The BBC Is A Sinister Organisation: It Must Be Abolished, Not Reformed

bbcThe Daily Telegraph says the BBC is ‘outdated’ and wants it to ‘demonstrate its continuing relevance’. Excuse me while I reach for my revolver. The BBC is a State broadcaster. State broadcasting was ‘relevant’ in the same way Communism was.

Let’s spell it out, for those who don’t know the history. The BBC was set up to limit free speech.

In June 1920, Marconi, with backing from the Daily Mail, made the first (private) radio broadcast in Britain. The British State, run by Britain’s ruling class, was horrified. They feared the masses, and they feared free mass communication. In America there had been an explosion of private radio stations, broadcasting whatever they liked. Within months, radio broadcasting in Britain had been banned.

Scores of private companies were itching to get into radio broadcasting and repeatedly petitioned the government. In response, the British State announced in 1922 that it would control all radio broadcasting. When TV came along, the same thing happened. Companies like Marconi, the Daily Mail, HMV, EMI and others were dying to plunge in. But TV was declared to be a State monopoly.

We’re now well into the 21st Century and, astonishingly, that State monopoly still holds. The BBC’s resources are vast, crowding out any realistic competition. According to Roger Mosey (former Head of BBC Television News, and Editor of the Today Programme), the BBC enjoys a 70 per cent share of ‘news consumption’ on British TV and Radio.

The BBC shares the same dire failings as every other State producer. Those of us who have worked there know the staggeringly vast waste, the meaningless jobs, the corruption (look at the salaries).

But the waste is the least of it. To repeat, the BBC controls 70 per cent of news output on British TV and radio. The people who run the BBC (like others who work for large State organisations) tend to look favourably on high public spending and increased State regulation.

They cannot but have a huge influence on public debate in Britain, subtly colouring our views on everything from the EU and global warming, to ‘austerity’ and debt, the NHS, welfare reform and the size of the public sector.

The BBC reflects perfectly the worldview of the class that really runs Britain. Not the capitalists ‚Äì if it were the capitalists do you think State spending would account for almost half of GDP? No, the BBC is the propaganda wing of the New Class, a class which is all the more powerful because it slips under the radar (that’s because there isn’t enough good old-fashioned Marxist class analysis among Libertarians).

The name ‘New Class’ may be unfamiliar to you, but close your eyes and you can see them: the cultured, educated but underpaid (according to them), the snob socialist paternalists, the market-hating tax-consuming regulators. If you want understand them better, read John Carey’s Pride and Prejudice: Intellectuals and the Masses. They are confident, self-righteous, parasitic and poisonous. And in Britain, the BBC is their most powerful weapon.

Make no mistake. The BBC has played a key role in the transformation of Britain from a thriving, prosperous, free country, into a flagging State-dominated manufacturing has-been. Don’t be fooled by the glittery frocks on Strictly Come Dancing. The BBC is a sinister organisation. It must not be reformed. It must be abolished.

Source

Continue Reading 7 Comments

Antarctica Has So Much Sea Ice Scientists Have Trouble Getting There

antarcticaScientists are struggling to stage expeditions to the South Pole because Antarctica’s sea ice has been growing rapidly and hit record high levels.

The UK Guardian reports 50 scientists have gathered in Tasmania to discuss more accurate ways to predict Antarctic sea ice levels so researchers don’t get stuck in ice pack when traveling southward.

“It’s quite hard to forecast but whatever effort we put into improving our ability to forecast sea ice will ultimately pay dividends in terms of savings for national programs,” Tony Worby, head  of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, told the Guardian.

Last year, ships “couldn’t get anywhere near” the Australian Antarctic Division’s research site on Antarctica, reports The Guardian.

The Russian research vessel Akademik Shokalskiy got stuck in an ice pack on Christmas Eve 2013 with 52 passengers aboard on its way to show how global warming was impacting Antarctica. After about a week of being stuck on the ice, an Australian icebreaker was sent to rescue them — that ice breaker then became temporarily stuck itself in the Antarctic ice pack.

Incidents such as this have become increasingly common for those looking to study conduct research on the South Pole. Australian scientist Ron Wooding told the Guardian it’s “inadequate for the long-term sustainability of the station.”

“Other national programs have had similar problems, the French in particular, the Japanese also,” Wooding added.

Antarctic sea ice levels have defied climate model predictions, baffling scientists and reigniting a debate over global warming’s influence on sea ice. In April, sea ice extent reached record levels for the month — a whopping 116,000 square miles higher than the previous record set in 2014.

Scientists are still unsure why Antarctic sea ice levels are growing, while the Arctic has seen levels decrease in the past few decades. Worby told the Guardian rising sea ice levels are “very largely driven by changes in wind.”

“Those changes of wind are driven by the depletion of ozone in the stratosphere and the increasing greenhouse gas in the atmosphere,” he said.

Source

Continue Reading 9 Comments

Wind energy myths spun by lobbyists and salesmen

wind farmA recent letter in my local paper by American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) representative Tom Vinson is typical of wind industry sales propaganda. It deserves correction. 

This is the reality:  Industrial wind energy is NET LOSER ‚Äì economically, environmentally, technically and civilly. Let’s examine how.

Economically. New York State (NYS) has some of the highest electricity rates in the United States – a whopping 53% above the national average. This is due in large part to throwing hundreds of billions of our taxpayer and ratepayer dollars into the wind. High electricity costs drive people and businesses out of the state, and ultimately hurt poor families the most.

A NYS resident using 6,500 kWh of electricity annually will pay about $400 per year more for their electricity than if our electricity prices were at the national average. That’s over $3.2 BILLION dollars annually that will not be spent in the rest of the state economy.

Why destroy entire towns, when just one single 450-MW gas-fired combined-cycle generating unit located near New York City (NYC) ‚Äì where the power is needed ‚Äì operating at only 60% of its capacity, would provide more electricity than all of NYS’s wind factories combined. 

Furthermore, that one 450 MW gas-fired unit would only require about one-fourth of the capital costs – and would not bring all the negative civil, economic, environmental, human health and property value impacts that are caused by the sprawling industrial wind factories. Nor would it require all the additional transmission lines to NYC.

The Institute for Energy Research tallied the numbers and found that each wind job costs $11.45 million and costs more than four jobs that are lost elsewhere in the economy, because of all the subsidies and the resulting “skyrocketing” cost of electricity. In fact, on a unit of production basis, wind is subsidized over 52 times more than conventional fossil fuels.

In the United Kingdom, David Cameron has finally awakened to the folly of wasting billions on the failed technology of wind. He recently declared, “We will scrap funds for wind farms.”

Environmentally. According to the AWEA, the USA has some 45,100 Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs). Remotely sited IWTs are located far from urban centers where the power is needed. This requires a spider web of new transmission lines (at ratepayers’ expense), which exponentially adds to the needless bird and bat deaths caused by IWTs themselves.

Additionally, sprawling industrial wind factories cause massive habitat fragmentation, which is cited as one of the main reasons for species decline worldwide.

Studies show MILLIONS of birds and bats are being slaughtered annually by these giant “Cuisinarts of the sky,” as a Sierra official dubbed IWTs in a rare moment of candor.

Governor Cuomo’s environmental hypocrisy is also worth noting. Cuomo is supporting “dimming the lights” in New York City to help stop migrating birds from becoming disoriented and crashing into buildings. Yet simultaneously, Cuomo is pushing for many more giant bird-chopping wind turbines ‚Äì with 600-foot-high blinking red lights, along the shores of Lake Ontario (a major migratory bird flyway), and across rural New York State.  

Technically. Because wind provides NO capacity value, or firm capacity (specified amounts of power on demand), wind requires constant “shadow capacity” from our reliable, dispatchable baseload generators to cover for wind’s inherent volatile, skittering flux on the grid.  Therefore, wind cannot replace those conventional generation sources.  Instead, wind locks us into dependence on fossil fuels ‚Äì and represents a redundancy (two duplicate sources of electricity), which Big Wind CEO Patrick Jenevein admitted “turns ratepayers and taxpayers into double-payers for the same product.”

The list of accidents, blade failures (throwing debris over a half mile), fires (ten times more than the wind industry previously admitted) and other problems is updated quarterly at a website in the UK. This lengthy and growing list is evidence of why giant, moving machines do NOT belong anywhere near where people live. 

Even the AWEA admits that the life of a typical wind turbine is only 10 to13 years (January 2006: North American Wind Power). This is substantiated by studies on these short-lived lemons.

Adding insult to injury, the actual output of all of New York State’s wind factories combined has been averaging a pathetic 23 percent.  If IWTs were cars, they would have been correctly dubbed ‘lemons’ and relegated to the junkyard a long time ago. 

Civilly. The only thing that has ever been reliably generated by industrial wind is complete and utter civil discord. Neighbor is pitted against neighbor, and even family member against family member. Sprawling industrial wind factories have totally divided communities, which is already apparent in towns across NYS and the country.  It is the job of good government to foresee and prevent this kind of civil discord ‚Äì not to promote it. 

Regarding human health, NYS officials admitted at a 2009 NYSERDA meeting on wind that they knew “infrasound” from wind turbines was a problem worldwide. The growing list of problems globally highlights that these problems are only getting worse.

At the NYSERDA meeting, a former noise control engineer for the New York State Public Service Commission, Dr. Dan Driscoll, testified that ‘infrasound’ (sounds below 20 Hz) are sounds you can’t hear, but the body can feel.

Dr. Driscoll said that ‘infrasound’ is NOT blocked by walls, and it can very negatively affect the human body ‚Äì especially after prolonged, continuous exposure.  He said symptoms include headache, nausea, sleeplessness, dizziness, ringing in the ears and other maladies. 

NYS Department of Health official Dr. Jan Storm testified that, despite knowing the global nature of the “infrasound” problem, NYS still had not done any health studies (despite having federal money available to do so). Here we are six years later, and indefensibly, NYS officials still have not called for any independent studies to assure the protection of New York State citizens.

“The Golden Rule,” as espoused by Rotary International’s excellent ‘Four-Way Test‘ of the things we think, say and do, should be the moral and ethical standard our public servants aspire to uphold.  The test asks:

  1. Is it the truth?
  2. Is it fair to all concerned?
  3. Will it build goodwill and better friendships?
  4. Will it be beneficial to all concerned?

When applied to the industrial wind issue, the answers are a resounding, “NO!”

__________________

Mary Kay Barton is a retired health educator, Cornell-certified Master Gardener, and is a tireless advocate for scientifically sound, affordable, and reliable electricity for all Americans. She has served over the past decade in local Water Quality organizations and enjoys gardening and birding in her National Wildlife Federation “Backyard Wildlife Habitat.”

Continue Reading 71 Comments

Truth. It’s All Greek to UWA Warmists

winthrop hallSummoned from his slumber by the cries of academic freedom and integrity being tortured and dispatched at the University of Western Australia, the ghost of Socrates had a few pointed things to say. After that he asked for his statue be removed from from campus.

The University of Western Australia’s magnificent Winthrop Hall is dedicated to Socrates. Now there was a courageous chap. He knew the difference between aurum philosophicum and aurum vulgi ‚Äì between genuine and pseudo-knowledge ‚Äì and was prepared to say so. This is clearly a skill in short supply on campus, judging by the extraordinary events of last week surrounding the dismissal of Bjorn Lomborg before he had even reported for work.

Victor Wager’s 1932 al fresco statue of the philosopher (above) on the north side of the hall bears the inscription that he “sought truth always by the path of open discussion and free enquiry. May his spirit preside here at all times.”  Fat chance of that path remaining open after the inferno of intolerance that last week saw the banishment of the Danish climate “contrarian”.

“I’m struggling to understand why anyone would say they do not want to see a centre [his proposed Consensus Centre in the UWA Business School] that involves some of the world’s top economists and several Nobel laureates,” Lomborg reportedly said.

In 399BCE, Socrates was forced to drink hemlock for the crime of impiety. He was executed for, inter alia, “failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges”. While such an offence no longer exists, any lack of politically-correct respect for something considered sacred in the Academy (or government) ‚Äì such as failing to prostrate oneself before the new gods (and goddesses) of climate catastrophism and environmentalism — can land one in very hot water indeed. Lomberg and a stunned public discovered asmuch last Friday.

In 2015, the UWA Vice-Chancellor Paul Johnson was forced to eat humble pie, despite having considered it “appropriate for Doctor Lomborg to be associated with UWA.”

“I understand there are strong views on this issue. However, I believe that a man who has worked with many Nobel Laureate economists, has been named one of Time magazine’s most influential people, and has published with Cambridge University Press meets the criteria of being made an Adjunct Professor ‚Äì an honorary position that carries no salary.”

“Despite all this, there remains strong opposition to the Centre. Whilst I respect the right of staff to express their views on this matter, as all universities should be places for open and honest sharing and discussion of ideas, in this case, it has placed the University in a difficult position.”

Paul Johnson underestimated the number of climate alarmists, precious petitioners (6,500+), not-about-censorship climate-change-is-happening fellow travellers, dodgy prognosticators, junk-science peddlers, hate-speech purveyors, book-burning zealots and other motley opponents of free speech on campus.

Yet by acquiescing to the ‘anti-climate science’ and ‘Lomborg’s views are dangerous’ rhetoric of a bunch of self-appointed thought police defending their antipodean version of ‘academic integrity’, the UWA Senate has allowed them to trash (again) its growing reputation as an international Centre of Excellence while ‚Äì ironically ‚Äì claiming their actions ‘protect’ it.

The Senate presumably would argue it had no choice, given the lack of ‘cooperation of a wide range of people across many fields’ that emerged within the university. Some external observers, however, have another perspective.

Strange to relate, just before the frenzied crowd began dancing on the ashes of Doctor Lomborg’s proposed Consensus Centre, a ghostly emanation turned up uninvited, breast bared and finger raised, all the better to wipe the taste of bitter hemlock from those spectral lips. Facing down an incensed UWA Student Guild, assorted ideologues, petitioners, et cetera, they would have burnt at the stake the legendary visitor and any other ‘climate contrarian they could lay their alarmist hands on if such antics were not prohibited by UWA by-laws regulating usage of inflammable materials on campus. Socrates ghost, appearing ex nihilo in the Sunken Garden, made an eloquent, unprecedented and unnoticed apology to the University. In media-land, folk were too preoccupied by the university’s back-flip and Friday night footy to notice anything supernatural before the bars closed.

The Greek contrarian started off with a sigh tinged with amusement, as if to say what silly children we can be. The remainder of his address is reproduced below

“Friends of truth, you have requested that my spirit preside here at all times,” he began. “You have honoured me ‚Äì and my method– in the past, so it is right and proper that I should return from time to time. After all, was I not the inspiration for your “seek wisdom” motto?”

“Do the residents of this hallowed place still have their ducks in a row? Or are they intent instead on scoring a row of ducks ‚Äì such as the Lewandowsky affair and ostracism (ostrakismos) of Doctor Lomborg?

“I do not know what effect Doctor Lomborg’s accusers have had on you, but for my own part I was almost carried away by them ‚Äì their arguments were so convincing. On the other hand, scarcely a word of what they said was true.

“But what you shall hear from me will be a straightforward speech in the first words that occur to me, confident as I am in the justice of his cause. It would hardly be suitable for a man of my age to address you in the artificial language of a schoolboy orator or climate-change sophist.

“In my opinion, Doctor Lomborg’s opponents are thoroughly selfish bullies. They have brought this action against him, ‚Äì not because of a genuine commitment to the pursuit of truth in the manner I described two thousand four hundred and fourteen years ago, but out of sheer wanton aggressiveness and inflated self-assertion.

“What I told my executioners then I repeat this evening, for it applies also in this nasty case.

“I told them that as soon as I am dead ‚Äì and as soon as news of Doctor Lomborg’s expulsion is in the public domain — vengeance shall fall upon you with a punishment far more painful than your killing of me. You have brought about my death in the belief that through it you will be delivered from submitting your conduct to criticism, but I say the result will be just the opposite. You will have more critics, that the result will be just the opposite.

“Here is the truth of the matter. The best and easiest way is not to stop the mouths of others, but to make yourselves as good as you can. This was my last message to those who voted for my condemnation, but it is unlikely to be the last to those involved in Doctor Lomborg’s expulsion from this place.”

Quod erat demonstrandum (ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι).

Disclosure Statement: A graduate of the University of Western Australia and two other universities, the author does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. His work includes No Room at Nature’s Mighty Feast ‚Äì Reflections on the Growth of Humankind, The Aztec solution to climate change and The Devil’s Dictionary of Climate Change.

Source

Continue Reading 2 Comments

The BBC on global warming is beyond a joke

Arctic Ice 2The BBC’s relentless efforts to promote the need for that treaty to “decarbonise” the world’s economies they so desperately want to see agreed in December are getting way beyond a joke. On Monday’s Today programme, for instance, they yet again wheeled on that joke figure Lord Stern to tell us that renewable energy now enjoys “very little subsidy or none at all” (don’t tell the owners of offshore wind farms, who imagine they are getting subsidies of more than 200 per cent).

Most energy from fossil fuels, Stern went on, is “heavily subsidised”, to the tune of “$500 billion a year”. Even John Humphrys sounded faintly disbelieving when Stern explained that most of this “subsidy” was the taxation not imposed on fossil-fuel companies for “polluting” the planet.

An hour later, we had the BBC’s science editor, David Shukman, telling us how he had gone up to the Arctic (presumably with the aid of fossil fuels), to join a bunch of Norwegian scientists (also presumably there with the aid of fossil fuels), who were discovering that the ice had got thinner than ever, and that this was causing irreparable damage to the “biodiversity” of the poor little creatures which live under that vanishing ice.

Not a shred of scientific evidence was offered to support this scare story, let alone the latest data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which show that the thickness of multi-year ice across the Arctic has been making a dramatic recovery from its low point seven years ago (for details see Paul Homewood’s Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog),

All this drearily make-believe propaganda is designed to whip up support for a treaty which, as the Indian government yet again confirmed last week, is never going to happen, because India and China – still building enough coal-fired stations to add more CO2 to the air every year than the total emitted by the UK – are simply giving two fingers to a treaty they regard as an even bigger joke than Lord Stern.

Source

Continue Reading 3 Comments

Do What They Say… Not What They Spray

Barbra Streisand`s California home Barbra Streisand`s California home Kind of synonymous with ironic that the mouthiest Hollywood and music glitterati in the poppycocky finger-shaking-at-others mode are oblivious of the water crisis in their literal own backyards in California, judging by current flyover pics.

Famously private Barbra Streisand, Babs herself, a huge blabber-lip when it comes to backing (religiously Democrat) candidates attacking us for climate infractions and the improper use of our resources, flora and fauna, keeps her huge grounds lemonade fresh.

People, people who dislike people — are the selfish-est people . .

Just as Kim (Selfie) Kardashian and Kanye West and their glitterati ilk have lawn and acreage sparkling emerald to the overhead drone and camera eye.

Songstress Cher — as her PR bio styles her: singer, songwriter, actress, model, fashion designer, television host, comedian, dancer, businesswoman, philanthropist, author, film producer, director, and record producer — doesn’t “Turn Back Time” or manage to ‘stop her babble shooting her down’ to halt wasting oceans on that infinity lawn.

Shoop, shoop.

Storied Jennifer Lopez (not so much “Jenny on the block” as she wants people to think) has acres of not-brown unshriveled sward around her mansion. It’s acres of minty-fresh loden for Jenny.

California authorities claim that these celebs use up 70% of the allotted water earmarked for the drought-plagued rest of California’s populace. Let ’em eat dust, their monied mantra. We know they’ve invested heavily in their palaces of ostentation and insulation, but their state is a month away from severe new strictures to monitor and restrict that water dropping onto their gilded greens.

Agri use has first claim on this scarcer-than-scarce commodity. Drinking water, cleaning water, cooking water all lay claims more demanding and worthy than… a lawn. Drenching one’s front yard comes in at a far-distant last.

Happily, some Hollywooders (Jennifer Aniston, for one) have torn out water-guzzlers like vineyards (did you know a glass of wine has consumed 30 gallons of the wet stuff to get to your table?) in favor of smart palms and abstemious trees instead of thirsty floral gardens. Or opted for stone gardens and entryways to save on extravagant gardening and sprinklers. 

Another hallowed water-waster is the ubiquitous pool that siphons hundreds of gallons in each of the isolated spreads of the big stars on this walk of shame.

Problem is, so far, ignoring stringent usage water rights and limitations rules in recent councils sets abusers back a trifling $100.

Wouldn’t cover even a late-night take-out snack.

If the fines had sharper teeth for those well-heeled-enough to heed them, water would not be so gratuitously expended on vanity frontage, giraffe-high hedges, topiaries and vast, rolling grassy expanses. The Israelis have ‘solved’ their problem of sparse rain — winters only, falling mostly in the north — by engineering tunnels; ingenious pipes to and from key cities; desalinization of waste water, “grey” water and sea water; careful use of groundwater, and a much-admired needle-prick irrigation system that waters agricultural crops and orchards using the tiniest of sprays from strategically punctured hoses. 

Fines should be exponentially higher to make an impact. Public shaming, perhaps, might play a role, especially in light of the blinkered hypocrisy evident in the distance between what these preening poodles blare on TV, media and Tweet-land. Their plush private extravagance in H2O consumption is not theirs to [Marie] Antoinette.

Source

Continue Reading 1 Comment

Green Party Turfed Out of Brighton and Hove

greenThe Green Party has been flushed out of power in Brighton and Hove, losing more than half its seats on the south coast council. Labour now have the largest group on the council with 23 seats, but are five short of an overall majority. The Green party has 11, down from 23.

The Conservative party picked up the remaining 20 seats on the council to become the second largest group, again illustrating the rainbow characteristics of a city which returned one Conservative, one Labour and one Green Party MP to Westminster on Thursday.

The far left Greens have been a source of much ridicule over the last four years thanks to ill thought through and in some cases downright barmy policies. Amongst them: a proposed referendum to raise council tax by 4.75 percent which would have cost ¬£900,000 to administer, a figure which would have gone most of the way to plugging the funding gap the Greens claimed to be dealing with.

Some of the more colourful proposals – traffic calming sheep is a local favourite – sadly never got off the ground.

Incoherence plagued the administration. Unworkable recycling policies which, amongst other things, threatened ¬£50,000 fines for putting paper in the plastics box saw the council slip almost to the bottom of the league tables for recycling nationally.

An obsession with minor detail also caused derision, such as the “meat free Mondays” rolled out across all council canteens which alienated manual workers, including the town’s bin men. Plans to relieve traffic congestion at a notorious roundabout had to be completely re-written at great expense in order to save a beloved elm tree. Transgender toilets and the ability to tick “Mx” on council forms were introduced, taking up the council’s time and money.

And then, in typical socialist fashion they managed to create Brighton’s very own winter of discontent by provoking a prolonged strike by bin men which saw seagulls feasting on the rubbish piling high in the streets.

While the administration, led by the improbably named council leader Jason Kitcat fought with the men over so-called Spanish practices which saw some of the workers pocketing ¬£50,000 a year salaries, his Green opponents, the ‘watermelons’ (green on the outside, red on the inside) led by gay activist Phelim MacCafferty actually lined up on the picket line with the bin men.

Read rest…

Continue Reading 1 Comment

Tory Victory A Huge Blow To UK Green Energy Industry, Campaigners Warn

cutting wind powerThe conservative election victory has dealt a severe blow to Britain’s green energy industry, campaigners have warned, as the new majority government prepares to scrap crucial subsidies for renewable power; champion the development of polluting shale gas; and make significant cuts to spending. The renewable industry is most worried about the future of onshore wind farm developments, which the Tories have repeatedly dismissed as an unwanted eyesore despite being cheaper than other forms of green energy. –Tom Bawden, The Independent on Sunday, 10 May 2015

British Prime Minister David Cameron has named Amber Rudd as energy minister to tackle such controversial issues as government support for onshore wind farms and shale gas. The energy industry had been keenly awaiting the outcome of last week’s election as all parties had proposed to enact changes around the way the big utility companies are run. It will now be watching whether Rudd will push ahead with Conservative Party pledges to cut subsidies for onshore wind farms and to boost the development of shale gas. —Reuters, 11 May 2015

Energy Minister Amber Rudd used a visit to the region to claim fracking is a “positive thing” that could create skilled jobs for young people. The Conservative MP believes communities can be convinced the controversial process of drilling for shale gas is beneficial to the economy and has the potential to create employment, provided the work can be done “extremely safely.” …Chronicle Live, 10 February 2015

More serious is the fourth issue, and it goes to the heart of national energy policy, which since 2008 has been focused not on security of supply or costs but on climate change and the reduction of emissions through a forced change in the energy mix. The problem is that the provisions of the 2008 Climate Change Act were designed to fit within a European and global deal which would ensure that the costs were shared and that a move to expensive low-carbon fuels would not make Europe uncompetitive. The reality is that there is no global deal, and even in Europe there is no effective carbon price. The UN Paris conference at the end of this year will be the moment at which the failure of current policy becomes obvious. –Nick Butler, Financial Times, 10 May 2015

The first task of this new government is to continue the work on the economy. Calls for an end to austerity are nonsense. We are still borrowing and spending at ¬£200,000 a minute, passing on a colossal debt to our children and grandchildren. With a proper Conservative majority there is a clear opportunity to re-establish cabinet government and possibly to reduce the number of cabinet ministers, and junior ministers, by amalgamating departments. A classic example would be the Department of Energy and Climate Change, whose competencies could be taken over by the environment department. The DECC has spawned a seriously flawed policy, putting our long-term electricity supply in jeopardy. –Owen Paterson, The Sunday Times, 10 May 2015

The green energy movement in America is dead. May it rest in peace. No, a majority of American energy over the next 20 years is not going to come from windmills and solar panels. One important lesson to be learned from the green energy fad’s rapid and expensive demise is that central planning doesn’t work. What crushed green energy was the boom in shale oil and gas along with the steep decline in the price of fossil fuel that few saw coming just a few years ago. –Stephen Moore, The Daily Signal, 8 May 2015

Continue Reading 1 Comment

The Theology of Climate Change

religionFor a long time I have intended always to carry a small notebook with me when I go to second-hand bookshops to take down a list of the most boring titles ever published. Frequenters of such shops will know what I mean: A History of Banking in Costa Rica 1880 – 1915, Cattle Breeding in Marshland, that kind of thing. Oddly enough, a list of boring titles might in the end be very interesting, in obedience to one of the three purported laws of dialectical materialism: that of the transformation of quantity into quality.

Alas, I have never succeeded in carrying such a notebook with me, not even once. Another notebook I have thought of keeping, but never managed to keep, is one in which to write down the most boring or unreadable paragraphs ever written. Today I happened across a worthy entry to such a notebook in the British Journal of Psychiatry. Full marks (for persistence and determination) for anyone who can read right through to the end of the following:

‘Photovoice’, a community-based participatory research methodology, uses images as a tool to deconstruct problems by posing meaningful questions in a community to find actionable solutions. This community-enhancing technique was used to elicit experiences of climate change among women in rural Nepal. The current analysis employs mixed methods to explore The subjective mental health experience of participating in a 4-to 5-day photovoice process focused on climate change. A secondary objective of this work was to explore whether or not photovoice training, as a one-time 4- to 5-day intensive intervention, can mobilise people to be more aware of environmental changes related to climate change and to be more resilient to these changes, while providing positive mental health outcomes.

The timing of the publication of this wretched paragraph and its associated ‘study’ could hardly have been more unfortunate, for I am sure that Nepali women have something more pressing on their mind at the moment than climate change. Geological change probably seems more important to them now.

The paragraph I have quoted was truly representative of the intellectual quality and honesty of what followed. ‘Climate change,’ say the authors, ‘is the largest global health threat of the 21st century and, despite limited empirical evidence, it is expected directly and indirectly to harm communities’ psychosocial well-being.’ This is not so much science as it is religion, in which the god worshipped is the bringer-bout of future catastrophe, a kind of Kali, whose destructiveness must be appeased by word, puja and sacrifice.

The abysmal level of what is written can be gauged in a table in the paper that is headed ‘Examples of participants’ accounts of the effects of climate change on their mental health and well-being, and useful adaptive strategies.’ It is divided into two columns: ‘Theme’ and ‘Quote,’ in the latter of which one of the subjects of the experiment, if that is what is what it was (ideological indoctrination might be a better term), is quoted, whether representatively or not it is impossible to say. Ten women took part, half of them from upper castes, and half of them from the Dalits, those whom we once called untouchables. Since Dalits were quoted six times out of the eight, and only five Dalits took part, at least one, and I suspect more, were quoted more than once.

Read rest…

Continue Reading 2 Comments

How Can So Many World Leaders Be So Wrong?

cartoonIn a recent Daily Caller article, Michael Bastach took note of “25 Years of predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’.” This is the message that the Earth is warming rapidly and, if we don’t abandon the use of fossil fuels for power, it will arrive to wreak destruction on the human race and all life on the planet.

It is astounding how many past and present world leaders are telling everyone this despite the total lack of any real science, nor any actual warming—the Earth has been in a natural cooling cycle since 1997!

At the heart of the global warming—now called climate change—”crisis” has been the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that has been issuing apocalyptic predictions since its inception in 1988. None of its predictions have come true. How could they, based as they are on the false science of computer models, not that based on observable climate events and trends?

To this day our own government through its meteorological agencies has been caught manipulating the data gathered over the years to conform with the “warming” scenario. The worst has been the Environmental Protection Agency which is engaged in an effort to shut down coal-fired utilities and access to every other energy source on which we depend to power the nation.

Despite this national and international effort, mostly likely based on the liberal ideology that there are too many humans on the plant and dramatic ways must be found to reduce that number. In the past these anti-humanity advocates could depend on famine, disease and wars to kill off millions, but in the modern world that has become less of a threat.

One libertarian think tank, the Heartland Institute, has been leading the battle against the global warming/climate change hoax for a decade. As a Heartland policy advisor I have had a front row seat. In June, Heartland will sponsor the Tenth International Conference on Climate Change bringing together some of the world’s leading scientists to recommend that it is time for Congress to “take a fresh look at climate science”, “explore better science-based policies for energy and the environment”, and, bluntly stated, to “start over on the question of global warming?”

It did not surprise me to learn that Heartland had dispatched staff to Rome when the Pope announced he too was joining the “climate change” advocates despite its lack of any basis in science. The group garnered tons of international media coverage by simply presenting the truth. You can find out more about them here,  It didn’t take long for Jeffrey Sachs, a Columbia University professor and ‘special advisor” to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, to write a commentary condemning global warming “deniers” that appeared on a Catholic website called Pewsitter.

Sachs took particular aim at The Heartland Institute and, despite not attending its Rome press conference or any of the presentations the experts provided, did not hesitate to identify Heartland as having been supported for years by the Koch brothers, known for the support of conservative groups and causes.

Joseph Bast, Heartland president, does not let such cheap shots pass by. “The Heartland Instituter has received just $25,000 from a single organization, a charitable foundation affiliated with the Koch brothers during the past 15 years. Our annual budget is approximately $7 million. Even that small gift was earmarked for our work on health care reform, not global warming. Why does Sachs mention the ‘Koch brothers’ unless his intention is to smear an independent organization by falsely implying a much larger or somehow Improper  level of support from some singularly unpopular billionaires?”

Bast got to the heart of the war being perpetrated by the either misinformed or deliberately lying world leaders of the climate change hoax. “The dishonesty of Sachs’ reference to The Heartland Institute would be startling, coming from a person of Sachs’ stature, if this sort of misrepresentation of facts weren’t so common in the debate over climate change. President Obama sets the tone. Comparing global warming realists to members of the ‘flat earth society’ and rather ominously calling on his supporters to ‘hold climate change denier’s feet to the fire.'”

“Sachs has had a long and distinguished career as an academic and in various government agencies,” said Bast, “but on this issue he is letting his liberal ideology cloud his judgement. His short essay reveals a disturbing lack of knowledge about climate science and compassion toward the billions of people in the world who will be harmed by the UN’s plans to make energy more expensive and less reliable.”

“Sachs ends his essay with a call on people of all faiths to ‘fulfill our moral responsibilities to humanity and the future of Earth.’ That responsibility starts with truth-telling. Sachs and his colleagues on the left haven’t reach the starting line yet.”

It doesn’t matter if it is the Pope, the President of the United States, or the UN Secretary General if the assertion that the Earth is warming when it is not or that coal, oil and natural gas must be abandoned to “save the Earth.” Whether from ignorance or a dark hidden agenda, the whole of the global warming/climate change is aimed at harming billions, many of whom need the power that this hoax would deny to everyone.

Source

Continue Reading 5 Comments

Chris Christie talks global warming, Hillary Clinton on immigration

christieAs he meets with voters on his two-day jaunt through New Hampshire, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has been fielding questions on everything from climate change to deflate-gate. …snip…

Global warming came up on Thursday, at the Cheshire County Republicans Lincoln Day dinner. There, the New Jersey governor took a strong stand on climate change that sets him apart from the other Republicans running or thinking of running for president. He said, “I think global warming is real. I don’t think that’s deniable. And I do think human activity contributes to it.”

And earlier Thursday, during a meet and greet in a Sunapee, New Hampshire bar, Christie said of Hillary Clinton’s remarks on immigration, “I quite frankly think her position is extreme.” Clinton, in Nevada this week, called for a path to citizenship, saying, “Not a single Republican candidate, announced or potential, is clearly supporting a path to citizenship. Not one. When they talk about legal status, that is code for second-class status.” Since she made that statement, Sen. Lindsey Graham, who cosponsored the bipartisan Senate immigration bill, rose to her challenge and said as president, he would veto any immigration bill that didn’t include a path to citizenship.

Full article

Continue Reading 2 Comments