it is. I believe we are entering a period of cooling that will see the return of freezing winters to Britain similar to those endured during the Little Ice Age - the very period of intense cold the emergence from which is the reason for the warming of the last century (and wholly beneficial it was too!).
I don't think we can stop this period of colder climate arriving, nor do I think it makes sense to even try - any more than it makes sense to try and stop the warming which, in my opinion, was entirely natural. What I do believe we should do is ensure that Britain has sufficient, efficient, affordable and reliable power supply to get us through a new Little Ice Age.
The first October snowfalls in London for more than seventy years is the final warning we are going to get from the weather. It was a mercifully brief cold spell, but it is, I believe, a precursor of what is to come this winter. And with prolonged cold spells will come a demand for power which will place such strains on our energy supply system that a collapse is inevitable.
Our government is unprepared for this. Worse still, even as the climate cools and our energy industry lies on the brink of collapse our government are looking to introduce a bill that would not only leave our economy in ruins, but would ensure that thousands of people will die needlessly from the cold.
The sole MP who tried to raise the matter of the cost of the Bill - which could run to trillions of pounds if all its measures were implemented - was Mr Lilley. He was ruled out of order by the Speaker.
Remember that this winter, when the lights are out again, there is no heating and no power to cook a hot meal. Remember what it is that our elected representatives are doing.
The state of many of our power stations is already so parlous that, if this winter continues as cold as it has begun, we can expect major power cuts within months.
We're not even in winter yet - this is still the autumn; many of the trees still have leaves on them, but Scotland is enjoying an early start to its ski season with the prospect of a "bumper" year for Scottish winter sports. That may be good news for Scottish ski resorts, but it is not good news for the rest of us - especially the old and infirm.
Get yourself a good winter coat, plenty of warm socks and stock up on tins of food that you can warm up on a Calor gas ring - you're going to need them.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
EF-OF
How does one start up a "think tank"? It seems as if virtually anyone can set themselves up as one and then publish their opinions - and the really weird thing is that respected newspapers will publish the output of such think tanks as newsworthy.
Forum for the Future, a research body committed to sustainable development, said they wanted to stir debate about how to avert the worst effects of global warming by presenting a radical set of 'possible futures'.
Which included such things as the population of the Antarctic increasing to 3.5 million by 2040. Are they aware that the Antarctic is getting colder and snowier? Do they really think that millions of Aussies are going to abandon the delights of Sydney for a frozen wilderness?
Australia and Oklahoma will be abandoned because of water shortages and athletes will stay at home in the world's first virtual Olympics, competing against each other in virtual space with billions of spectators.
Honestly, why does anyone take this garbage seriously? However, if they can do it so can I. So I am announcing the inauguration of a brand new think tank principally aimed at considering England's future. It will be a completely online think tank so the name I have chosen for this new research body is England's Future - Online Forum - to be known as EF-OF.
To get the ball rolling EF-OF have produced the following report into climate change and its effects on England
If our climate continues to change the way it has been for the last couple of years some people are going to look very very silly indeed. EF-OF believe that it is going to get colder. Thousands of immigrants will leave the country as they head off back to warmer climes and more reliable power supply in nations such as Zimbabwe, Somalia and Sudan.
England will introduce a system whereby using too much power will result in appliances shutting down automatically. This system will be known as "power cuts" and will kick-in without warning and at the most inconvenient time - i.e. just when people actually need power.
This will have significant economic benefits as the onset of severe cold coupled with shortage of power will result in the deaths of millions of elderly and vulnerable people thereby saving the nation billions in pension and health care costs. This will be necessary, of course, as the lack of power will mean there will be virtually no economy worth talking about. What there is will be working three day weeks and spending what little money they have on life's little luxuries - like food.
If you want to know the future - EF-OF.
Forum for the Future, a research body committed to sustainable development, said they wanted to stir debate about how to avert the worst effects of global warming by presenting a radical set of 'possible futures'.
Which included such things as the population of the Antarctic increasing to 3.5 million by 2040. Are they aware that the Antarctic is getting colder and snowier? Do they really think that millions of Aussies are going to abandon the delights of Sydney for a frozen wilderness?
Australia and Oklahoma will be abandoned because of water shortages and athletes will stay at home in the world's first virtual Olympics, competing against each other in virtual space with billions of spectators.
Honestly, why does anyone take this garbage seriously? However, if they can do it so can I. So I am announcing the inauguration of a brand new think tank principally aimed at considering England's future. It will be a completely online think tank so the name I have chosen for this new research body is England's Future - Online Forum - to be known as EF-OF.
To get the ball rolling EF-OF have produced the following report into climate change and its effects on England
If our climate continues to change the way it has been for the last couple of years some people are going to look very very silly indeed. EF-OF believe that it is going to get colder. Thousands of immigrants will leave the country as they head off back to warmer climes and more reliable power supply in nations such as Zimbabwe, Somalia and Sudan.
England will introduce a system whereby using too much power will result in appliances shutting down automatically. This system will be known as "power cuts" and will kick-in without warning and at the most inconvenient time - i.e. just when people actually need power.
This will have significant economic benefits as the onset of severe cold coupled with shortage of power will result in the deaths of millions of elderly and vulnerable people thereby saving the nation billions in pension and health care costs. This will be necessary, of course, as the lack of power will mean there will be virtually no economy worth talking about. What there is will be working three day weeks and spending what little money they have on life's little luxuries - like food.
If you want to know the future - EF-OF.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Economic suicide
The Grauniad has an editorial which must rate as one of the most ridiculous even in a newspaper that excels in a long history of ridiculous editorials.
Yesterday's interim advice from the committee on climate change was short and strong: by 2050 Britain must reduce greenhouse gas emissions to below 80% of 1990 levels, rather than the 60% cut now proposed in the climate change bill. This tougher target, the report says, must be written into the bill before it becomes law.
It's well known that committees - much like CO2 with global warming - lag behind the event they are supposed to influence. The difference is that with CO2 the lag is several hundred years, but with committees it is much much longer. Nevertheless, the poseurs at the Guardian love it.
This excellent report is the first fruit of Britain's forthcoming climate change law. It comes from a committee proposed in the bill and set up at the start of the year, chaired by Lord Turner.
I mean, what sort of lunatic thinks we should have a law about "climate change"? We don't even know how or why climate changes - only that it does change all the time quite naturally.
We also know that our climate is influenced on a cosmic scale - by massive objects such as the Sun and major planets as well as the movement of our solar system around the galaxy - and they think we need a law to sort that out? It's as preposterous as proposing a "gravity" law, but I expect the Gruaniad would favour that as well if they thought they could wring yet more taxes out of the hard pressed public.
But if you thought that was bad enough - get a load of this from the Guardian editorial writers on planet la-la-land.
[C]limate change is now in the hands of three able politicians who do not want the issue to become a backwater: Mr Miliband, the Tories' Greg Clark and the Lib Dems' Steve Webb.
Yippee! We're all saved.
Who are they kidding? These are three professional politicians who have no real idea what life is like in the real world they are proposing to save. Add the fact that anyone who thinks that anything Britain does will make the slightest bit of difference to "climate change" is clearly not playing with a full deck and you have some notion of just how divorced the Grauniad is from reality.
The reality is that the proposal suggested by Lord Turner is akin to economic suicide. Lord Turner is a professional bureaucrat - a self-confessed "technocrat" - who not only chairs the committee on climate change, but is also involved in the FSA and was wearing that hat when he was advising the government yesterday about the economic crisis.
Judging by what he has proposed in his climate change report, Turner has looked at Britain's economic body as the life blood pours from the self-inflicted wounds on its wrists and his only suggestion is to slit the throat as well.
Yesterday's interim advice from the committee on climate change was short and strong: by 2050 Britain must reduce greenhouse gas emissions to below 80% of 1990 levels, rather than the 60% cut now proposed in the climate change bill. This tougher target, the report says, must be written into the bill before it becomes law.
It's well known that committees - much like CO2 with global warming - lag behind the event they are supposed to influence. The difference is that with CO2 the lag is several hundred years, but with committees it is much much longer. Nevertheless, the poseurs at the Guardian love it.
This excellent report is the first fruit of Britain's forthcoming climate change law. It comes from a committee proposed in the bill and set up at the start of the year, chaired by Lord Turner.
I mean, what sort of lunatic thinks we should have a law about "climate change"? We don't even know how or why climate changes - only that it does change all the time quite naturally.
We also know that our climate is influenced on a cosmic scale - by massive objects such as the Sun and major planets as well as the movement of our solar system around the galaxy - and they think we need a law to sort that out? It's as preposterous as proposing a "gravity" law, but I expect the Gruaniad would favour that as well if they thought they could wring yet more taxes out of the hard pressed public.
But if you thought that was bad enough - get a load of this from the Guardian editorial writers on planet la-la-land.
[C]limate change is now in the hands of three able politicians who do not want the issue to become a backwater: Mr Miliband, the Tories' Greg Clark and the Lib Dems' Steve Webb.
Yippee! We're all saved.
Who are they kidding? These are three professional politicians who have no real idea what life is like in the real world they are proposing to save. Add the fact that anyone who thinks that anything Britain does will make the slightest bit of difference to "climate change" is clearly not playing with a full deck and you have some notion of just how divorced the Grauniad is from reality.
The reality is that the proposal suggested by Lord Turner is akin to economic suicide. Lord Turner is a professional bureaucrat - a self-confessed "technocrat" - who not only chairs the committee on climate change, but is also involved in the FSA and was wearing that hat when he was advising the government yesterday about the economic crisis.
Judging by what he has proposed in his climate change report, Turner has looked at Britain's economic body as the life blood pours from the self-inflicted wounds on its wrists and his only suggestion is to slit the throat as well.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
I'm dreading of a white Christmas
For many people still clinging to the unproven and, frankly, unlikely hypothesis that man's CO2 emissions are causing the planet to warm up, our near neighbour in the solar system, Mars, has been an unwelcome supporter of the "warming is entirely natural" hypothesis.
You see, Mars, despite the absence of the man and his killer SUV, has been warming at exactly the same time in the same way as the earth. But the earth now appears to have entered a different phase and may indeed by cooling now - and many AGW supporters cling to the belief that this is just natural cooling masking the unnatural warming. Seriously - where do these people come from?
Unfortunately for the Canutists, it appears that Mars might also be cooling.
Nasa's Phoenix Mars Lander has found evidence suggesting there was once water at its polar landing site on Mars and detected snow falling from Martian clouds for the first time.
The fact that Earth and Mars appear to be going through warming and cooling phases at the same time should tell anyone with an ounce of common sense that AGW is not the driver here. The most likely culprit, given that warming and cooling seems to effect various planets in the solar system at roughly the same time, has got to be the sun - and the sun, rather annoyingly for AGW supporters, has been very quiet for the last year - and this appears to coincide with several parts of the planet going through very cold spells over the last year.
Few sunspots, little solar wind, a weakening magnetic field - all elements that correlate pretty well with various cold spells in the Earth's history. The last time the sun was this quiet was during the Little Ice Age when the Thames would regularly freeze over in winter - and, of course, it is the recovery from that Little Ice Age which has led to the warming over the last 100 years or so. A warming that is entirely within normal ranges and entirely attributable to natural causes.
Will the deceivers admit they were wrong? Will they admit the damage they have caused? Will we see the various raving Environazis writing their apologies in the Guardian? I doubt it - they will never admit they were wrong. Even if a new Little Ice Age does return they'll just say it "proves" global warming. It's a perverse inversion of the null hypothesis - instead of assuming that all climate changes are natural unless proven otherwise, the Canutists assert that all climate variation is man-made unless proven otherwise.
But their deception is unravelling before our eyes. The AGW scam is all but over. In the not too distant future we will be looking out across bleak winter landscapes and wondering why anyone thought warming was a bad thing - especially when our lack of reliable power generation becomes apparent and people are dying in droves as a result. Governments should be aware that they are going to be held to account for allowing us to be misled so completely.
This is going to lead to something of a revolution in politics. The people will see the way politicians have used this AGW scam to deceive them and to impose punitive measures on their lifestyles while utterly failing to perform the first duties of government. None of the old parties will survive this - they have all jumped into the same canoe, paddled up the same creek and chucked away their oars.
In ten years time Britain will be a very different place. Both the political and natural climate are a changing and it ain't gonna be pretty.
You see, Mars, despite the absence of the man and his killer SUV, has been warming at exactly the same time in the same way as the earth. But the earth now appears to have entered a different phase and may indeed by cooling now - and many AGW supporters cling to the belief that this is just natural cooling masking the unnatural warming. Seriously - where do these people come from?
Unfortunately for the Canutists, it appears that Mars might also be cooling.
Nasa's Phoenix Mars Lander has found evidence suggesting there was once water at its polar landing site on Mars and detected snow falling from Martian clouds for the first time.
The fact that Earth and Mars appear to be going through warming and cooling phases at the same time should tell anyone with an ounce of common sense that AGW is not the driver here. The most likely culprit, given that warming and cooling seems to effect various planets in the solar system at roughly the same time, has got to be the sun - and the sun, rather annoyingly for AGW supporters, has been very quiet for the last year - and this appears to coincide with several parts of the planet going through very cold spells over the last year.
Few sunspots, little solar wind, a weakening magnetic field - all elements that correlate pretty well with various cold spells in the Earth's history. The last time the sun was this quiet was during the Little Ice Age when the Thames would regularly freeze over in winter - and, of course, it is the recovery from that Little Ice Age which has led to the warming over the last 100 years or so. A warming that is entirely within normal ranges and entirely attributable to natural causes.
Will the deceivers admit they were wrong? Will they admit the damage they have caused? Will we see the various raving Environazis writing their apologies in the Guardian? I doubt it - they will never admit they were wrong. Even if a new Little Ice Age does return they'll just say it "proves" global warming. It's a perverse inversion of the null hypothesis - instead of assuming that all climate changes are natural unless proven otherwise, the Canutists assert that all climate variation is man-made unless proven otherwise.
But their deception is unravelling before our eyes. The AGW scam is all but over. In the not too distant future we will be looking out across bleak winter landscapes and wondering why anyone thought warming was a bad thing - especially when our lack of reliable power generation becomes apparent and people are dying in droves as a result. Governments should be aware that they are going to be held to account for allowing us to be misled so completely.
This is going to lead to something of a revolution in politics. The people will see the way politicians have used this AGW scam to deceive them and to impose punitive measures on their lifestyles while utterly failing to perform the first duties of government. None of the old parties will survive this - they have all jumped into the same canoe, paddled up the same creek and chucked away their oars.
In ten years time Britain will be a very different place. Both the political and natural climate are a changing and it ain't gonna be pretty.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Forget the planet - it's Britain we need to worry about
I'm really sick and tired of hearing our politicians bleat on about how we have to do more to save the planet. Even if you buy into the crap about CO2 heating up the world (which I most certainly do not) - the belief that cutting Britain's economic throat by reducing our comparatively measly emissions would make any difference is clearly ludicrous.
Equally ridiculous is the idea that we should lead by example - as if whatever we do will have the slightest influence on the actions of the Chinese, Indian, Russian or US governments. It won't - except for them to take advantage of our economic suicide still further.
What makes it worse is that the planet, far from being sick and in need of our help, is doing pretty damn well thank you very much - it's the nation of Britain that is going to hell in a handcart.
What we need are politicians who will stop pandering to the environmental lobby and who are prepared to put this nation and its people above the unfounded and, frankly, preposterous concerns of the Environazis. We need to listen less to the deranged moonbats who pontificate about global warming in the pages of the Guardian and Independent and listen more to REAL conservationists who are rightly concerned about the desecration of OUR environment by wind farms, urban sprawl and industrial scale agriculture.
We need politicians who worry less about the polar bears in the Arctic and are more concerned about foreign fishing vessels rampaging through our fishing waters ravaging our fish stocks at the expense of our fishing industry.
Our politicians care less and less about doing what is right for this country and more about grandstanding on various global "issues". While they jostle to make names for themselves on the world stage the nation they are supposed to represent is falling apart. There is not a single politician in any of the three main parties who is prepared to stand up and say "I will put Britain first above all".
They are all a bunch of shameful poseurs.
Equally ridiculous is the idea that we should lead by example - as if whatever we do will have the slightest influence on the actions of the Chinese, Indian, Russian or US governments. It won't - except for them to take advantage of our economic suicide still further.
What makes it worse is that the planet, far from being sick and in need of our help, is doing pretty damn well thank you very much - it's the nation of Britain that is going to hell in a handcart.
What we need are politicians who will stop pandering to the environmental lobby and who are prepared to put this nation and its people above the unfounded and, frankly, preposterous concerns of the Environazis. We need to listen less to the deranged moonbats who pontificate about global warming in the pages of the Guardian and Independent and listen more to REAL conservationists who are rightly concerned about the desecration of OUR environment by wind farms, urban sprawl and industrial scale agriculture.
We need politicians who worry less about the polar bears in the Arctic and are more concerned about foreign fishing vessels rampaging through our fishing waters ravaging our fish stocks at the expense of our fishing industry.
Our politicians care less and less about doing what is right for this country and more about grandstanding on various global "issues". While they jostle to make names for themselves on the world stage the nation they are supposed to represent is falling apart. There is not a single politician in any of the three main parties who is prepared to stand up and say "I will put Britain first above all".
They are all a bunch of shameful poseurs.
Friday, August 29, 2008
The Stan theory on obesity
We keep hearing about the "obesity timebomb" - a rather tired phrase relating to the fact that people seem to be getting fatter these days and we've all seen dozens of suggestions as to why people are eating more, but there is one that seems to have been overlooked.
The relative warm climate we've enjoyed over the last 20 years or so.
No, I've not been converted to AGW - I still think the warming was entirely natural - but equally natural is for animals to take advantage of times of plenty and mild weather to feed and put on extra layers of fat in preparation for when it gets cold and food is harder to come by.
I think people are getting fatter for the simple reason that we still have our animal instincts - buried deep within us - and for many people that instinct is telling them that there is a period of intensely cold weather and severe shortages ahead. So they have been eating more, storing fat and adding layers to prepare themselves for that cold spell and period of scarce food.
Many scientists have been warning that the sun is heading into a "cool" phase and this may lead to mini-ice age conditions lasting for up to 50 years - a scenario which may see Britain enduring conditions similar to Dickensian times when the Thames regularly froze over.
Should these scientists be proved correct the fatties may yet have the last laugh on the preachy fatists.
The relative warm climate we've enjoyed over the last 20 years or so.
No, I've not been converted to AGW - I still think the warming was entirely natural - but equally natural is for animals to take advantage of times of plenty and mild weather to feed and put on extra layers of fat in preparation for when it gets cold and food is harder to come by.
I think people are getting fatter for the simple reason that we still have our animal instincts - buried deep within us - and for many people that instinct is telling them that there is a period of intensely cold weather and severe shortages ahead. So they have been eating more, storing fat and adding layers to prepare themselves for that cold spell and period of scarce food.
Many scientists have been warning that the sun is heading into a "cool" phase and this may lead to mini-ice age conditions lasting for up to 50 years - a scenario which may see Britain enduring conditions similar to Dickensian times when the Thames regularly froze over.
Should these scientists be proved correct the fatties may yet have the last laugh on the preachy fatists.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Crisis? What crisis?
I don't know what it's like round your way, but many of the trees around here are already turning colour and losing their leaves. Given the rather dull and dreary summer we've had I'm not entirely surprised, but I was wondering if this is a sign of something - perhaps a cold winter to come?
Maybe there is some old country saying - similar to the red sky at night - that could tell me, but I can't be bothered to look. What I am bothered about, however, is the blase reaction of the government to what is, by all accounts, a crisis in our energy supply.
The era of cheap energy is over, a senior cabinet minister warns.
John Hutton, the Business Secretary, admits households will struggle to pay their heating bills this winter due to rising costs.
I don't know what planet Mr Hutton lives on, but for most of us the "era" of cheap energy ended some time ago as we've been struggling with rising fuel bills for some time. I guess living in expensive, tax payer funded opulence insulates our ministers from the reality of having to pay bills.
Hutton has ruled out imposing a windfall tax - a stupid idea as all that would happen is that the energy companies would recoup that loss through customers in some way - but offers no solution to our impending crisis. And that is exactly what it will be for thousands of people who will have to balance the budget choosing between ever increasing food bills and rapidly spiralling fuel costs.
To be fair to Mr Hutton, he is saying some of the right things as he refers to "energy independence" - something which can not be achieved by switching to nuclear in the medium term as this is something which we lack skills in and is therefore dependent on foreign (French) resource. We lack the skills because of the ridiculously short sighted further education policies which place media studies degrees as highly nuclear physics - this is a problem that will come back to haunt us in the future in other ways, but not one I wish to dwell on here.
Hutton also makes the right noises about Britain's most plentiful and cheap energy resource - coal.
[W]e cannot turn our back on any proven form of technology. We cannot afford to say no to new coal, new gas or new nuclear.
Coal is key in my opinion. We need to dig more of it and build more coal fired power stations as a matter of urgency and it is the government's responsibility to ensure that happens, but this government - and any future Tory government - are hamstrung by their belief in man-made climate change and the fear of ruining their environmental credentials.
Meanwhile, the (unofficial) predictions for the winter of 2008/2009 is that it will be a cold and harsh winter. Should this be true then millions will struggle to pay their bills and thousands of vulnerable - mostly the elderly - will die as a result of a severe winter. This could all happen within a few months. That is what I would call a crisis.
Maybe there is some old country saying - similar to the red sky at night - that could tell me, but I can't be bothered to look. What I am bothered about, however, is the blase reaction of the government to what is, by all accounts, a crisis in our energy supply.
The era of cheap energy is over, a senior cabinet minister warns.
John Hutton, the Business Secretary, admits households will struggle to pay their heating bills this winter due to rising costs.
I don't know what planet Mr Hutton lives on, but for most of us the "era" of cheap energy ended some time ago as we've been struggling with rising fuel bills for some time. I guess living in expensive, tax payer funded opulence insulates our ministers from the reality of having to pay bills.
Hutton has ruled out imposing a windfall tax - a stupid idea as all that would happen is that the energy companies would recoup that loss through customers in some way - but offers no solution to our impending crisis. And that is exactly what it will be for thousands of people who will have to balance the budget choosing between ever increasing food bills and rapidly spiralling fuel costs.
To be fair to Mr Hutton, he is saying some of the right things as he refers to "energy independence" - something which can not be achieved by switching to nuclear in the medium term as this is something which we lack skills in and is therefore dependent on foreign (French) resource. We lack the skills because of the ridiculously short sighted further education policies which place media studies degrees as highly nuclear physics - this is a problem that will come back to haunt us in the future in other ways, but not one I wish to dwell on here.
Hutton also makes the right noises about Britain's most plentiful and cheap energy resource - coal.
[W]e cannot turn our back on any proven form of technology. We cannot afford to say no to new coal, new gas or new nuclear.
Coal is key in my opinion. We need to dig more of it and build more coal fired power stations as a matter of urgency and it is the government's responsibility to ensure that happens, but this government - and any future Tory government - are hamstrung by their belief in man-made climate change and the fear of ruining their environmental credentials.
Meanwhile, the (unofficial) predictions for the winter of 2008/2009 is that it will be a cold and harsh winter. Should this be true then millions will struggle to pay their bills and thousands of vulnerable - mostly the elderly - will die as a result of a severe winter. This could all happen within a few months. That is what I would call a crisis.
Friday, August 01, 2008
More money than sense
I'm not much of an investor - i.e. I don't have much in the way of stocks and shares other than what my pension provides. I tend to put any spare cash I have into savings accounts, but there are plenty of people who like the idea of buying shares to get a higher return on their investment. Horses for courses, as they say.
The question is, what sort of return does the investment give you and over what time scale. I know, for example, if I put a £100 into a savings account offering a 5% interest rate per annum that one year later I'll have £105 in that account. I see a visible return on my investment and that justifies it one way or the other.
Suppose you were offered an investment that promised high returns. The seller showed you various projections that suggested if you invested in this scheme you'd see big returns on your money. Would you go for it? Personally, I'd want to see more evidence than just some projections, but there are plenty of people who would be swayed by that.
Suppose then that you had invested in this great scheme and ploughed £50,000 of your money into it starting in 1990. What would you expect to see 10 years later? £100,000? £200,000? Maybe something more modest?
One thing is certain, you'd expect to see something more than the £50,000 you put in. So, suppose after 10 years of investing in this scheme the seller tells you that your return is actually zero - not only have you got nothing back, but your money is all gone. However, if you put another £50,000 in to the investment scheme then the projections suggest you'll see an even bigger return on your investment than the first projection did.
What would you do?
Suppose then, that that £50,000 was actually $50 billion and after 18 years of investment your $50 billion had returned absolutely nothing. What would you think of that?
That is how much has been spent on trying to prove that mans emissions of CO2 are warming the planet and after 18 years and $50 billion of research specifically geared to prove that is the case the actual evidence of it is nothing - zilch, zero, diddly squat. All that they can come up with as "proof" is yet more projections.
There is no evidence - none - that mans emissions of CO2 are causing significant warming of the planet. We've known for 5 years that, in reality, it is the other way around - i.e. warming increases CO2 and the evidence of that is real, tangible evidence - not some pie in the sky computer simulation, but hard empirical evidence from the same ice cores that were once used to propagate the AGW myth.
As David Evans - a former alarmist - points out, there are four things that have happened since 1998 which put paid to this theory that man-made CO2 causes runaway global warming.
First, the new ice cores shows that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says that the carbon rises could not have either started or ended the temperature rises, and that there are more powerful forces on global temperatures than atmospheric carbon levels.
It was the apparent correlation between the atmospheric temperature and CO2 which alerted us to the possibility that increasing CO2 increases temperature, but correlation does not imply causation. Now, with better analysis, we are able to obtain that, in fact, the temperature rose significantly before CO2 did.
Second, there is now no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed), but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
It is the evidence that the planet has warmed which the AGW crowd have used as proof that man-made CO2 has caused it, but evidence of the planet warming is not evidence that CO2 caused the warming. Indeed, the planet has been warming pretty much steadily since emerging from the Little Ice Age and there is no doubt that humankind has been a significant beneficiary of the warming.
Third, the satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, that 1998 was the warmest recent year, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the last year (to the temperature of 1980).
This is contrary to what the IPCC and their models predicted would happen. It was not projected by any model that there would be any cooling whatsoever - only that temperature would continue to rise steadily in line with CO2 emissions. The models are the only "evidence" the AGW crowd have to support their theory - and they have been proven to be wrong.
Fourth, we looked for the greenhouse signature and could not find it. Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the atmosphere the warming occurs first. The signature of increased greenhouse warming is a hotspot 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. The hotspot is central to our understanding - if there is no hotspot then either there is no significant increased greenhouse warming, or we don't understand greenhouse and all our climate models are rubbish anyway.
The hotspot doesn't exist. This "signature" is like the fingerprint of the culprit on the smoking gun. We were supposed to find mans fingerprints all over it - but we didn't. Instead we found someone (something) else's, but rather than then look for the real culprit the alarmists have insisted that the fingerprints don't matter and that man must have worn gloves.
If this were a murder trial the case would have been dismissed years ago. The prosecution have produced the flimsiest of evidence and the defence have rebutted every assertion repeatedly. Man did not do it - something else must have.
And it has cost us $50 billion to get to this point. So what should we do? Do we continue to pour good money after bad in the hope that something might actually be found even after 18 years and $50 billion has so far turned nothing? Or do we stop believing these people who promise that if you'll just give them more money and more time you'll get a result?
Me - I'm sticking with my savings accounts.
The question is, what sort of return does the investment give you and over what time scale. I know, for example, if I put a £100 into a savings account offering a 5% interest rate per annum that one year later I'll have £105 in that account. I see a visible return on my investment and that justifies it one way or the other.
Suppose you were offered an investment that promised high returns. The seller showed you various projections that suggested if you invested in this scheme you'd see big returns on your money. Would you go for it? Personally, I'd want to see more evidence than just some projections, but there are plenty of people who would be swayed by that.
Suppose then that you had invested in this great scheme and ploughed £50,000 of your money into it starting in 1990. What would you expect to see 10 years later? £100,000? £200,000? Maybe something more modest?
One thing is certain, you'd expect to see something more than the £50,000 you put in. So, suppose after 10 years of investing in this scheme the seller tells you that your return is actually zero - not only have you got nothing back, but your money is all gone. However, if you put another £50,000 in to the investment scheme then the projections suggest you'll see an even bigger return on your investment than the first projection did.
What would you do?
Suppose then, that that £50,000 was actually $50 billion and after 18 years of investment your $50 billion had returned absolutely nothing. What would you think of that?
That is how much has been spent on trying to prove that mans emissions of CO2 are warming the planet and after 18 years and $50 billion of research specifically geared to prove that is the case the actual evidence of it is nothing - zilch, zero, diddly squat. All that they can come up with as "proof" is yet more projections.
There is no evidence - none - that mans emissions of CO2 are causing significant warming of the planet. We've known for 5 years that, in reality, it is the other way around - i.e. warming increases CO2 and the evidence of that is real, tangible evidence - not some pie in the sky computer simulation, but hard empirical evidence from the same ice cores that were once used to propagate the AGW myth.
As David Evans - a former alarmist - points out, there are four things that have happened since 1998 which put paid to this theory that man-made CO2 causes runaway global warming.
First, the new ice cores shows that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says that the carbon rises could not have either started or ended the temperature rises, and that there are more powerful forces on global temperatures than atmospheric carbon levels.
It was the apparent correlation between the atmospheric temperature and CO2 which alerted us to the possibility that increasing CO2 increases temperature, but correlation does not imply causation. Now, with better analysis, we are able to obtain that, in fact, the temperature rose significantly before CO2 did.
Second, there is now no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed), but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
It is the evidence that the planet has warmed which the AGW crowd have used as proof that man-made CO2 has caused it, but evidence of the planet warming is not evidence that CO2 caused the warming. Indeed, the planet has been warming pretty much steadily since emerging from the Little Ice Age and there is no doubt that humankind has been a significant beneficiary of the warming.
Third, the satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, that 1998 was the warmest recent year, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the last year (to the temperature of 1980).
This is contrary to what the IPCC and their models predicted would happen. It was not projected by any model that there would be any cooling whatsoever - only that temperature would continue to rise steadily in line with CO2 emissions. The models are the only "evidence" the AGW crowd have to support their theory - and they have been proven to be wrong.
Fourth, we looked for the greenhouse signature and could not find it. Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the atmosphere the warming occurs first. The signature of increased greenhouse warming is a hotspot 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. The hotspot is central to our understanding - if there is no hotspot then either there is no significant increased greenhouse warming, or we don't understand greenhouse and all our climate models are rubbish anyway.
The hotspot doesn't exist. This "signature" is like the fingerprint of the culprit on the smoking gun. We were supposed to find mans fingerprints all over it - but we didn't. Instead we found someone (something) else's, but rather than then look for the real culprit the alarmists have insisted that the fingerprints don't matter and that man must have worn gloves.
If this were a murder trial the case would have been dismissed years ago. The prosecution have produced the flimsiest of evidence and the defence have rebutted every assertion repeatedly. Man did not do it - something else must have.
And it has cost us $50 billion to get to this point. So what should we do? Do we continue to pour good money after bad in the hope that something might actually be found even after 18 years and $50 billion has so far turned nothing? Or do we stop believing these people who promise that if you'll just give them more money and more time you'll get a result?
Me - I'm sticking with my savings accounts.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Corrupting Society?
There I was, browsing a typically lame Times leader article about coal, when something leaped out from the screen and smacked me around the chops. I was so gobsmacked by what I read that I had to re-read it several times.
The article itself - Cool on coal - was a sorry piece of work even by modern journalistic standards. Starting off by saying that coal should be "the last resort", the Times says ....
The cost of coal and construction are rocketing up. Most of the coal will be imported, mainly from Russia. The carbon dioxide emissions created will be about twice those produced in gas-burning facilities of equal power. With the looming threat of climate change, and growing concerns about energy security, waving through a new generation of dirty coal plants would be decadent and irresponsible.
OK - first of all, the cost of coal is going up, but it still remains considerably cheaper than oil and gas. Construction costs are considerably lower than construction costs for any other form of energy supply - and construction times are shorter too. CO2 emissions are only relevant if you accept the unproven hypothesis that CO2 will cause unstoppable global warming. - which has never happened in the past even though CO2 levels have been thousands of times higher than they are now. On the question of imports from Russia - where do they think the oil and gas is going to come from? The difference with coal is that we do have our own supply - with a little bit of effort we could soon reduce our dependence on foreign nations for energy to virtually zero.
As for the "looming threat of climate change" - this is such a lazy phrase. Climate change how? Warmer or cooler? The climate is always in a state of perpetual change - either warming or cooling - it is never ever constant. Nobody even knows what the temperature should be and humans inhabit areas regardless of extremes of warmth or cold.
And as for this non-existent threat "looming" - well, when exactly? The alarmists are now saying there will be a hiatus in the warming for 10 or so years (maybe more - and this on top of a hiatus that has already lasted for 10 years) - even though they were claiming until recently that the warming will continue unabated for the foreseeable future.
Some are even predicting that things will actually get a little cooler over the next 2 or 3 decades in which case we're going to need a lot more reliable power supply than a few windmills that barely work. I don't know about you, but the prospect of colder winters in England does not exactly fill me with joy.
The only thing "looming" right now is the certainty that in a few years time we are not going to have the ability to generate enough electricity for all our needs unless something is done NOW. The renewables can't fill the demand gap. Nuclear could, but building sufficient nuclear power stations in the time is unrealistic. More oil and gas? With an expanding market and decreasing supply these are only going to get more and more costly - plus the fact that they severely compromise "energy security".
Coal isn't the last resort - it's the only resort.
Even so - this lazy, ill-conceived and badly researched piece isn't what annoyed me. To be fair, I was reading it with the usual "yeah, yeah - same old nonsense" until I saw this.
A powerful alliance is forming around this view: 228 MPs have signed an early day motion calling for a public inquiry into the planned new plant at Kingsnorth, Kent. The Royal Society wants operating permits for coal-burning to be withdrawn unless there are massive emissions reductions.
The Royal Society wants "operating permits .... withdrawn"?
When did the Royal Society become a political organisation? As far as I was aware the Royal Society was supposed to be a non-political and impartial organisation. Sure, I know it has advised government in the past - but I'd always assumed that was done by reporting back on the scientific evidence or feasibility of any given subject. That is very different from declaring that operating permits should be withdrawn for coal burning power stations. If they want to make those decisions they should stand for Parliament. They are not there to dictate policy.
I'd argue that this goes against the motto of the Royal Society ’Nullius in verba’ which, according to the Royal Society themselves .......
....dates back to 1663, and is an expression of the determination of the Fellows to withstand the domination of authority.
How odd that an organisation determined to withstand the "domination of authority" now seeks to impose that authority on others. The phrase itself comes from Horace - the full text of which is given in the link above and translates to ......
You shall not ask for whom I fight
Nor in what school my peace I find;
I say no master has the right
To swear me to obedience blind.
Seems the Royal Society now think they have the right to force others to swear obedience to them.
The article itself - Cool on coal - was a sorry piece of work even by modern journalistic standards. Starting off by saying that coal should be "the last resort", the Times says ....
The cost of coal and construction are rocketing up. Most of the coal will be imported, mainly from Russia. The carbon dioxide emissions created will be about twice those produced in gas-burning facilities of equal power. With the looming threat of climate change, and growing concerns about energy security, waving through a new generation of dirty coal plants would be decadent and irresponsible.
OK - first of all, the cost of coal is going up, but it still remains considerably cheaper than oil and gas. Construction costs are considerably lower than construction costs for any other form of energy supply - and construction times are shorter too. CO2 emissions are only relevant if you accept the unproven hypothesis that CO2 will cause unstoppable global warming. - which has never happened in the past even though CO2 levels have been thousands of times higher than they are now. On the question of imports from Russia - where do they think the oil and gas is going to come from? The difference with coal is that we do have our own supply - with a little bit of effort we could soon reduce our dependence on foreign nations for energy to virtually zero.
As for the "looming threat of climate change" - this is such a lazy phrase. Climate change how? Warmer or cooler? The climate is always in a state of perpetual change - either warming or cooling - it is never ever constant. Nobody even knows what the temperature should be and humans inhabit areas regardless of extremes of warmth or cold.
And as for this non-existent threat "looming" - well, when exactly? The alarmists are now saying there will be a hiatus in the warming for 10 or so years (maybe more - and this on top of a hiatus that has already lasted for 10 years) - even though they were claiming until recently that the warming will continue unabated for the foreseeable future.
Some are even predicting that things will actually get a little cooler over the next 2 or 3 decades in which case we're going to need a lot more reliable power supply than a few windmills that barely work. I don't know about you, but the prospect of colder winters in England does not exactly fill me with joy.
The only thing "looming" right now is the certainty that in a few years time we are not going to have the ability to generate enough electricity for all our needs unless something is done NOW. The renewables can't fill the demand gap. Nuclear could, but building sufficient nuclear power stations in the time is unrealistic. More oil and gas? With an expanding market and decreasing supply these are only going to get more and more costly - plus the fact that they severely compromise "energy security".
Coal isn't the last resort - it's the only resort.
Even so - this lazy, ill-conceived and badly researched piece isn't what annoyed me. To be fair, I was reading it with the usual "yeah, yeah - same old nonsense" until I saw this.
A powerful alliance is forming around this view: 228 MPs have signed an early day motion calling for a public inquiry into the planned new plant at Kingsnorth, Kent. The Royal Society wants operating permits for coal-burning to be withdrawn unless there are massive emissions reductions.
The Royal Society wants "operating permits .... withdrawn"?
When did the Royal Society become a political organisation? As far as I was aware the Royal Society was supposed to be a non-political and impartial organisation. Sure, I know it has advised government in the past - but I'd always assumed that was done by reporting back on the scientific evidence or feasibility of any given subject. That is very different from declaring that operating permits should be withdrawn for coal burning power stations. If they want to make those decisions they should stand for Parliament. They are not there to dictate policy.
I'd argue that this goes against the motto of the Royal Society ’Nullius in verba’ which, according to the Royal Society themselves .......
....dates back to 1663, and is an expression of the determination of the Fellows to withstand the domination of authority.
How odd that an organisation determined to withstand the "domination of authority" now seeks to impose that authority on others. The phrase itself comes from Horace - the full text of which is given in the link above and translates to ......
You shall not ask for whom I fight
Nor in what school my peace I find;
I say no master has the right
To swear me to obedience blind.
Seems the Royal Society now think they have the right to force others to swear obedience to them.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Swindling the viewer
The makers of the Great Global Warming Swindle have been given a slap on the wrist by the broadcasting watchdog, Ofcom (who makes up these stupid names). Apparently the ticking off was not because the programme misled viewers in any way, but it did, so Ofcom claim, break Channel 4's own rules on "impartiality".
A couple of things about this decision intrigue me. First of all, why would anyone think that a programme entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle" would be impartial? The clue is in the title, guys.
Secondly, seeing how Channel 4 news run considerably more reports which do mislead the public regarding global warming and very rarely provide any balance to the opposing viewpoint why is it that Channel 4 News hasn't been criticised for breaking it's own impartiality guidelines?
Thirdly, why did this Ofcom finding get so much news coverage? The Great Global Warming Swindle was made, in part, as a response to Al Gore's much vaunted and totally one-sided "An Inconvenient Truth". This film was not only very partial, is was found to be far from the truth and contained no less than 11 inaccuracies which did materially mislead the viewer according to British judges.
Did that news receive the same sort of coverage as this? I don't think so.
It's one of the reasons why people like Al Gore and the equally disreputable Michael Moore prefer to make "movies" rather than TV documentaries. If you make a documentary for television you have to abide by certain rules like "being honest" - but if you make that "documentary" for the cinema those rules don't apply. So you can lie as much as you like, you can be as partial as you like, you can cut and edit to twist the words and views of people as much as you like - it's only a film. Doesn't stop those films being shown on television, though.
Anyway - having made this ruling, I wonder if Ofcom will get off their backsides to do anything about the way broadcasters - especially the BBC - present man-made global warming as "fact" without ever questioning it?
I won't hold mu breath.
A couple of things about this decision intrigue me. First of all, why would anyone think that a programme entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle" would be impartial? The clue is in the title, guys.
Secondly, seeing how Channel 4 news run considerably more reports which do mislead the public regarding global warming and very rarely provide any balance to the opposing viewpoint why is it that Channel 4 News hasn't been criticised for breaking it's own impartiality guidelines?
Thirdly, why did this Ofcom finding get so much news coverage? The Great Global Warming Swindle was made, in part, as a response to Al Gore's much vaunted and totally one-sided "An Inconvenient Truth". This film was not only very partial, is was found to be far from the truth and contained no less than 11 inaccuracies which did materially mislead the viewer according to British judges.
Did that news receive the same sort of coverage as this? I don't think so.
It's one of the reasons why people like Al Gore and the equally disreputable Michael Moore prefer to make "movies" rather than TV documentaries. If you make a documentary for television you have to abide by certain rules like "being honest" - but if you make that "documentary" for the cinema those rules don't apply. So you can lie as much as you like, you can be as partial as you like, you can cut and edit to twist the words and views of people as much as you like - it's only a film. Doesn't stop those films being shown on television, though.
Anyway - having made this ruling, I wonder if Ofcom will get off their backsides to do anything about the way broadcasters - especially the BBC - present man-made global warming as "fact" without ever questioning it?
I won't hold mu breath.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
It's propaganda - but at least they are honest about it
The Independent carries an interview with the cast and crew of the BBC's latest forthcoming socialist propaganda vehicle Burn Up.
Christopher Hall, the producer of Burn Up, which is going to hit the screens next week, admits that "the question we kept asking ourselves was, 'How do we make a sexy programme about CO2? It's a gas, for goodness' sake!' So we see this piece as a Trojan horse: we rivet viewers with good drama and smuggle the message in that way."
So there you go - the producer admits it is propaganda. Whether the programme is "sexy" (why sexy?) is yet to be determined, but at least he has the decency to come clean about the real purpose of his production - a "Trojan Horse" to "smuggle" in the message. Yep - that is propaganda folks.
As Hall admits, it is hard to get worked up about a colourless, odourless gas, but maybe if he considered the consequences of life without it - or rather, the lack of life without it - he might start to understand why his "message" is garbage.
The "thriller" is written by Simon Beaufoy - the man behind The Full Monty.
He says: "There isn't a more important issue in the world than global warming. Even the Cold War and the Bay of Pigs crisis were notional threats. A warming planet isn't a threat – it's happening. But I'm still aware that it's potentially a very dry subject. Dealing with a gas you can't see makes it very difficult for a writer. It's like writing Spooks without any terrorists."
Yeah - or like Spooks where the terrorists as portrayed on the screen bear no resemblance to the terrorists that really exist. Oh, wait - that's what happened. Rather than focus on the real terrorist culprits the programme made up their own - usually evangelical right wing "Christians" or Jews. So, Burn Up follows that tradition of ignoring the real danger in favour of a socialist approved one.
Balance? Impartiality? Reality? Or just pure unadulterated left wing propaganda?
Someone tell me again what the BBC is for and why we are forced to pay for it under threat of imprisonment?
Christopher Hall, the producer of Burn Up, which is going to hit the screens next week, admits that "the question we kept asking ourselves was, 'How do we make a sexy programme about CO2? It's a gas, for goodness' sake!' So we see this piece as a Trojan horse: we rivet viewers with good drama and smuggle the message in that way."
So there you go - the producer admits it is propaganda. Whether the programme is "sexy" (why sexy?) is yet to be determined, but at least he has the decency to come clean about the real purpose of his production - a "Trojan Horse" to "smuggle" in the message. Yep - that is propaganda folks.
As Hall admits, it is hard to get worked up about a colourless, odourless gas, but maybe if he considered the consequences of life without it - or rather, the lack of life without it - he might start to understand why his "message" is garbage.
The "thriller" is written by Simon Beaufoy - the man behind The Full Monty.
He says: "There isn't a more important issue in the world than global warming. Even the Cold War and the Bay of Pigs crisis were notional threats. A warming planet isn't a threat – it's happening. But I'm still aware that it's potentially a very dry subject. Dealing with a gas you can't see makes it very difficult for a writer. It's like writing Spooks without any terrorists."
Yeah - or like Spooks where the terrorists as portrayed on the screen bear no resemblance to the terrorists that really exist. Oh, wait - that's what happened. Rather than focus on the real terrorist culprits the programme made up their own - usually evangelical right wing "Christians" or Jews. So, Burn Up follows that tradition of ignoring the real danger in favour of a socialist approved one.
Balance? Impartiality? Reality? Or just pure unadulterated left wing propaganda?
Someone tell me again what the BBC is for and why we are forced to pay for it under threat of imprisonment?
Monday, July 14, 2008
Tackling global warming and ending global poverty are mutually exclusive
There is an excellent comment piece in today's Telegraph by Janet Daley that spells out the stark choice we have - or rather the stark choice our politicians are failing to grasp.
You can choose to tackle the imagined problem of "global warming" or you can choose to tackle the real problem of global poverty - but you can not do both.
There are two prevailing fashions dominating the political scene, whose aims and effects are in direct contradiction with one another. But that does not prevent virtually all of the political parties in the Western democracies from attempting to embrace both at the same time.
They are global warming and the mission to eradicate poverty. What scarcely any leader seems prepared to admit (although they are all coming bang up against the reality of it) is that the objectives and tactics involved in forwarding the cause of preventing global warming are inimical to the cause of fighting poverty on a national and an international level.
Absolutely right. Daley goes on to strengthen her argument by pointing out that "green" taxes hit the poorest far harder than it hits the wealthy - but what she fails to understand is that our politicians can not grasp the connection for one simple reason.
They are all socialist.
You see, any conservative knows that ending poverty means creating sustainable prosperity through a capitalist economy. That's how it was done here and in the USA (I'm talking real poverty by the way - not relative poverty which, by definition, is impossible to eradicate) and now they are finding it works just as well in China and India. There are a number of things a capitalist economy requires to be successful, but there is one thing that stands out above all others - energy. Power is the lifeblood of a capitalist economy.
But our politicians - along with the unelected bureaucrats of the EU and UN - don't see it that way. They believe that ending poverty can be achieved through "wealth distribution" - or "aid" as they call it - that tired old socialist doctrine which has failed again and again wherever it has been used on any significant scale.
They continue to labour under the illusion that poverty can be relieved by aid, but the only thing it will do in the longer term is entrench the very poverty it is supposed to alleviate.
Nevertheless, they still think it will work - so they believe you can tackle poverty and global warming at the same time by redistributing wealth. In our post-modern, socialist dominated world we tend to forget about the original point of taxation.
The point of taxation is that the we give the government money in return for providing services that we require. The point of "green" taxation is to take your money and give it to someone else.
Of course it will fail. Without energy our own economy will collapse - then what? We start hoping that China and India will send us aid?
Don't bank on it.
You can choose to tackle the imagined problem of "global warming" or you can choose to tackle the real problem of global poverty - but you can not do both.
There are two prevailing fashions dominating the political scene, whose aims and effects are in direct contradiction with one another. But that does not prevent virtually all of the political parties in the Western democracies from attempting to embrace both at the same time.
They are global warming and the mission to eradicate poverty. What scarcely any leader seems prepared to admit (although they are all coming bang up against the reality of it) is that the objectives and tactics involved in forwarding the cause of preventing global warming are inimical to the cause of fighting poverty on a national and an international level.
Absolutely right. Daley goes on to strengthen her argument by pointing out that "green" taxes hit the poorest far harder than it hits the wealthy - but what she fails to understand is that our politicians can not grasp the connection for one simple reason.
They are all socialist.
You see, any conservative knows that ending poverty means creating sustainable prosperity through a capitalist economy. That's how it was done here and in the USA (I'm talking real poverty by the way - not relative poverty which, by definition, is impossible to eradicate) and now they are finding it works just as well in China and India. There are a number of things a capitalist economy requires to be successful, but there is one thing that stands out above all others - energy. Power is the lifeblood of a capitalist economy.
But our politicians - along with the unelected bureaucrats of the EU and UN - don't see it that way. They believe that ending poverty can be achieved through "wealth distribution" - or "aid" as they call it - that tired old socialist doctrine which has failed again and again wherever it has been used on any significant scale.
They continue to labour under the illusion that poverty can be relieved by aid, but the only thing it will do in the longer term is entrench the very poverty it is supposed to alleviate.
Nevertheless, they still think it will work - so they believe you can tackle poverty and global warming at the same time by redistributing wealth. In our post-modern, socialist dominated world we tend to forget about the original point of taxation.
The point of taxation is that the we give the government money in return for providing services that we require. The point of "green" taxation is to take your money and give it to someone else.
Of course it will fail. Without energy our own economy will collapse - then what? We start hoping that China and India will send us aid?
Don't bank on it.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Nothing unusual with the sun - says the man who said the sun is behaving unusually
Davd Hathaway, NASA scientist, seeks to calm fears that the sun's low level of activity is unusual.
Nothing is out of whack with the sun, a NASA researcher said this week, despite some scientists' suggestions that a lull in the weather there lately is unusually long, a phenomenon linked to at least one small ice age.
"There have been some reports lately that solar minimum is lasting longer than it should. That's not true," said NASA solar physicist David Hathaway.
Hathaway has studied sunspot data going back to 1749. While the cycle is commonly said to last 11 years, in fact its length can vary by more than a year.
"We have already observed a few sunspots from the next solar cycle," he said. "This suggests the solar cycle is progressing normally."
OK. Although Hathaway fails to point out that the "few sunspots" were very few, very tiny and the sort of thing that probably would not have been picked up during the latter part of the 17th century. I'm not sure they'd even have been picked up during much of the 20th century.
The first Solar Cycle 24 sunspot appeared on January 4th 2008 - a tiny little speck of a sunspot that disappeared almost as soon as it arrived. Since then Solar Cycle 23 sunspots have been detected - still - but no more from 24. As I write this there have been 18 continuous days with no visible sunspots.
Still nothing unusual about that - but this is unusual.
May 10, 2006: The Sun's Great Conveyor Belt has slowed to a record-low crawl. "It's off the bottom of the charts. This has important repercussions for future solar activity."
The Great Conveyor Belt is a massive circulating current of fire (hot plasma) within the Sun. It has two branches, north and south, each taking about 40 years to perform one complete circuit. Researchers believe the turning of the belt controls the sunspot cycle, and that's why the slowdown is important.
"Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per second—walking pace - that's how it has been since the late 19th century."
In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. "We've never seen speeds so low."
According to theory and observation, the speed of the belt foretells the intensity of sunspot activity ~20 years in the future. A slow belt means lower solar activity; a fast belt means stronger activity.
So that would be "unusual" then? And who was it saying all this?
NASA solar physicist David Hathaway.
Nothing is out of whack with the sun, a NASA researcher said this week, despite some scientists' suggestions that a lull in the weather there lately is unusually long, a phenomenon linked to at least one small ice age.
"There have been some reports lately that solar minimum is lasting longer than it should. That's not true," said NASA solar physicist David Hathaway.
Hathaway has studied sunspot data going back to 1749. While the cycle is commonly said to last 11 years, in fact its length can vary by more than a year.
"We have already observed a few sunspots from the next solar cycle," he said. "This suggests the solar cycle is progressing normally."
OK. Although Hathaway fails to point out that the "few sunspots" were very few, very tiny and the sort of thing that probably would not have been picked up during the latter part of the 17th century. I'm not sure they'd even have been picked up during much of the 20th century.
The first Solar Cycle 24 sunspot appeared on January 4th 2008 - a tiny little speck of a sunspot that disappeared almost as soon as it arrived. Since then Solar Cycle 23 sunspots have been detected - still - but no more from 24. As I write this there have been 18 continuous days with no visible sunspots.
Still nothing unusual about that - but this is unusual.
May 10, 2006: The Sun's Great Conveyor Belt has slowed to a record-low crawl. "It's off the bottom of the charts. This has important repercussions for future solar activity."
The Great Conveyor Belt is a massive circulating current of fire (hot plasma) within the Sun. It has two branches, north and south, each taking about 40 years to perform one complete circuit. Researchers believe the turning of the belt controls the sunspot cycle, and that's why the slowdown is important.
"Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per second—walking pace - that's how it has been since the late 19th century."
In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. "We've never seen speeds so low."
According to theory and observation, the speed of the belt foretells the intensity of sunspot activity ~20 years in the future. A slow belt means lower solar activity; a fast belt means stronger activity.
So that would be "unusual" then? And who was it saying all this?
NASA solar physicist David Hathaway.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Here is today's propaganda
Watching Channel 4 News at 7 pm yesterday evening, I lost count of the number of times in which the expression "climate change" was used. We had Jon Snow talking to Hilary Benn about biofuels and the need to tackle "climate change" - yeah, bugger the fact that people can't afford to eat thanks to the 75% rise in fuel prices brought on by biofuels, what we need to do is tackle "climate change" which is ...... nothing we can do anything about seeing how it is entirely natural.
Then there was another item talking about increasing Britain's wetlands as a bulwark to - yep, you guessed it - climate change. And every time the expression was used it went unchallenged - as if to imply that the AGW theory is proven and accepted. Neither of which is true.
Incidentally, I was under the impression that one of the reasons we drained our wetlands was to curb malaria which was common place in Britain at one time - won't increasing them bring the risk of that disease back to Britain? And if malaria does return, you can bet they'll blame it on "climate change" which would be a lie as we had a problem with that disease long before the SUV was invented.
It's another example of left wing propaganda being used to promote a particular world view. Like their unremittingly negative coverage of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - where the only time our forces get mentioned is when someone gets killed or something goes wrong - the people behind Channel 4 News have no interest in anything that goes against their left wing, liberal progressive agenda.
During WW2, Nazi Germany broadcast a propaganda programme to Britain called "Germany Calling" with William Joyce, known as Lord Haw Haw, leading the presenters. They wouldn't have to bother today - our news broadcasters would do the job for them.
Then there was another item talking about increasing Britain's wetlands as a bulwark to - yep, you guessed it - climate change. And every time the expression was used it went unchallenged - as if to imply that the AGW theory is proven and accepted. Neither of which is true.
Incidentally, I was under the impression that one of the reasons we drained our wetlands was to curb malaria which was common place in Britain at one time - won't increasing them bring the risk of that disease back to Britain? And if malaria does return, you can bet they'll blame it on "climate change" which would be a lie as we had a problem with that disease long before the SUV was invented.
It's another example of left wing propaganda being used to promote a particular world view. Like their unremittingly negative coverage of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - where the only time our forces get mentioned is when someone gets killed or something goes wrong - the people behind Channel 4 News have no interest in anything that goes against their left wing, liberal progressive agenda.
During WW2, Nazi Germany broadcast a propaganda programme to Britain called "Germany Calling" with William Joyce, known as Lord Haw Haw, leading the presenters. They wouldn't have to bother today - our news broadcasters would do the job for them.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Lights out!
As soon as I saw the headline for this, I knew which think tank it would be.
Sure enough it was the good old socialist IPPR.
The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) says the target of reducing CO2 emissions from the power sector and heavy industry of 21 per cent by 2020 is threatened by plans for new coal plants.
Well, excuse me - but the prospect of meeting our energy requirements from renewables without nuclear is zero and unless that energy comes from somewhere the potential for ruining our economy is a far bigger threat than that offered to cutting our negligible emissions of an atmospheric trace gas which is necessary for life on earth to exist.
And the idea that we should use some of that precious energy to capture that trace gas and bury it somewhere through CCS is simply ludicrous. Energy is going to cost enough as it is without spending more on wasting it.
One shouldn't be surprised that this is the work of the IPPR. After all, they are the group who published the manual (pdf file) on how to promote the flawed global warming hypothesis as real.
To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The 'facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken. (My emphasis)
Never mind the fact that there has been no warming for 10 years and that the whole global warming theory now has more holes in it than a Gateshead salt shaker (before the clamp down), this bunch of loony lefties want us to stop building the only things that will prevent our economy going into meltdown inside of a decade or two. If you think things are bad now, wait until there isn't enough power to run our industries and businesses let alone our homes!
Without coal-fired power plants you can wave goodbye to your computer, the Internet, 24 hour media, ATM machines and, quite probably, your job. At least the candlemakers will do alright out of it though.
It reminds me of that famous Sun headline just before the 1992 election. "If Kinnock wins today, will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights".
Well, the socialists lost that one but won five years later and it looks like the Sun will get it's wish. The lights will go out all over Britain. I don't think they were ever on at the IPPR.
Sure enough it was the good old socialist IPPR.
The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) says the target of reducing CO2 emissions from the power sector and heavy industry of 21 per cent by 2020 is threatened by plans for new coal plants.
Well, excuse me - but the prospect of meeting our energy requirements from renewables without nuclear is zero and unless that energy comes from somewhere the potential for ruining our economy is a far bigger threat than that offered to cutting our negligible emissions of an atmospheric trace gas which is necessary for life on earth to exist.
And the idea that we should use some of that precious energy to capture that trace gas and bury it somewhere through CCS is simply ludicrous. Energy is going to cost enough as it is without spending more on wasting it.
One shouldn't be surprised that this is the work of the IPPR. After all, they are the group who published the manual (pdf file) on how to promote the flawed global warming hypothesis as real.
To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The 'facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken. (My emphasis)
Never mind the fact that there has been no warming for 10 years and that the whole global warming theory now has more holes in it than a Gateshead salt shaker (before the clamp down), this bunch of loony lefties want us to stop building the only things that will prevent our economy going into meltdown inside of a decade or two. If you think things are bad now, wait until there isn't enough power to run our industries and businesses let alone our homes!
Without coal-fired power plants you can wave goodbye to your computer, the Internet, 24 hour media, ATM machines and, quite probably, your job. At least the candlemakers will do alright out of it though.
It reminds me of that famous Sun headline just before the 1992 election. "If Kinnock wins today, will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights".
Well, the socialists lost that one but won five years later and it looks like the Sun will get it's wish. The lights will go out all over Britain. I don't think they were ever on at the IPPR.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Sense and sensitivity
A couple of things on global warming caught my eye this morning that seem to link together well. They both relate to the issue of climate sensitivity and the importance of feedback mechanisms - positive and negative.
The first comes via The Reference Frame and it is a short 10 minute video which summarises in simple to understand terms what is meant by climate sensitivity, positive and negative feedback, tipping points and why the IPCC are completely wrong in their model driven guesstimates. There is a longer video posted which I haven't yet watched (but will when I find an hour or so to spare).
The second comes from Roy Spencer and also explains in simple terms what the various terms mean, but adds something extra by claiming that he has discovered the "holy grail" of climate sensitivity - and it is uncomfortable reading for a Canutist.
The prediction of how much manmade global warming we will see in the future (as well as how much past warming was manmade) depends upon something called "climate sensitivity". For many years, climate researchers have struggled to diagnose the Earth's climate sensitivity from measurements of the real climate system. It's almost a "holy grail" kind of search, because if we could discover the true value of the climate sensitivity, then we would basically know whether future global warming will be benign, catastrophic, or somewhere in between.
They are both well presented and relatively easy to follow. The video makes a good intro to Roy Spencer's article so I'd recommend watching that first.
The first comes via The Reference Frame and it is a short 10 minute video which summarises in simple to understand terms what is meant by climate sensitivity, positive and negative feedback, tipping points and why the IPCC are completely wrong in their model driven guesstimates. There is a longer video posted which I haven't yet watched (but will when I find an hour or so to spare).
The second comes from Roy Spencer and also explains in simple terms what the various terms mean, but adds something extra by claiming that he has discovered the "holy grail" of climate sensitivity - and it is uncomfortable reading for a Canutist.
The prediction of how much manmade global warming we will see in the future (as well as how much past warming was manmade) depends upon something called "climate sensitivity". For many years, climate researchers have struggled to diagnose the Earth's climate sensitivity from measurements of the real climate system. It's almost a "holy grail" kind of search, because if we could discover the true value of the climate sensitivity, then we would basically know whether future global warming will be benign, catastrophic, or somewhere in between.
They are both well presented and relatively easy to follow. The video makes a good intro to Roy Spencer's article so I'd recommend watching that first.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Why must we destroy the environment to save the environment?
“There is no way of making these changes without there being some impact on the natural environment. I'm afraid some people will look out of their windows and see a wind turbine"
So says John Hutton, the Business Secretary, who will announce plans to hamstring Britain's energy supply and economy to the tune of £100 billion at the behest of the European Union and in pursuit of an unachievable goal.
“People need to wake up. We either make these changes or we don't. What we don't have is this magic third option of just carrying on as we are.”
Hang on? "We make these changes or we don't" - so the second option is "carrying on as we are". The third option is having a realistic energy policy that is based on utilising readily available and plentiful energy sources (like coal) for the short to medium term and preparing for the longer term by going nuclear.
Not content with destroying vast swathes of our environment by carpeting it with brutish windfarms, Hutton also proposes destroying our ancient forests and woods.
Another big growth area will be bio-energy, where about 6 per cent of electricity will be generated from burning wood, straw and energy crops. Large areas of woodland will be used.
Now that's joined up government for you. Our big danger - according to these deranged moonbats - is CO2. So what are we going to do? We're going to burn the trees which absorb CO2. Good thinking! Not. The other problem, of course, is that turning over all that land to produce crops to set fire to will mean less land for crops to eat.
"Global warming" may be a disaster for humanity after all - but it won't be rising seas, floods and droughts that ruin us. It will be Canutist politicians who believe they have the power to control the climate.
So says John Hutton, the Business Secretary, who will announce plans to hamstring Britain's energy supply and economy to the tune of £100 billion at the behest of the European Union and in pursuit of an unachievable goal.
“People need to wake up. We either make these changes or we don't. What we don't have is this magic third option of just carrying on as we are.”
Hang on? "We make these changes or we don't" - so the second option is "carrying on as we are". The third option is having a realistic energy policy that is based on utilising readily available and plentiful energy sources (like coal) for the short to medium term and preparing for the longer term by going nuclear.
Not content with destroying vast swathes of our environment by carpeting it with brutish windfarms, Hutton also proposes destroying our ancient forests and woods.
Another big growth area will be bio-energy, where about 6 per cent of electricity will be generated from burning wood, straw and energy crops. Large areas of woodland will be used.
Now that's joined up government for you. Our big danger - according to these deranged moonbats - is CO2. So what are we going to do? We're going to burn the trees which absorb CO2. Good thinking! Not. The other problem, of course, is that turning over all that land to produce crops to set fire to will mean less land for crops to eat.
"Global warming" may be a disaster for humanity after all - but it won't be rising seas, floods and droughts that ruin us. It will be Canutist politicians who believe they have the power to control the climate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)