UEA: The Sweet Smell of Napalm in the Morning…

I wasn’t going to crow, really I wasn’t. But I’m afraid I can’t resist, especially since it’s my last blog post for a while and this is an event of some significance. I’m talking about the Press Complaints Commission’s ruling on a complaint brought against this blog by our old friends at the University of East Anglia. They lost. We won. (And I do mean we: I’m hugely grateful to my legal advisers, as well as to experts including Steve McIntyre, Andrew Montford, Richard North and Christopher Booker.)

Because I’m about to dash off to Devon for some vital surfing R & R, I’ve only time to sketch in why this matters so much. Basically the UEA were trying to use the PCC as a way of gagging this blog from speaking unpalatable truths about the shoddy goings-on in its notorious Climatic Research Unit.

To its enormous credit the PCC stuck up for fair comment and freedom of speech. This is a massive victory not just for me and Telegraph blogs, but for bloggers everywhere especially those doughty souls around the world who are battling against Establishment lies, bullying and cover ups to try to reveal the truth about the corrupt, mendacious Climate Change industry.

If it sounds like I’m overdoing it, consider this: the PCC’s ruling must be among the first by any quasi-official body anywhere in the world to take the side of a Climate Change sceptic rather than that of the Warmist establishment. This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

Now that ruling in full:

Commission’s decision in the case of
University of East Anglia v The Daily Telegraph

The complainants, acting on behalf of the University of East Anglia (UEA), complained that three blog posts by James Delingpole were inaccurate and misleading and contained distorted information in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code.  In particular, the complainants were concerned that the blog posts described Professor Phil Jones as “disgraced, FOI-breaching, email-deleting, scientific-method abusing”.  They explained that Professor Phil Jones had been exonerated of any dishonesty or scientific malpractice by a series of reviews.  They were concerned that a second blog post repeated accusations that had been demonstrated as untrue, concluding that the University’s scientists were “untrustworthy, unreliable and entirely unfit to write the kind of reports on which governments around the world make their economic and environmental decisions”, and a third blog post referred to the scientists’ work as “shoddy” and “mendacious”.

The Commission emphasised that the articles in question were blog posts and were clearly identifiable as such to readers generally, as they were posited in the ‘Telegraph Blogs’ section of the website and written under the columnist’s prominent by-line.  The Commission was satisfied that readers would be aware that the comments therein represented the columnist’s own robust views of the matters in question.  Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code permits the publication of such comment provided it is clearly distinguished from fact and does not contain significantly inaccurate, misleading or distorted information.  The Commission has previously ruled [North v The Guardian] that “In the realm of blogging (especially in cases touching upon controversial topics such as climate change), there is likely to be strong and fervent disagreement, with writers making use of emotive terms and strident rhetoric.  This is a necessary consequence of free speech. The Commission felt that it should be slow to intervene in this, unless there is evidence of factual inaccuracy or misleading statement.”

Through its correspondence the newspaper had provided some evidence in support of the statements under dispute, and the columnist had included some of this evidence in the second blog post under discussion.  In relation to the columnist’s description of Professor Jones as “FOI-breaching, email-deleting”, the newspaper had provided extracts from an email from Professor Jones in which he had written “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone”, and another email in which he had written “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?”.  With respect to the columnist’s assertion that Professor Jones was “scientific method-abusing”, the newspaper had provided an extract from an email from Professor Jones in which he had written “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline”.  In view of this, the Commission considered that there were some grounds for the columnist’s opinion – which readers would recognise was subjective – on these points.

The complainants emphasised that Professor Phil Jones and the other scientists discussed in the blog post had been cleared by a number of independent reviews.  The Commission noted that the columnist had referred to these reviews, and that readers would therefore have been aware that they had taken place.  In the first blog post complained of the columnist had referred to “unconvincing attempts to clear the Climategate scientists”, and noted that one scientist, Mike Hulme, had “managed to emerge from the Climategate scandal smelling of violets”.  He had also noted in the first blog post that Professor Jones had granted interviews “presenting himself as a man far more sinned against than sinning”.  The columnist in the second blog post complained of had expanded on his comments and made clear that the scientists had “apparently… been ‘exonerated and cleared of all malpractice by a series of independent reviews’”, although he made clear that he did not consider these reviews to have been “independent”, citing a report by Andrew Montford which was critical of the reviews.  While the complainants had expressed concern that the Montford report was “partisan”, the Commission considered that the columnist was entitled to agree with the report.

The Commission was satisfied that readers would be aware of the context of the columnist’s robust views – clearly recognisable as his subjective opinion – that the scientists were “untrustworthy, unreliable and entirely unfit to write the kind of reports on which governments around the world make their economic and environmental decisions”, and that their work was “shoddy” and “mendacious”.  In the circumstances, it did not consider that there had been a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code.

The Commission noted that the newspaper had offered the complainants an opportunity to respond on the blog post.  It considered that this would inform readers of the full context of the dispute and the complainants’ position.  The Commission welcomed this offer, and hoped it would remain open to the complainants.

Related posts:

  1. Sporting triumph at school is even sweeter than the smell of napalm in the morning
  2. David Cameron skippers Morning Cloud, conducts LSO, etc
  3. Climategate: Googlegate?
  4. Separating myth from reality in a history of the Battle of Britain

3 thoughts on “UEA: the sweet smell of napalm in the morning…”

  1. A K Haart says:9th April 2011 at 4:04 pmExcellent news. Sighs of relief all round I think. People like me, supporters on the periphery, don’t always remember the professional risks you run when you take on institutions with deep pockets and tell it as it is. Thank you.
  2. Nige Cook says:10th April 2011 at 8:19 amCongratulations James! Let’s hope someone will fund a proper study of the anti-greenhouse effect of CO2 now.
    http://vixra.org/abs/1104.0013
  3. Nathaniel Courthope says:18th April 2011 at 2:44 pmIndeed climate gate reflected poorly on those involved. But they’re not the only scientists in the world. I don’t see that the whole AGW agenda is sunk by a few idiots. Damaged, yes, but no more.

    After all, your pal Ian Plimer has been pretty soundly discredited by failing to answer any of his critics. You promised us his book was going to change everything. Do you still stand by your original review of it?

Comments are closed.

Official: Wind Farms Are Totally Useless

Wind farms: scarring the English countryside (Photo: John Taylor)

Wind farms: scarring the English countryside (Photo: John Taylor)

Before I take my break, I cannot resist drawing your attention to a new report on wind farms – perhaps the most damning I have ever read. What makes it even more significant is that it has been sponsored by an environmental charity. Normally the people most busily pushing these bird-chomping, bat-crunching, taxpayer-fleecing monstrosities on our magnificent landscape are those who claim, ludicrously, to be green. Thank you, John Muir Trust, for reminding as that being green doesnt necessarily have to include economically suicidal schemes to destroy perhaps our greatest national asset: the British countryside.

Heres its summary:

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS in respect of analysis of electricity generation from all the U.K. windfarms which are metered by National Grid, November 2008 to December 2010. The following five statements are common assertions made by both the wind industry and Government representatives and agencies. This Report examines those assertions.

“Wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year.”

“The wind is always blowing somewhere.”

“Periods of widespread low wind are infrequent.”

“The probability of very low wind output coinciding with peak electricity demand is slight.”

“Pumped storage hydro can fill the generation gap during prolonged low wind periods.”

This analysis uses publicly available data for a 26 month period between November 2008 and December 2010 and the facts in respect of the above assertions are:

Average output from wind was 27.18% of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive.

There were 124 separate occasions from November 2008 till December 2010 when total generation from the windfarms metered by National Grid was less than 20MW. (Average capacity over the period was in excess of 1600MW).

The average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.

At each of the four highest peak demands of 2010 wind output was low being respectively 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand.

The entire pumped storage hydro capacity in the UK can provide up to 2788MW for only 5 hours then it drops to 1060MW, and finally runs out of water after 22 hours.

Related posts:

  1. Wind Farms: the death of Britain
  2. Sorry, but wind farms are useless even against vampires
  3. Wind farms kill whales: blubber on the green movement’s hands
  4. Wind farms: even worse than we thought…

10 thoughts on “Official: wind farms are totally useless”

  1. Walt O’Brien says:7th April 2011 at 3:33 amWell, the other bit is they are a super device for hoovering up British subsidies ostensibly intended for British developers which are instead shell corporations for foreign interests which are taking the money the British taxpayer shells out for these monstrosities and pockets them offshore. They are a real job for the SFO, IMHO.

    A happy and safe vacation, and do something about the bloggatosis twitches, if this routine has chewed on your mind at all to the extent your feel a little suspicious of your own behaviour. The story of Hercules in its original version is the first clinical portrayal of PTSD, and he wasn’t fighting Viet Cong, he was fighting himself.

    Where the DT finds such achievers I have no idea, but I get the impression it is another General Electric or Rolls Royce: the best fuel yields the brightest flame, but who cares about the ashes, right? As Otto Lilienthal put it in his last words when he was dying as a result of trying out a new wing configuration on his test glider: “Sacrifices must be made.”

    I still want a piece of your editor. This was meant to be your apprenticeship and instead it has been damn near a hazing.

  2. Walt O’Brien says:8th April 2011 at 7:17 amHello, James. Thought you might be interested in who are possibly your main tormentors arisen from the depths of Hell, paid or otherwise.

    Please take a look at who is the contact person here, then please check with Damien to see if the IP address gives a location anywhere near Amherst, NY: Tonawanda, Buffalo, etc.

    http://jobs.powermag.com/c/job.cfm?vnet=0&str=1&max=25&site_id=2669&sort=date_&jb=7814219

    Sorry, I am just completely exhausted with blogging altogether by these bar stewards. Do have a nice vacation. That they should go to the lengths they have indicates with what significant effectuality your work has put a properly cobbled bespoke boot into their smelly crab-infested groins.

    General Physics, BTW, are major-league consultants to the utilities on climate change and carbon trading. Please check out their ‘Climate Change” offerings.

    I rather suspect this would amuse Lord Tebbit as well.

  3. chris says:8th April 2011 at 5:48 pmPlease don’t stop writing about inefficient wind farms and their outrageous subsidies.

    Eventually, the lights are going to go out.

  4. Velocity says:9th April 2011 at 9:04 pma technology backed (subsidised, tax breaks, funded etc) by Govt …you can 100% guarantee it’s a pile of crap (see buses, trains, electric cars etc)

    ..add Windfarms to the list of crap

  5. David says:10th April 2011 at 4:03 pmEveryone who claims that wind farms are completely useless is wrong. Every effort to promote the sources which produce electricity and protect the environment at the same time is worth making.
  6. Don Stuart says:11th April 2011 at 10:23 am‘David’ – What do you mean ‘protect the environment’? In what way do windmills protect the environment?

    You’ve said absolutely nothing there. Typical windy rhetoric from a flatulent greenie.

  7. Nige Cook says:11th April 2011 at 12:28 pm“The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” said Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (“L’enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs”).
  8. Axel says:15th April 2011 at 1:29 amLord Monckton is standing as a candidate for election to the Scottish Parliament on 5th May 2011. Vote UKIP in Mid-Scotland & Fife to GET MONCKTON ELECTED. Let’s all hear Lord Monckton lambast the Carbon Fraudsters on a Daily Basis in
    The Scottish Parliament. All you Scottish voters in the forthcoming Scottish Elections
    who want to see the Carbon Hoaxes and Frauds brought to an end have a clear choice
    for an eloquent voice to speak on their behalf on the Public Stage at long last.
    Vote UKIP to get Lord Monckton elected and the Carbon Crooks Exposed.

    See the website linked to my name. Click the name Axel above to see loads of Lord Monckton Videos and other materials. Hundreds of arcane videos at that website.

  9. Nige Cook says:19th April 2011 at 12:26 pmAxel: I think the CO2 AGW killer is figure 4 in Roy Spencer, et al., “Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations,” published in the Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 34, shttp://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf

    It proves that increasing cloud cover from extra ocean evaporation due to CO2 warming reduces the thermal radiation getting through: negative feedback. All IPCC models ignore this and assume water has a positive feedback effect. That’s why the greenhouse effect is a myth: no greenhouse is 71% ocean with 62% cloud cover, like earth. It’s not rocket science. If you look at the asymptotic limit for a boiling ocean, the rising, condensing steam droplets would give us 100% cloud cover. Any temperature rise of the warm ocean surface layer will increase cloud cover, producing negative feedback. The scandal is that all the predicted temperature rise of CO2 AGW is supposed to be due to positive feedback, which doesn’t exist.

  10. Velocity says:19th April 2011 at 6:32 pmAxel – great news, i truly hope Lord M gets elected but i fear the Scotts are a lost cause (sooner England peels away from them the better). Here’s your average Scottish voters choice;

    Labour Party (Marxists)
    Liberal Party (closet Marxists)
    SNP (Marxists)
    Conservatives (Socialists)

    Let’s hear it for ‘democracy’ (pass the sickbag)… Scotland is well and truly f**ked and they deserve it quite frankly!

Comments are closed.

Earth Does Not Have a Cancer; the Cancer Is Not Man

Some deeply unpleasant remark

Chris Packham, 'wildlife expert' (Photo: Paul Grover)

Chris Packham, ‘wildlife expert’ (Photo: Paul Grover)

Any minute now I’m going to lay off blogging for a while, for health reasons. But I can’t pretend I’m going to find going cold turkey easy, especially not when there are stories like this around.

It concerns “wildlife expert” Chris Packham – presenter of some of the BBC’s most popular nature programmes including Springwatch and a new series called The Animal’s Guide To British Wildlife – and some deeply unpleasant remarks he made in the course of an interview with the Radio Times.

“There’s no point bleating about the future of pandas, polar bears and tigers when we’re not addressing the one single factor that’s putting more pressure on the ecosystem than any other – namely the ever-increasing size of the world’s population. I read the other day that, by 2020, there are going to be 70 million people in Britain. Let’s face it, that’s too many.”

So what does he suggest we do about it? Get people to stop having children?

“Yes. Absolutely. I wouldn’t actually penalise people for having too many children, as I think the carrot always works better than the stick. But what I would offer them tax breaks for having small families: say, 10 per cent off your tax bill if you decide to stick with just one child. And an even bigger financial incentive if you choose not to have a family at all.”

What frightens me almost more than these remarks – whose loathsomeness I shall gloss in a moment – is the response of the Daily Mail’s readership. All right, perhaps the Mail’s online audience is not representative of the entire country, but I do think they’re probably close to embodying what the reasonable other person from Middle England thinks, and in this case what they seem to think is frankly bloody terrifying.

All right, so I don’t imagine many of us here would quibble with the most popular comment so far, with 1300 plus positive votes:

How about offering people nothing for not having children as well as not giving them anything when they have ten children? Let them pay for their offspring with their own money for a change. That might make a few people consider the population even if it’s the one in their own home.

This is in line with the very sensible remarks that once got Howard Flight into such trouble. And of course the Tory peer was quite right: it’s absurd to have a situation where the most feckless, unproductive sector of the economy is subsidised by the state to have children they would otherwise be unable to afford.

But here are the second and third most popular comments, with well over 1000 positive votes each:

He is quite right you know, the most eco friendly thing you can do is not breed.

Well done Chris I couldn’t have said it better myself. That is the main problem with this planet — too many people. We require a massive birth control programme, never mind growing more food and building more houses — cut back on breeding is the only answer.

There are so many things wrong with this attitude I don’t know where to begin. But why not let’s start with the plight of only children? Almost everyone I know who was brought up without a brother or sister wishes it could have been otherwise. I myself grew up in a family of seven, and while it’s true that I have never quite forgiven one of them for voting for Caroline Lucas in the last election I count the friendship and kinship of my wonderful brothers and sisters one of the greatest joys of my existence. I know there are many in China who feel much the same way: the tyrannical one-child policy, it is now being recognised, has not only led to much unnecessary unhappiness but is also leading to potentially disastrous economic consequences (especially in its battle for economic supremacy with India, where no such restrictions have applied).

Yet such is the misery that Chris Packham wishes to import to Britain. And to be fair, he is far from the only high profile figure who thinks this way. Very much of the same view is that famously nice, caring natural history TV presenter David Attenborough, concerned environmentalist the Hon Sir Jonathon Porritt, actress Susan Hampshire, Gaia theory inventor James Lovelock, ex UN apparatchik Sir Crispin Tickell (the man who – briefly – persuaded Margaret Thatcher of the imminent perils of Man Made Global Warming) and chimp expert Jane Goodall. All of these luminaries are – with Packham – patrons of the Optimum Population Trust, an organisation which believes that the world’s growing population is “unsustainable” and which is dedicated to finding ways of reducing it.

The problem with the Optimum Population Trust – one of them anyway – is that its very existence is predicated on a vilely misanthropic view of the human species: that there are too many of us, that we do more harm than good.

And yes, superficially, this view of the world makes a kind of sense. It’s what I call an “I reckon” argument: the sort of argument you’d make in a pub, after a few beers, based on information you’ve established from a gut feeling so strong it doesn’t need any awkward details like facts getting in the way of your opinion. I mean obviously more people means less space, and more demand on “scarce resources”, so the more people there are the more trouble we’re in. Stands to reason dunnit?

This is exactly the kind of wrong thinking I address in my new book Watermelons. You’ll forgive me if I don’t come up with all the counterarguments here. (Read the bloody book!). But in a nutshell, it’s that this Neo-Malthusian pessimism – as warped and wrongheaded today as it was in the era of doom-monger Thomas Malthus (1766 to 1834) – is based on fundamental misconceptions about the ingenuity of the human species and about the nature of economic growth.

Sure if all populations did as they grew and grew was use up more finite “stuff”, then we would indeed have cause to worry. But they don’t: as populations increase in size, so they learn to specialise and adapt and find ever more ingenious ways of making more with less. That’s why, for example, the mass starvation predicted by Paul Ehrlich in his Sixties bestseller The Population Bomb never happened: because thanks to Norman Borlaug’s Green Revolution, crop yields dramatically increased while the area of land under cultivation remained unchanged. If you want to read more about this, I recommend not just my book, but also Matt Ridley’s superb The Rational Optimist or anything by Julian Simon (known as the Doomslayer because of the way he constantly confounded Neo Malthusian pessimism and  junk science).

The reason I have become so obsessed with “global warming” in the last few years is not because I’m particularly interested in the “how many drowning polar bears can dance on the head of a pin” non-argument which hysterical sites like RealClimate and bloggers like Joe Romm are striving so desperately to keep on a life support machine. It’s because unlike some I’ve read widely enough to see the bigger picture.

One thing I’ve learned in this wide reading is how obsessed so many of the key thinkers in the green movement are with the notion of “overpopulation.” As one of their favourite think tanks, the Club of Rome, puts it: “Earth has a cancer and the cancer is man.” This belief explains, inter alia, why the “science” behind AGW is so dodgy: because the science didn’t come first. What came first was the notion that mankind was a problem and was doing harm to the planet. The “science” was then simply tortured until it fitted in with this notion.

I do not share this view. Indeed, though I believe that while people like Chris Packham (and Prince Charles; George Monbiot; Al Gore; David Attenborough; Robert Redford; Mikhail Gorbachev; Ted Turner; et al) may believe what they do for the noblest of reasons, their ecological philosophy is fundamentally evil. And I do mean evil. Any philosophy which has, as its core tenet, the belief that mankind is the problem not the solution cannot possibly be one that pertains to good, can it?

This is why I have been fighting this Climate War so hard for so long. And why I have no compunction whatsoever in calling the people who promote that repellant philosophy by the names they deserve. The ideological struggle that is being fought now over the issue of “Climate Change” (and related, quasi-Marxist weasel concepts such as Sustainability) may not yet involve the bloodshed caused in the wars against Nazism and Stalinism, but the threat it poses to individual freedom and economic security is every bit as great. But there aren’t enough of us fighting this war on the right side – and I’m knackered.

I want to leave the last words here to one of my favourite commenters, Tayles, who brilliantly explained the other day why there is moral equivalence between the green/liberal fascist side of the argument, and the one libertarian, empirical one for which I’m so frequently vilified by some of the posters below this blog. It really should be a separate post but that might confuse commenters as to where to go.

UPDATE

Just one more thing before I pass you over to Tayles. While of course I value the rich panoply of varied opinions I’m seeing appear below this blogged, I’m disturbed by the number which seem to determined to conflate “immigration” with “overpopulation”. These are entirely separate issues. It’s quite possible to believe, as I do, that unchecked immigration (encouraged as a deliberate policy under Blair) has been a disaster for Britain, especially when allied with the pernicious philosophy of multiculturalism which encourages division and separatism, while yet disagreeing violently with the loathsome Neo-Malthusianism of Chris Packham and his ilk. Do not confuse the two issues. Many – indeed the majority – of Britons are rightly concerned about how the character of their country has been changed and the infrastructure swamped by deliberately poor border controls. But this is a separate topic for discussion.

So, here he is: Tayles on why James Delingpole is right:

Such an approach is the one Delingpole adopts. Why do you never have a go at him for “cherry picking internet sources”? – Endeavour

That’s a fair question. There is a straightforward answer, which is that the Left’s evidence is normally one-eyed, misleading or downright dishonest. That extends to the AGW sham, which is propped up by a bunch of cobblers, peddled by scientists and politicians with much to gain from the spread of their dogma.

There’s a more philosophical answer too, which I’ll indulge you with if you’ve got a minute. The fundamental condition of mankind is one of liberty – which is to say, freedom from the constraints imposed by higher authorities. The only real ‘rights’ are those that exist in the absence of other people’s intervention, such as freedom of speech and property rights. Taxes, laws and so-called positive rights are man-made constructs that require the enforcement of a higher power, such as a government. Clearly they are no more naturally-occurring than iPods or Ford Fiestas.

When some new constraint is scrawled onto the blank page of freedom, it must be justified. The onus is on the person who wants to enforce that constraint to justify the need for it, rather than on those who must suffer its effects to explain why they should be spared. Just as a person is innocent until proved guilty, and the burden of proof is always on the True Believer, so the defenders of freedom should not really have to defend their position.

For this reason, the benefit of the doubt must be always be given to those looking to protect our freedoms, while those who wish to take them away should be required to be especially thorough and honest, and deserve to be treated with suspicion. The consequences and trade-offs of what they intend to impose should be weighed and analysed. We should be especially concerned if they try to brush aside the concerns of their opponents or ignore contrary evidence.

I think that the arguments put forward by AGW zealots should be a lot more convincing than they are. And I think that the defence of our freedoms advanced by James Delingpole are perfectly good enough. There is more at stake here than our climate.

Related posts:

  1. Pandas: do we need ’em?
  2. Pope Catholic; night follows day; IPCC found telling pack of lies about sea level rises
  3. What on earth is Bob Ward?
  4. ‘We must live more sustainably’ says Jeremy ‘Seven Homes’ Irons

5 thoughts on “Earth does not have a cancer; the cancer is not man”

  1. Max Eastern says:6th April 2011 at 9:16 pmWatermelons: is it really a book or is it just a joke? You inisit in your last blog that we read the bloody book, but where? At first I thought there really was a book, then, when I couldn’t find any evidence of it even on your own website, I thought it was a joke, then you mentioned the book again in a blog and I wasn’t sure. I might even be tempted to read the bloody thing if I thought it existed.
  2. Nige Cook says:8th April 2011 at 5:06 pmJames, can I just say well done for today’s Daily Express article, “What Exactly has the World ever Done for Britain?”, http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/239388/What-exactly-has-the-world-ever-done-for-Britain-

    “The fact is that we in Britain have done far, far more for the world than ever it did for us.

    “And it’s about ruddy time that pitifully ungrateful world gave us something back.”

    It’s spot on. We’d at least expect some respect, but the rest of the world is too full of bigotry against Britain’s history of colonialism to remember that, for example, slavery continued in America for 32 years longer than in Britain. If we had no immense deficit, we could afford to play God and sort out the world’s problems, if others were genuinely deserving and genuinely grateful for the help. But borrowing money to throw down the drain “helping others” while we cut jobs and social spending here is not generosity, but stupidity.

    Because we’re virtually throwing money at the recipients in a stupid manner, it comes across in the wrong way; we even don’t get respect in return. It’s perceived that we’re stupid and frivolous with our money, that we have “more money than sense”, that the giving of money is some kind of reparation for our colonial past, or that the leaders who agreed to give the money are corrupt and must be doing it to get a secret private brown envelope of cash back from the recipient, etc. Nobody is grateful to Britain under these circumstances. The fastest way to make false “friends” is to start giving money for nothing. You don’t get genuine respect, instead you’re looked on as a loaded fool. If Cameron wants to help the world, let him write his cheques on his own private bank account, not increase Britain’s debt burden by giving unwanted help to selfish anti-British regimes, while making cut backs here.

  3. Velocity says:9th April 2011 at 9:16 pmConsider Prince Phillip said if he was re-born (God help us!) he’d like to come back as a virus as there’s too many of us. He’s on the WWF and ‘surprise surprise’ has born 3 children himself!!!

    The problem i see with eugenicists is that they’re still alive and having children adding to the population ‘problem’. A ‘problem’ that would disappear overnight if they were all eradicated

  4. Deadpeoplestuff says:21st April 2011 at 12:40 pmWell JD, down targets, patch-out. That’s to say, don’t stay away too long, recharge the batteries or should that read ‘stoke the coal fired boilers’ and come back fighting! (although I entirely understand the need to take a break….the trolls wear everyone down eventually)

    Please try to remember, you are one of the few writers prepared to represent the ‘other side’ of the great global warming racket. These ‘deep greens’ can not be given free run or those who respect and care for all life would lose an important voice.

    Anyone concerned about the ozone layer may wish to consider the nuclear tests and the continued deployment of so called ‘low yield’ depleted uranium (er..nukes) around the globes war zones (there are a few to choose from..) and may care to look deeper into the whole CFC story

  5. Nige Cook says:21st April 2011 at 10:00 pm“Anyone concerned about the ozone layer may wish to consider the nuclear tests and the continued deployment of so called ‘low yield’ depleted uranium (er..nukes) around the globes war zones (there are a few to choose from..) and may care to look deeper into the whole CFC story” – Deadpeoplestuff

    But 438 megatons of atmospheric nuclear tests, including high altitude tests in the ozone layer, had no measurable effect on ozone: see Nature (vol. 244, pp. 545-551), http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/79bias/Goldsmith.pdf

    Nuclear explosions in sea level air produce a strong blast wave which heats and compresses air to produce nitrogen dioxides. Simplistically, a tiny amount of nitrogen dioxide can set off a chain reaction that destroys the entire ozone layer – ignoring reactions with water vapour to form nitric acid, which is of course what happens to most nitric acids formed in shock wave “thunder” around lightning bolts (it was proved that this happens in nuclear detonations too, when America flew sampling aircraft through a Chinese megaton yield mushroom cloud in 1976). Water vapour is entrained by afterwinds and is sucked into the cloud, where it mixed with nitric oxides, forming nitric acid.

    High altitude nuclear explosions which don’t produce a significant blast wave, don’t produce significant amounts of nitric oxides, but the gamma rays released from such bursts do produce a massive amount of ozone, which gives a good boost for the ozone layer. This is still deliberately covered up by the American military, who are still classifying as secret early-time thermal radiation emission which shows the absorption of ultraviolet by the ozone created by the action of gamma radiation on the air around the fireball.

    People think this kind of data either (1) doesn’t exist, (2) isn’t precisely measured, or (3) is “controversial” (ignorable), when it’s merely still being classified as restricted data under the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954!

    This shows the danger of believing early scare-mongering “scientific” claims from armchair theorists. There’s also a media “selection principle” where only nuclear disaster claims are deemed newsworthy at all. Facts debunking widely-held dogmas don’t sell the Guardian and aren’t objectively reported. Scientists always pick up on this and ensure their reports are scary stuff that attracts more funding and research, like the self-perpetuating AGW scam. Lefties rely on lies (using dogmatic “science”) to camouflage their ecofascist eugenics policies: they censor out science criticisms as if they’re the same as religious heresies.

Comments are closed.

Britain’s state school system is a conspiracy against the public | James Delingpole

April 2, 2011

Britain’s state school system is a conspiracy against the public

The other day Girl’s class found themselves with time to spare in the vast play area behind the Imperial War Museum. The children looked wistfully at the swings, roundabouts and climbing frames. ‘I’m not sure we can go there,’ said the teacher. ‘I haven’t filled in a risk assessment form.’

(to read more, click here)

11 thoughts on “Britain’s state school system is a conspiracy against the public”

  1. Martin Lack says:2nd April 2011 at 8:42 amSo are you.
  2. JimmyGiro says:2nd April 2011 at 9:53 amDuring last Christmas, I was working in the local sorting office as a casual. From one sixth-form college, we received a large assignment of postcards, with the term’s ‘student reports’.

    Needless to say, no meaningful assessment of the student could be gleaned from the language of the reports, which used superlatives and neologisms, as though ready for the plasterer’s trowel. But the plasterer’s art was instantly revealed, as all reports from the same teachers about different students, were identical.

    And to simulate individuality, each card was hand written. One maths teacher had misspelled a word in his multi-batch, thence tip-exed out that mistake in all the post-cards from him, so that you knew from a glance the author.

    Why don’t parents with children from the same schools, gather and swap school reports, so as to get insight into the con, that is modern state education.

    And don’t get me started on Ritalin.

  3. Nige Cook says:2nd April 2011 at 11:58 am“Britain’s state school system is a conspiracy against the public on an epic scale. Over a period of at least three decades, generations of children have been sacrificed on the altar of an entrenched ideology which — in the name of ‘progressive’ values — has successfully removed from a once-functioning system every last vestige of rigour, discipline, aspiration and competition. Thanks, Miss Snuffy, for telling it like it is.”

    I attended comprehensive state schooling and then red brick colleges, and I agree 100%. To maintain discipline during the late 80s, my form tutor (“Ms” with dyed pink hair, who was also my English teacher), allowed us to watch “Neighbours” at 1:30pm after half an hour’s free discussion (usually on the topic of socialist ethics, Marxism, the perils of the May 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster, etc.). She was disillusioned and confided to us that despite using up here grant allowance on higher education, she was planning to study law (in the fine socialist legal tradition of defending the guilty-as-sin, at great public expense, thus upholding law and social justice). One other memory was the chemistry teacher, who deliberately used explosions and bromine to wake everyone up. Nobody bothered him, since he carried around a jar of uranium acetate in his pocket.

    The great thing about state education is the complete freedom to do your own thing, to think for yourself, to resist conforming to the dictatorship of others, in fact the necessity of doing your own thing if you want to pass any exams ever. Everyone who I knew who got grade A’s did so on the basis of out-of-school study, tutored by parents or by elder siblings. I swim and run regularly for exercise, but I refused to do any competitive sport as a matter of Marxist/Christian principle when at school: competitive sport is immoral prize-grabbing and (trying to) make others losers, hardly the kind of thing Jesus would do. I think it’s curious to see that instead of producing the intended clones, the socialist system of state education backfires and produces innovators and freethinkers. Looking at the products of English public schools, you find prime ministers, civil servants, Nobel Laureates, and other high status clones like fashionable writers.

    They mostly tend to suffer from customs, ethics, groupthink ideology, and conservative political correctness that stifled free thinking and genuine innovation. The exception to this rule (James) is the moral equivalent of Blair’s “plastic copper”; a “visible presence” who won’t overcrowding the prisons. Ideal. You find all socialistic dictatorships have a special “complains department”, the BBC’s Raymond Snoddy, the Guardian’s “Reader’s Editor”, etc. The more open and proud they are of their procedures for dealing with dissent, the more of a problem they end up creating, the self-fulfilling prophecy problem.

    If they don’t have procedures in place to allow “concerns to be redressed”, they’re more careful about doing their research and getting their facts straight in the first place. With the BBC and the Guardian, you find that they immediately refer their damned “proudly” to their “unbiased” complaints departments as soon as they receive a complaint. It’s the same with government departments. The more procedures they put in place to deal with problems, the freer they are to get things wrong and make use of those departments, and the more impossible it is to get any direct and honest reply from the people who actually make up the lies. Instead of lying to the public being considered a sackable offense, the mechanism is in place to turn lying into a social nicety, just a matter of giving James Delingpole something to complain about.

  4. Velocity says:4th April 2011 at 12:58 amBritains State schools are going (have gone) the way of everything else run by Westminster and local Councils (ie. politicians). They are being run, expensively and incompetently, into into the ground

    Everything Govt touches turns to crap

  5. Felicity says:7th April 2011 at 11:09 amWhat type of parent would send their child to a school which they won’t even set foot in themselves?

    Oh right – the type of parent who can’t be bothered shelling out the extra cash for something as frivolous as their daughter’s education. It’s especially important to limit your daughter’s opportunities in life if you have a son which you wish to send to the most expensive type of school in the country.

    Nowadays rich and successful men are just hanging around, waiting to marry a state educated girl as soon as she finishes highschool. There is never a time she will need to support herself, support loved ones – or God forbid, actually have dreams & ambition in life!

    I read your article in Tatler. It was the most sexist piece of trash I’ve seen since we had to read a ‘housewive’s handguide’ from the 1950’s in my history class at school.

    Thank you for making me value my father (who worked to give me opportunities in life) a lot more.

  6. James Delingpole says:7th April 2011 at 11:30 amThanks “Felicity”. Until I read your comment I was all ready to bankrupt myself sending Girl to private school. But now I see that even when you do send a young lady to private school she still emerges bitter, angry, wedded to the kind of self-destructive feminist outlook which one might have hoped had died in the Seventies, and sends pseudonymous hate messages to people she doesn’t know based on one article she only half-understood in Tatler, well, maybe I’d be better leaving her at the local comp.
  7. JimmyGiro says:7th April 2011 at 3:14 pmHehehe… outch!
  8. Felicity says:10th April 2011 at 12:14 pmI wished my parents had sent me to the local state school along with my primary school friends at the time – but now that I’m older I’ve realised how low the rates of University admittence were, as well as how high the rates of teen pregnancy were. I’m sure I would have done just as well academically – but I would have been exposed to a lot of things I wouldn’t want my kids to be exposed to.

    You’re more than happy to bankrupt yourself for the sake of your son – why not send them both to a cheaper private school if money is a problem?

    As for being bitter and angry – well I do believe that this is the pot calling the kettle black in this scenario. I am right to be angry when people treat children unfairly – but this blog spews outrage over even seemingly trivial topics.

    Whilst I don’t believe you intend to cause your kids any harm, I do believe you’re setting your daughter up for a lifetime of self-doubt and resentment if you offer her sibling more privilege than you do her.

    I have very different values to you – yes I do believe in gender equality, I worry about the environment, I believe gay people should have the same rights and I’m strongly against racism. I do however, believe we both care for children – so I think you should reconsider how your decision will affect your kids emotionally.

  9. Felicity says:10th April 2011 at 12:16 pmOh and Felicity is my real name.
  10. Nige Cook says:10th April 2011 at 3:36 pmIf you will read James Delingpole’s book How to be Right, you’ll find he argues for all the liberal equality values that you claim to be differences. What you call “seemingly trivial topics” concern the continued wasting of billions which actually sent this country into serious financial and moral bankrupcy, led to a culture of lying for Marxist ideology (the EU financial corruption is worse than that of USSR), and reduced individual freedoms.

    Oh and Felicity is my real name.

    How appropriate, the derivative of a Roman goddess! Did your privileged girls education include the etiquette of snobbery?

  11. Felicity says:19th April 2011 at 10:57 amIt was a co-ed private school and not that privileged. I don’t believe state school education is bad overall. Some are great, some are terrible – the one in our local area just happened to be the former.

    The problem I have is that one child is being afforded more privilege than the other and that the author seemingly planned to give his daughter just one option for her future – marrying a rich man.

    It’s unfair and completely unrealistic in this day and age – what if marries late in life or not all? What if she gets divorced? What if she falls in love with someone with little money?

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

The Ideological Rot That Is Destroying English Conservatism

Letwin: let them holiday in Bognor

Letwin: let them holiday in Bognor

One of the greatest advances for personal freedom in the last twenty years was the rise of the low cost airline. Suddenly, thanks to Ryanair, Easyjet and their many imitators, European travel was transformed from the rare luxury of the few into something almost everyone could enjoy, often two or three times a year. The range of destinations opened too, as smaller airports Bydgoszcz, Montpellier, Beziers, Wroclaw, Kaunas, Riga became part of regular flight schedules. This in turn enabled people to buy properties in parts of Europe which, hitherto, they had barely realised existed. And with flights so cheap they could visit their second homes regularly, enjoying with their family and friends the glorious escapism which comes of owning your own special realm in another country remote from the cares of quotidian existence.

Sure the cheap travel boom had its downsides, for no social and economic advance is without its side effects. Obviously Prague, Riga and Wroclaw could live without the drunken stag parties (though possibly not without the boost they have afforded the local economy); and no one is pretending that Ryanairs Michael OLeary is Mother Teresa, nor that a crowded EasyJet flight is the last word in sophistication. But you would need a really warped sense of priorities to argue that the disadvantages of cheap air travel outweighed the advantages, let alone that it is something which should be actively discouraged.

Yet bizarrely, disgracefully, this is exactly what one of David Camerons ministers is reported to have proposed. According to the excellent Iain Martin (formerly of this parish), the minister in question is Eton-educated former merchant banker Oliver Letwin. And his remarks have prompted a row with London Mayor Boris Johnson.

Boris Johnson has had a blazing row with a Tory Cabinet minister who privately told the London Mayor that the Government doesn’t want people flying abroad on holiday.

Johnson told a ‘People’s Question Time’ event: ‘I was absolutely scandalised the other day to hear a government minister tell me he did not want to see more families in Sheffield able to afford cheap holidays.

Absolutely disgraceful, a bourgeois repression of people’s ability to take a holiday. It is a matter of social justice.’

Who was the Tory minister concerned? Impeccable sources tell me it was Oliver Letwin,  the Hampstead-born minister of state at the Cabinet Office, ‘leading Cameroon thinker’ and former investment banker.

Once again we see Boris positioning himself as the ideological conscience of the Conservative party. Im not suggesting he doesnt also believe this stuff: Im sure he does, with a passion. But politically it makes sense too for Boris understands clearly, as his party leadership apparently does not, the Conservative party in Britain is in dire, dire trouble. And the root of this malaise is precisely this mix of snooty remoteness, intellectual woolliness and odious wetness exhibited by senior party figures like Oliver Wetwin.

Wetwin, let it not be forgotten, is not some random pillock on the fringes of the Tory party. He is the Prime Ministers key policy adviser. If somebody that influential cannot understand why trying to clamp down on cheap holiday flights (as indeed the government is doing: through the swingeing eco-taxes imposed on air travel) is inimical to Conservatism, then truly the Tory party is doomed.

One of the reasons Margaret Thatcher was so successful was that she understood what it means to aspire to a better life. If youre Oliver Letwin (or indeed a baronets son like George Osborne, or indeed David Cameron) you dont need to worry about such things: youve had it all handed to you on a plate already. But to Thatcher, the kind of snobbery that suggests that only people with chalets in Gstaad (like Nick Clegg) or homes in Tuscany (eg Polly Toynbee) should be able to afford to fly abroad regularly would have been total anathema.

One of the key tenets of Conservatism is a desire to set people free: free of the shackles of the state, free to forge their own destiny, free to spend their money on as many exciting new opportunities as a burgeoning market is prepared to offer them. This is also how economies grow: by harnessing the mightily powerful urge most people have to improve their own lot and create an even better world for their children.

Oliver Letwin is not the only senior Tory who completely fails to understand the point of conservatism, but he is probably the most egregiously misguided.

The only consolation here is that David Cameron is unutterably ruthless. If he believed for one fraction of a second that his political survival lay in ditching the wets in his party and rediscovering his true inner Tory, he would do so in a trice.

As Martin argues earlier in his article, while Cameron is busy grandstanding over Libya, his domestic policies are falling to pieces. Not only is the Coalition under threat, but Camerons brand of managerial, Heathite faux-Conservatism too. I still fancy Camerons chances because, beneath that plausibly charming veneer, hes a principle-free thug. Thats why, I suspect, sooner or later hes going to be forced to do the right thing.

And one of those right things should definitely be this: sack Oliver Letwin.

Related posts:

  1. Cameron’s coalition of liars, trimmers and charlatans are destroying Britain’s landscape
  2. A refreshing weekend of real conservatism
  3. Cancun suffers its final indignity: a visit from ‘Two Jags’ Prescott
  4. ‘Compassionate’ Conservatism isn’t Conservatism

16 thoughts on “The ideological rot that is destroying English conservatism”

  1. Martin Lack says:3rd April 2011 at 3:14 pmSorry to be so outrageously predictable but, the main disadvantage of cheap air travel is that its cost does not reflect the environmental damage it is causing: Being of the same generation as you, James, I too benefited greatly from the expansion of affordable air travel in the 70s and 80s. However, back then, our parents could be excused their self-indulgence on the grounds of ignorance. Today, the situation is different in that we now know what damage is being done (and most of us are even willing to acknowledge it). Therefore, armed with this knowledge, to carry on taking advantage of cheap air travel is selfish. However, as Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) observed, such is our “state of nature” – and such is the truth of Garrett Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons” – that we do indeed need governments to make some anti-libertarian choices for us.
  2. Nige Cook says:3rd April 2011 at 7:42 pmWhat “environmental damage” is air travel causing, Martin? Aircraft release just 3% of total CO2 emissions.
  3. Velocity says:4th April 2011 at 1:38 amHaving sold up in the UK and moved to The Med i’m not up with UK politics much, especially as the BBC, ITV and SKY News is totally unwatcheable mind-numbing dross (is it made for patronising 13 year olds?). So i’ll take your word for it James that Tory policies are falling apart at the seams.
    This is what i told your ‘small Govt’ mate Daniel Hannan would happen. If the Tories were piss poor in opposition they’d be even more shambolic in Govt faced with real (as apposed verbal) challenges.
    But forget re-arranging the deckchairs, or in Oliver Letwins case he’s the trash in the bin, on the Titanic James.
    The real iceberg is the economy. Everything else is bunting.
    Housing, consumers and retail have all just started tanking again.
    When the economy rollercoasters down into its 2nd Double-Dip the public, the real ones not the current bleating pigs of the public sector, will (finally) lose their rags and (finally) kick off into the streets (Circa. 2012-2014)
    The current Lib-Con jokers will find a hell on earth and at last awake from their cushy elite educated socialist slumber ….welcome to reality retards
  4. Martin Lack says:4th April 2011 at 8:29 amNige, that is just yet another “and who is my neighbour” excuse for taking no action!
  5. Nige Cook says:4th April 2011 at 11:30 amMartin, you’re ignoring the NOAA data from 1948-2009 and supposing that humidity isn’t falling to compensate for greenhouse CO2 emissions (negative feedback), but even if you did have your facts right, your “action” is wrong because it will have no significant effect on the problem, yet will have a very significant effect on the global economy, on people’s lives, etc. If you really care about making a brighter future, I suggest you join the “big society” bandwaggon and consider complaining about the marketing of popular poisons like alcohol and pseudo-science.
  6. Martin Lack says:4th April 2011 at 6:17 pmAlcohol is not a poison, but it is a socially-acceptable-yet-highly dangerous drug.As for pseudo-science, I complain about what you say almost every day but will you shut up. Not a chance.

    But, since you still have not invalidated his argument, I return to the central point made by Greg Craven, that we should stop arguing about the science and start debating about the cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of whether or not we should take action to mitigate the potential consequences of AGW being/turning out to be true.

  7. Nige Cook says:5th April 2011 at 9:57 amMartin: you’re missing my point. The analogy of alcohol to pollution is very important. Pure alcohol is a poison: it’s taken up like water but doesn’t perform the same functions, dehydrates the brain, damages the liver. Diluted sufficiently, it is less toxic but it is still a poison.Saying “Alcohol is not a poison, but it is a socially-acceptable-yet-highly dangerous drug,” is wrong. Every poison has a lethal dose, and well below that dose, the effects are mitigated. Alcohol is an addictive poison. CO2 and radioactive pollution are not addictive poisons, and even if they were, the bigger problem is the natural level of each, which is way bigger than human emissions. All of these scare mongering scams rely centrally on the ignorance of the public to the lies being used for political ends, to suck away taxpayers money under false pretenses, etc.

    Feynman came up against this in the 1960s with radioactivity. He found the natural background radiation in Denver is double that at sea level altitude cities (on account of the extra cosmic radiation at altitude). Then he noticed people protesting about a 1% increase in radiation due to nuclear tests. Why, he asked, were the people not protesting against the much bigger radiation, the 100% increase in sea level radiation from living in Denver? Why not protest to have such cities closed, if you claim a hazard exists?

    Feynman classic repudiation of 1960s radiation lies for political scaremongering:

    http://www.i2o.uva.nl/BGB/KIN/Feynman-unscientific.doc

    Richard Feynman, This Unscientific Age (Danz Lectures, April 1963):

    You can play games and show that you will kill 10 million people in the next 2000 years with it. If I were to walk in front of a car, hoping that I will have some more children in the future, I also will kill 10,000 people in the next 10,000 years, if you figure it out, from a certain way of calculating. … How much is the increase in radioactivity compared to the general variations in the amount of radioactivity from place to place? The amounts of background radioactivity in a wooden building and a brick building are quite different, because the wood is less radioactive than the bricks.

    It turns out that at the time that I asked this ques-tion, the difference in the effects was less than the dif-ference between being in a brick and a wooden building. And the difference between being at sea level and being at 5000 feet altitude was a hundred times, at least, bigger than the extra radioactivity produced by the atomic bomb testing.

    Now, I say that if a man is absolutely honest and wants to protect the populace from the effects of radio-activity, which is what our scientific friends often say they are trying to do, then he should work on the biggest number, not on the smallest number, and he should try to point out that the radioactivity which is absorbed by living in the city of Denver is so much more serious, is a hundred times bigger than the background from the bomb, that all the people of Denver ought to move to lower altitude. … I ask you to ask that question to get some idea whether you should be very careful about not walking into a brick building, as careful as you are to try to stop nuclear testing for the sole reason of radioactivity. There are many good reasons that you may feel politically strong about, one way or the other. But that’s another question.

    What depressed me what the way this argument of Feynman’s was ignored by reviewers in science magazines when the essay above was republished as part of the Feynman book The Meaning of it All. I recall that one reviewer, probably in New Scientist wrote that Feynman’s views of radiation risks were outdated and shocking to readers: he made no mention of the point Feynman was getting at, which is the lying and deception. Yes, Kennedy signed the atmospheric nuclear test ban treaty on 5 August 1963, four months after Feynman’s lecture. But it had a terrible price in “justifying” pseudo-science.

  8. Martin Lack says:5th April 2011 at 1:53 pmYour attempt at obfuscation by means of a lengthy digression regarding radiation will not deflect me: You say “CO2 and radioactive pollution are not addictive poisons, and even if they were, the bigger problem is the natural level of each, which is way bigger than human emissions.” However, the human race is addicted to fossil fuels, the waste product from combustion of which is most definitely polluting our environment. Yes that’s right, CO2 is an atmospheric pollutant because it is now being generated faster than the environment can assimilate it. For the same reason, we can enjoy drinking whisky but not pure ethanol; and above a safe level of consumption even whisky is poisonous.I am not too proud to admit I mis-spoke earlier when I said “alcohol is not a poison“; clearly it is – or people would not die of alcohol poisoning (silly me)! However, will you also admit you are wrong to deny that CO2 in the atmosphere can be – and is – harming our environment (i.e. the defining characteristic of a pollutant)?
  9. Nige Cook says:5th April 2011 at 5:32 pmMartin: I am grateful to you for stimulating me to complete my paper which debunks the basis for your CO2 scaremongering: http://nige.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/5-april-2011-climate-change-paper-nigel-b-cook.pdfIt’s only 8 pages long, and compiles the latest key facts debunking AWG.
  10. Martin Lack says:5th April 2011 at 10:50 pmInteresting stuff but, unfortunately, the entire premise of your crusade is wrong because AGW is not an “anti-capitalist conspiracy“: If it was, it would be an entirely motiveless crime, whereas AGW-denial has a very clear motive, which is to justify the continuance of “business as usual” and the maintenance of our “hydrocarbon habit“.Furthermore, with regard to water vapour, it does not matter how many times you, he, or anyone else repeats the flawed water vapour hypothesis, it does not negate the extremely high probability of the correctness of the scientific consensus.

    Unfortunately, while denialists prevent more effective mitigating action being taken, the climate is changing (as Greg Craven would say, “the experiment is running and we are in the test-tube“); and the time lag between cause and effect means that by the time this mad “debate is finally over, the cost of preventing significant change will have escalated enormously because, as Nicholas Stern has pointed out:
    This is not an investment project like a new road or a bridge. The costs and benefits of such projects can reasonably be understood in terms of a marginal change, set in the context of a given growth path for the entire economy. What we are discussing with climate change are strategies concerning patterns of growth, or possible decline, for the world economy as a whole in the context of uncertain outcomes. The analytical tools and policy constructs must be capable of taking on these issues directly. All too many discussions – and it is astonishing that they have done so – see policy on climate change as a single-investment decision, analogous to a new bridge. Standard or marginal cost-benefit analysis is appropriate for the latter kind of decision. For climate change, however, the relevant economics are much more difficult and profound“.
    Page 13 of “A Blueprint for a Safer Planet” (2009).

    In other words, Stern was right the first time, the longer we delay taking action, the more expensive it will be to take action that achieves the same result. The fact that the libertarian ideologues at the Institute of Economic Affairs do not accept this just shows how blinded they are by their idolatry of the free market. Again, Stern was therefore also correct to conclude that AGW is the biggest market failure in human history.

  11. Richard Treadgold says:6th April 2011 at 6:21 amMartin Lack:You ask:

    However, will you also admit you are wrong to deny that CO2 in the atmosphere can be – and is – harming our environment (i.e. the defining characteristic of a pollutant)?

    Please describe the harm you say CO2 is causing. Remember, as you describe it, that CO2 is emitted by natural processes, such as by animals breathing, and that it is the single most important plant food, even for aquatic and oceanic plants.

    I am interested to hear what harm this natural ‘pollutant’ causes to our environment.

    Richard Treadgold,
    Convenor,
    Climate Conversation Group.

  12. Nige Cook says:6th April 2011 at 8:29 am“Furthermore, with regard to water vapour, it does not matter how many times you, he, or anyone else repeats the flawed water vapour hypothesis, it does not negate the extremely high probability of the correctness of the scientific consensus.” – MartinWhat “high probability of the correctness of the scientific consensus”? It’s a fact, not a hypothesis, that heated moist air rises, just as hot air from politicians/BBC correspondents/Dr Phil Jones rises to form an effective “smoke screen” called cloud cover. The bouyancy of warm air is a fact that at an equilibrium of pressure (pressure equalizes quickly), warm air has a lower density than cold air, causing it to rise like a hot air (or helium) balloon. When warm moist air rises, it expands as the ambient pressure falls, and the expansion causes the moisture to transform from a greenhouse gas (H2O vapour) into small droplets which form a white reflective cloud, cooling the air and surface below.

    No amount of consensus based on ignoring the facts can ever be science, it must be called pseudoscience.

    The page you link to, http://www.skepticalscience.com/Evaporating-the-water-vapor-argument.html states the old positive-feedback IPCC hypothesis (used in every IPCC model) that sunlight warmed water vapour doesn’t rise to form clouds in the low-pressure at thousands of feet above air pressure.

    The positive feedback hypothesis is disproved by the data in my paper, and what we’re dealing with a socialist conspiracy called popular fashion, which is the most prevalent conspiracy you can find, even sucking in “conservative” nutters like David Cameron!

  13. Nige Cook says:6th April 2011 at 9:55 amSee also the new paper, Lutz Bornmann and Werner Marx, ” The Anna Karenina principle: A mechanism for the explanation of success in science”, http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.0807 (5 April 2011):

    The first sentence of Leo Tolstoy’s novel Anna Karenina is: “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way”. Here Tolstoy means that for a family to be happy, several key aspects must be given (such as good health of all family members, acceptable financial security, and mutual affection). If there is a deficiency in any one or more of these key aspects, the family will be unhappy. In this paper we introduce the Anna Karenina principle as a principle that can explain success in science. Here we will refer to three central areas in modern science in which scarce resources will most usually lead to failure: (1) peer review of research grant proposals and manuscripts (money and journal space as scarce resources), (2) citation of publications (reception as a scarce resource), and (3) new scientific discoveries (recognition as a scarce resource). If resources are scarce (journal space, funds, reception, and recognition), there can be success only when several key prerequisites for the allocation of the resources are fulfilled. If any one of these prerequisites is not fulfilled, the grant proposal, manuscript submission, the published paper, or the discovery will not be successful.

    As I’ve written before, I was pushed into statistics before mechanical applications of mathematics. Suppose you toss an unbiased coin, observe how it landed, but don’t tell me. From my perspective, I still have to assume that there is 50% probability of heads or tails, even though the event is done and dusted, and you know the result with 100% accuracy. In this case, probability is just is a measurement about how ignorant you are of the facts. As soon as you have the facts, probability ceases to have values between 0% and 100%, or 0 and 1, yes and no. There is no fuzziness, no probability in the real world. Probability is just a subjective measure of ignorance, varying from person to person, depending on the knowledge available to that person. It’s subjective, not objective.

    What you’re trying to do, Martin, is to ignore the fact the coin has landed tails up on the AGW controversy, by asserting that there is some probability that warm moist air doesn’t rise. This reminds me of the fallicious argument that there is some small probability that all the air molecules will cluster in one corner of your room, suffocating you (or causing you to explode in the vacuum thus formed around you).

    It’s fallicious because although it looks like solid “probability theory”, it violates the conservation of energy, the third law of thermodynamics, etc., like the “probability” that a ball will roll uphill of its own accord. As soon as any slight pressure enhancement in one place arises, that air expands, physically re-establishing an uniformity of pressure. To get all the air molecules in one corner of your room would require a lot of work energy to be expended in greatly compressing (and thus heating up) the air into a corner, and that large amount of energy needed to reduce the entropy of the gas is simply not available. Even if you assume that quantum field vacuum energy is “borrowed” to power a temporary re-arrangement of air molecules in your room, you find that it is impossible to achieve because the amount of borrowed energy (Joules) = h-bar/time (seconds), so the time taken by 500 m/s air molecules to all reach one corner of your room prevents enough energy being borrowed to compress that that air.

    So in the real world, things are impossible, contrary to the popular fashion that probability is a statement of reality. Furthermore, the “self-fulfilling prophecy” principle is alive and well in “science”, well explained by Shaw:

    The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

    – George Bernard Shaw

    The tolerance of criticism and the need to debate openly is the definition of progressive libertarian freedom. The pretense in mainstream physics that science is a “consensus of experts” is useful in showing such mainstream physics to be politically defended. Democratic politics, where the “consensus” is supposedly established every four years by elections, shows some of the problems with such consensus.

    First, a consensus means nothing where everyone has been misled by liars. Second, a consensus can form behind a liar who makes false promises that people want to hear (vote for Nige Cook, I promise everybody I’ll cut tax and provide millions of new public sector jobs, and better services for everyone). Third, nobody decent and moral and uncorrupted by the sewer smell of power wants to go into politics any more that they would want to board the Titanic while it was sinking, because they can see the country is bankrupt and there is nothing that can be done without money. So the consensus of liars ends up attracting more liars to it, just as overripe fruit attracts flies until they become very unattractive. At this stage, it’s too late for would be critics, because there’s a supercritical mass of bullshit exploding.

  14. Nige Cook says:7th April 2011 at 9:14 amMy paper compiling the negative-feedback evidence is now hosted at the preprint server http://vixra.org/abs/1104.0013
  15. Martin Lack says:7th April 2011 at 9:23 amApparently, the US Congress has recently repealed legislation that recognised the danger of AGW. In an editorial piece entitled “Into ignorance“, this is what Nature had to say about it:
    It is hard to escape the conclusion that the US Congress has entered the intellectual wilderness, a sad state of affairs in a country that has led the world in many scientific arenas for so long. Global warming is a thorny problem, and disagreement about how to deal with it is understandable. It is not always clear how to interpret data or address legitimate questions. Nor is the scientific process, or any given scientist, perfect. But to deny that there is reason to be concerned, given the decades of work by countless scientists, is irresponsible“.
    Nature 471, pp.265–266, 17 March 2011.Is this how you want your children to remember you?
  16. Nige Cook says:7th April 2011 at 10:02 amMartin, duplicity is the word for the decades of work by countless self-deceived groupthink apparachiks who are paid to tow the party line (thus having a vested interest in continued lying scare-mongering) by sneering attacks on genuine evidence that debunks their lies.The editorial in Nature shows how far the smell of money has corrupted not just research but the definition of science itself, which is morphing away from the idea that facts override prejudices, into the ancient idea that superstitions override reason, because it uses “decades of work by countless scientists” as an argument, forgetting it can apply that deceitful “majority is right” lie to Piltdown Man, centuries of work on Ptolemies epicycle based earth-centred universe, Phlogiston, Caloric, etc. Do you want your children to remember you as someone whose support of money wasting for a lying “ethical” scam increased their debt burden, and reduced the ability of governments to spend money on real human needs?

Comments are closed.

Our Island Story

I vividly remember the moment when I saw my first black person. It was December in either ’68 or ’69, so I would have been three or four at the time, and my father’s works had arranged some kind of coach outing to meet Father Christmas. Seated near me was a black child a bit older than me, and I recall gazing fascinated at the blackness of his skin and noticing that it had white blotches on it like a mirror image of the dark freckles and moles on my skin. ‘Daddy, what are those white things?’ I asked, pointing at the boy’s skin. ‘Pigment,’ my father explained.

It’s not the sort of detail you could make up, is it? And I’m sure most Englishmen of my generation or older will have had similar experiences. It’s not a racist observation, merely a statement of fact, that in our youth Britain was much, much whiter than it is now. So white that unless you ventured into the inner cities, it was quite possible not to see a ‘coloured’ person at all.

Suppose, then, you wanted to create a cosy, long-running TV series which would have especial appeal to the group of people who most watch TV. No, not students and the long-term unemployed: they’ve got Countdown and Shameless. I mean all those oldsters who don’t do Facebook and Call of Duty (Black Ops), who know the words to the ‘Beer at Home means Davenports’ ad, whose schooling included being taught how to add up and write in joined-up handwriting, who think Britain isn’t what it was and that nobody has any manners or respect any more. If you were designing a show just for them, how would it look?

Here, I would suggest, are some of the key ingredients: chocolate-boxy, unspoilt English villages with honey-coloured stone; a total absence of wind farms; a solid, reliable, if slightly dull detective of a certain age — ideally played by that wonderful chap who used to be Jim Bergerac, ah, remember Bergerac, happy days; plot lines involving country-house mysteries of the kind that greats like Margaret Rutherford as Miss Marple used to solve; sly, shifty old rustics, blimpish colonels and bluff Mine Hosts; churches and churchyards and churchgoers; extremely limited use of iPods, iPads, Xboxes and PS3s; no ethnic characters.

You’ll have noticed that the series I’ve described, more or less, is Midsomer Murders.

Read the rest at the Spectator.

Related posts:

  1. Government’s £6 million ‘Bedtime Story’ climate change ad: most pernicious waste of taxpayers’ money ever?
  2. What Labour has done to our education system is criminal – as this heart-rending story shows
  3. Why the BBC cannot be trusted on ‘Climate Change’: the full story
  4. When Lego lost its head – and how this toy story got its’ happy ending

 

10 Reasons Why We Shouldn’t Be In Libya | James Delingpole

March 30, 2011

“It is one of those times when I feel estranged from the country and not comprehending of what we are doing and why everyone is so gung-ho for it all.” Rod Liddle on the Anglo-French/American Libyan intervention Spectator May 26

“One can only gape in stunned amazement at the extent of the idiocy being displayed by the leaders of America, Britain and Europe over the ‘Arab Spring’ – which should surely be renamed ‘the Arab Boomerang’.” Melanie Phillips on Libya in her Spectator blog.

Is this the first time Rod Liddle and Melanie Phillips have agreed so strongly on any subject, ever? I think it just might be. Which gives a pretty fair indication, I think, of how stupid, misguided, wrongheaded, counterproductive and suicidally dumb our current intervention in Libya is. It’s the war which no one outside the political class wants to wage because almost no one outside the political class is so foolish as to imagine any good will come of it.

Here are just ten of the reasons why we shouldn’t be there:

1. We cannot afford it. Liberal interventionism belongs to another era: the era when we imagined we had enough money to prosecute wars. Now our armed forces are so straitened by Cameron’s defence cuts that we don’t even have sufficient trained Typhoon pilots. And as for those bloody silly Storm Shadow missiles at £1 million a pop….

2. The Arabs won’t thank us for it – which kind of defeats the object, given that the sole real point of this misbegotten enterprise was to show the Middle East how lovely and caring we were and sensitive to Islamic feelings. Only once we’d secured the Arab League’s approval did we dare launch the mission. And now, guess what: they’ve decided they think it’s a bad idea after all.

3. We are fighting for Al Qaeda. Not traditionally one of our allies.

4. According to this video from the Cato institute, there are five key questions to be asked before actions of this kind: Is it in the national interest? Is there public support? Have the costs and consequences been considered? Is there are clear military mission? Have we exhausted all available options? The Libya debacle fails on ALL counts.

5. It’s the French’s colonial war, not ours. They sucked us into this. As Jonathan Foreman reports in his superb analysis:

For more than two decades the biggest threat to French dominance of Chad – and other Francophone countries in Central and West Africa has come from Libya. Qaddafi’s forces have battled those of Chad four times since 1978. During the first three invasions, in 1978, 1979 and the winter of 1980-81, the Libyans allied with local rebel forces, supporting their infantry with armored vehicles, artillery and air support. The third invasion resulted in the de facto partition of Chad in 1983 with Libyan forces controlling the country’s northern half, above the 16th parallel.

6. President Obama’s heart obviously isn’t in it and given that US provides the bulk of our military muscle, this doesn’t augur well for a happy outcome.

7. What kind of message does it send out to the Middle East generally? That we’ll only intervene in countries where we have no real strategic interest and which are weak enough to knock about, while leaving the really big nasty regimes – Iran’s, say, or Syria’s – to do what the hell they like. As Melanie Phillips reports in a superb blog post, all we are doing is alienating Middle Eastern moderates through our mixed messages and double standards:

So no air strikes to get rid of Bashar Assad. Of course not. The rule of thumb for western ‘progressives’ is that tyrants can stay in office if they are the mortal enemies of freedom, democracy and human rights and are helping the jihad – in which case it is a ‘war crime’ to get rid of them; the only ones they want to get rid of are those who are resisting the jihad.

Particularly damning is the verdict she quotes of Tariq Alhomayed, editor of Al Sharq al Awsat, on the US’s failure to understand the nuances of Bahrein’s politics (where the Shi’ite protest movement is in fact sponsored by Iran)

How can the U.S. defense secretary say that Bahrain must enact speedy reforms to put an end to Iranian interference… while the Americans are also issuing statements saying that in Yemen, protests are not the solution, and that there must be dialogue? Why must the Bahrain government to act immediately, while the demonstrators in Yemen must to wait? This is wrong, and it raises both suspicion and doubt.

…This is not to mention that that the U.S. is ignoring what is happening in Iran, where the state oppresses its minorities. [As recently as] yesterday, the Iranian opposition has tried to come out and protest in Tehran, only to be repressed, and its key figures have been arrested. This is a perplexing matter indeed, but it clearly tells us something – that is, that Washington does not have a clear picture of what is going on in the region, and that even if it does, it is too weak to act.”

8. Britain, France and the US now run a drastically increased risk of a Lockerbie-style revenge atrocity. Obviously we shouldn’t base our international policy on our fear of being punished for doing the right thing. But, er, being punished for doing the wrong thing?

9. If this goes on much longer, Britain’s beloved former minister Lord Mandelson may run a severe risk of never landing a coveted shooting invitation again with his chum Saif Gaddafi, nor will the London School of Economics be able to go ahead with any plans it may have have had to establish a new School of International Terrorism Support and Apologism, perhaps with someone like Professor Ken Livingstone as its head.

10. If, according to President Obama, Libya was a “looming humanitarian disaster” that would have “stained our conscience”, how come similar rules don’t apply to his biofuels policy which may be responsible for as many as 200,000 Third World deaths per year? Here is a genuine problem (see this paper by Indur Goklany) which could be solved without costly military action and bring about a guaranteed happy outcome.

Increased production of biofuels increases the price of food worldwide by diverting crops and cropland from feeding people to feeding motor vehicles. Higher food prices, in turn, condemn more people to chronic hunger and “absolute poverty” (defined as income less than $1.25 per day). But hunger and poverty are leading causes of premature death and excess disease worldwide. Therefore, higher biofuel production would increase death and disease.

Research by the World Bank indicates that the increase in biofuels production over 2004 levels would push more than 35 million additional people into absolute poverty in 2010 in developing countries. Using statistics from the World Health Organization (WHO), Dr. Indur Goklany estimates that this would lead to at least 192,000 excess deaths per year, plus disease resulting in the loss of 6.7 million disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) per year. These exceed the estimated annual toll of 141,000 deaths and 5.4 million lost DALYs that the World Health Organization attributes to global warming. Thus, developed world policies intended to mitigate global warming probably have increased death and disease in developing countries rather than reducing them. Goklany also notes that death and disease from poverty are a fact, whereas death and disease from global warming are hypothetical.

Thus, the biofuel remedy for global warming may be worse than the disease it purports to alleviate.

 

3 thoughts on “10 Reasons Why We Shouldn’t Be In Libya”

  1. Nige Cook says:31st March 2011 at 7:46 pmGadaffi was drumming up support for months by jamming free unbiased TV transmissions around Tripoli while broadcasting state TV propaganda accusing all his opposition to be drugged Al Qaida terrorists, which is why he dominates Tripoli with propaganda and gets back so much support there.

    The Libyan intelligence technical administration building south of Tripoli has jammed Arabic language Russian Today (Rusiya Al-Yaum) TV transmissions relayed by the Nilesat (AB4) satellite, Al Jazeera TV on the Arabsat, and Alhurra TV on the Nilesat satellite.

    To help free democracy in Libya, the first thing is to get unbiased Arabic language TV news (not BBC propaganda) into Tripoli, stopping Gadaffi’s propaganda lies by jamming them! It’s cheap and risk-free, compared to having the risk of aircraft shot down in a no-fly zone!

    On CNN on 9 March, Senator John McCain argued for the jamming of Libyan state TV’s lying propaganda from the Gadaffi regime, which is an obvious and technically easy undertaking.

    (For technical details on military jamming capabilities, please see the February 2009 U.S. Army Field Manual FM 3-36, “Electronic Warfare in Operations”. There is spare communications satellite capability over North Africa which can be adapted for this purpose, while terrestrial radio transmissions could easily be jammed using a ship off Libya.)

    Of course, Cameron won’t use electronic means to counter Gadaffi propaganda. He prefers to use expensive cruise missiles, etc. We all know how this happens. The great British top brass deny jamming exists, so they can do their bit to further bankrupt the country with the alternative of a no-fly zone. Cameron asks no questions and believes whatever people tell him, so the worst choices are taken.

  2. Bernie says:1st April 2011 at 7:48 pmJust imagine how the Soviets feel about the matter: it is manna from heaven. If Quadaffi prevails they can say that we never supported the idea of your overthrow. Thje imperialists fof the west did that. If the “rebels” win they can say that we supported you all along. Our agents were in the forefront of the protests along with whatever fundamentalists that we could scrape together. The only reason that we didn’t supply you with arms is that the United States was already doing that. It’s a win-win situation.
  3. Velocity says:4th April 2011 at 12:54 ambut David Cameron, not content with 2 wars (illegal foreign occupations) and going for a ‘lucky’ 3, says “it is absolutely the right decision”.
    When you’re born wrong, and a Home Counties village idiot, how do you know what the right decision is David???

Comments are closed.

George Osborne’s New Eco-Bullingdon Club

Grotesque and pointless quango

Green-wishes-230Imagine if a cabal of privately wealthy upper middle class and lower upper class public schoolboys got into power and began using taxpayers’ money to dole out special favours to all their rich friends: cushy sinecures for their banking and management consultancy chums from Goldman Sachs, Citibank, Merrill Lynch, Logica and the Oliver Wyman Group; subsidies for landowners like Sir Reginald Sheffield (father-in-law of one D. Cameron, Esq) to blight their local countryside; investments in companies almost 100 per cent guaranteed not to make a profit but nice, all the same, for those plutocratic rent-seekers who’ve been tipped the wink by their chums in government. (H/T Barrie James)

Imagine if this were found out. There’d be riots on the street, right?

WRONG!

This is exactly what happened in chancellor George Osborne’s latest budget. And almost no one noticed. So thank heavens for Andrew Orlowski of the Register:

Last week, Chancellor George Osborne announced a new body that would make loans and issue debt. In a harkback to the 1970s, poorly performing and deeply unprofitable businesses will be the beneficiaries – and investors in them will be rewarded for their poor judgement. So much for moral hazard.

The Chancellor even found an unexpected £775m from the Government’s sale of the HS1 rail link to kickstart the venture. £3bn has been pledged: £2bn from the sale of publically-owned assets, and £1bn from taxes. This is a considerable sum that could alternatively be used to pay off the government borrowing, or pay for public services.

Or indeed, pay for a new aircraft carrier. Or buy five squadrons of F-18s. Or pay for the share of the Portugese bailout so kindly imposed on Britain (with Cast Iron Dave’s tacit agreement) by Osborne’s even-more-useless predecessor Alastair Darling. OrWell I’m sure we can think of lots of more sensible ways a Chancellor of the Exchequer could spend £3billion of OUR money. What I seriously doubt though, is whether anyone could think of a worse way of spending £3 billion, than on the grotesque and pointless quango  that is the Green Investment Bank headed by Bob Wigley.

The point to note about the Green Investment Bank is that it is based on one massive lie, promulgated by everyone from David Cameron to Chris Huhne to Greg Barker to every other two-bit chancer who wants to get on the Coalition, viz: that green investments and green jobs are the future. (See this brilliant Dilbert cartoon) (H/T Philip Foster)

They are not. The reason private investors don’t want to invest in environmental projects is not that they’re frightened of making too much money, as this chart shows:

http://regmedia.co.uk/2011/03/25/ftse_stocks_2010_large.png

Can you see which category of investment comes right at the bottom? The one so abysmally poor that investors lost on average 52.3 per cent over the course of the year? That’s right. Alternative Energy.

Now imagine you had a Prime Minister who had a first in PPE from Oxford and a Chancellor who claimed to be a classical liberal. What kind of intellectual contortions must they have gone through to persuade themselves against all evidence that it makes any financial sense to use taxpayer’s money to bribe investors to allocate their scarce resources in companies that are so inefficient they can only possibly ever turn a “profit” through massive state subsidy (paid for by imposing a national energy tax concealed in electricity bills)?

And you don’t even need to be on the libertarian right, like me, to believe that this is a crying scandal. It is, as Orlowski notes, above all a conspiracy against the poor.

Osborne’s programme really a continuation of his predecessor’s as he invented very few of the policies – is a set of deeply regressive measures at which the Left has traditionally bridled. The Left has historically thought of itself as being on the side of the poor, and opposed measures which hurt the poor disproportionately. It likes to think of itself as being on the side of the weak against the strong, and so has traditionally favoured a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. Yet the policies depend heavily on regressive taxation and more expensive essentials.

Forty per cent of the cost of a carbon floor price is paid for by consumers, the Treasury’s own documents suggest. The Budget measures alone add £17 to a family’s household energy bill. As even climate Jacobin George Monbiot has noticed, green measures distribute wealth from the poor to the middle classes: FITs are “extortionate, useless deeply regressive”. Not all on the Left are happy with this. Graham Stringer MP said Parliament needed to look much more closely at the policies, and the justification for them, because the measures hit the poorest people in the country. (He is MP for the North Manchester constituency of Blackley and Broughton.)

It’s a hard one for many on the Left. The number of households in “fuel poverty” – where energy swallows up more than 10 per cent of household income – has trebled. In Wales, more than one in four households is in fuel poverty, according to Wales Online. Left to the market, energy prices would plummet: even with profiteering and heavy Government duties. Gas is cheap, and set to be even cheaper for years to come; gas requires no subsidies.

Really, honestly, I have absolutely no objection to living in a country run by people who’ve had the best education in the world and who belong to the kind of old aristocratic families which tend to take the long view on what Britain’s interests really are. What I do object to, though, is when they abuse their power by behaving like selfish, ignorant, caricature toffs out of a Guardian cartoon by Steve Bell or Polly Toynbee’s most perfervid class-war fantasy. It is precisely such weapons-grade pillocks who govern us now.

Related posts:

  1. Territorial imperative
  2. My excitement over the Conservatives’ manifesto…
  3. Richard Madeley reveals that the green blight has finally sunk Cornwall
  4. Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil

 

Simon Singh’s for the Joy of Solar Energy

Tonight, as I’m sure you’re all aware Simon Singh Britain’s third most famous celebrity mathematician after Carol Vorderman and Johnny Ball appears at the Spectator debate speaking in defence of the great AGW meme.

I do hope his spirits havent been dampened by the recent news that the government is planning to slash subsidies for large-scale solar installations.

The proposals would reduce the tariff for roof-mounted schemes of more than 50 kilowatts by 39pc to 49pc and the tariff for stand-alone schemes may be reduced by more than 70pc.

The  reason I mention this is that Simons entrepreneur brother Tom who runs the Tom Singh Family Trusts appears to be quite heavily exposed to the solar industry.

Entrepreneur and retailer Tom Singh has purchased a stake in solar power developer and producer mO3 Power.

Singh, who is the founder of high street retailer New Look, will become a non-executive director of mO3 Power after buying into the company during its second investment round.

His stake in the company has not been disclosed but a statement says it is a ‘substantial investment’.

Tom Singh Family Trusts, which made the purchase on Singh’s behalf, have interests in a range of sectors including retail, real estate and renewable energy.

mO3 Power develops, builds, owns and operates a number of large-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) panel parks in the Midlands, southern England, East Anglia and south Wales.

mO3 Power chief executiveKen Moss says: ‘[Singh] has demonstrated a clear and deep understanding of the solar PV sector and the importance of increasing electricity generation from renewable resources.’

Let’s hope for Simon’s sake it adds extra passion to his oratory at the Spectator debate. After all, he wouldn’t want to let down Big Brother, would he?

Related posts:

  1. The curious double standards of Simon Singh
  2. Simon Singh: is there anything he doesn’t know?
  3. Treating Islam with special reverence is cultural suicide and just plain wrong
  4. We need to talk about wind farms…

 

How the TUC’s Day of Innocent Family Fun Was Destroyed by Evil, Fascist Media

They came in their thousands from across the land – babies, pensioners, Ed Miliband, both the people who still watch 10 O’Clock Live. Their aims were simple, their intentions pure. They were marching against INJUSTICE. They were yearning for a Better Britain.

They were campaigning for a brighter, nobler, fairer world where:

Britain’s economy can compete on almost equal terms with those of Albania and Burkina Faso.

Media studies, golf course management and windsurfing technology students can watch Bully, Countdown and Fifteen to One, down 15 pints, a couple of special K and a pack of plant growth stimulant in the subsidised Mandela bar before retiring for a night’s gaming on their PS3s unencumbered by the fear of ever having to pay for their vital, economy-boosting education.

All those selfish greedy bastards who work for a living can have more of their money taken by the government and spent on worthwhile causes like million-pound-a-throw bombs to drop on Libya, diversity outreach consultants and communitarian think tanks run by Will Hutton.

Guaranteed job security and ring-fenced pensions for the people whose vitally important job it is to collate hospital reports showing whether you are a) white British, b) white, Irish, c) white, Traveller c) black, Caribbean d) black, African, e) black, Other…….

Britain’s international credit rating to be brought down to a more “fair” level, so as not to make the Greeks or the North Koreans feel jealous.

Anyone who runs a successful business enterprise – eg evil Philip Green of the wicked consumerist Top Shop chain – to have their legs cut off and their eyes gouged out and all their money spent on iPad 2s for the unemployed.

Was this really too much to ask?

Apparently so. What these poor innocent protestors had reckoned without was the vile prejudice of the fascist news media. Instead of reporting on the really important things – smiling babies, families having family fun in a TUC-endorsed family atmosphere, the astonishing fact that they actually managed to rope in some Gurkhas – the slavering hounds of the bourgeois running-dog lackey press and Goebbels-esque broadcast media decided instead to focus on the mildly inappropriate behaviour of a tiny minority. Shame on you, BBC! Shame on your Sky News! Shame on you, newspapers with your misleading pictures of masked figures accidentally pushing a table through the window of the Ritz hotel and policemen being carried off with (clearly faked) injuries!

(to read more, click here)

Permanently broken link. Possibly complete version.

Related posts:

  1. The global economy is collapsing. The solution is not more media studies graduates
  2. Build-a-bear: the sinister green plot to turn our kids into eco-fascist Manchurian candidates
  3. Family photos, paedophile scares and the Stasification of Britain
  4. ‘Only global fascist tyranny can save us now’ says nice old man

3 thoughts on “How the TUC’s day of innocent family fun was destroyed by evil, fascist media”

  1. JimmyGiro says:28th March 2011 at 1:38 pmI dare say there must have been some independent protesters, but isn’t it odd that so many ‘independent’ protesters manage to have made identical placards?

    Clearly, any protest that is genuine, would stand on its own merits; therefore the Marxist-Feminist organisations which invariably hide behind women and children, must be up to no good.

  2. Nige Cook says:28th March 2011 at 8:18 pmI love the fact Ed Miliband’s trade union financed and block-vote based party created the financial mess, the solution for which the TUC march is now opposing. Of course, the Government cuts should be slower.

    Thanks to the financial acumen of Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling (bless him), we only have a debt of £900 billion, increasing to £1.1 trillion later this year, and our interest repayments (since interest rates are now low) are only £43 billion a year, £118 million a day, £4.9 million an hour, £82,000 a minute, or £1,400 a second. Nothing to worry about!

    We owe £14,464 for every man, woman and child
    That’s more than £31,421 for every person in employment
    Every household will pay £2,128 this year, just to cover the interest
    http://www.debtbombshell.com/

    Why not wait a few years (when interest rates rise further) before paying some of it back? It’s a brilliant Labour Party plan: the longer we wait, the more likely interest rates will rise as the rest of the world recovers (America is already starting to recover). Then we’ll be really be f***ed by rising interest rates. Then what does Labour recommend? Guess it’s to follow the Greek example and riot against the Government, claiming that the people didn’t create the mess (yes they did if you claim it’s a democracy).

    Additionally, think how much money we’ll pay back on that interest. I love the argument that we should accumulate more debt for future generations. It’s funny, because these socialists have been complaining about tiny safe nuclear waste dumps as a threat for future generations, but they don’t see the debt legacy the same way! Unlike debt, radioactivity decays with time of its own accord (waste from the 2 billion year old natural nuclear reactors in water-moderated uranium ore seams at Oklo in Gabon, stayed safely in place for 83,300 times longer than the 24,000 year half life of plutonium-239). Radioactivity decays exponentially with time. Debt grows exponentially with time!

    You just have to love the deep sincere ethics of the Labour Party. When it’s voted out of office – unlike the Conservatives – the Labour union power base gets even more influential indirect power over the media headlines and protest marches, than ever. The electorate kicks Labour out, but the unions ensure it continues to have its say via union organized protest marches, industrial action, strikes. Very fair and proper democratic political ethics: “heads I win, tails you lose”.

    I’m completely in sympathy with having a mechanism in place to ensure workers are not completely ripped off by exploitative, imperialistic, Capitalistic fat cat bosses and investment shareholders, but there is a strong smell of corruption. Unions are far dictatorial, with the “closed shop” ethos forcing all workers in many industries to be union members, then there is the coercion of doing what the Union groupthink decides (picket line scabs, helpful “flying picket” mentality, and so on). One example is the good old gangster “legal protection racket”: school sports teachers are told they need union membership in case one of the kids accidentally throws a javelin through a rival, or slips on the mud, and the parent sues for criminal negligence.

    Then you have the whole issue of socialism versus unions. They’re supposed to be pro-socialist, anti-capitalist, moral, etc. However, while they have voting within the union membership, it’s not really that democratic: the unions are themselves are not biased in favour of their members interests, yet always claim falsely to be pro-socialism. There are serious conflicts of interest here. The union opposes pay cuts and strikes for higher salaries, which is fine when the enonomy booms, but leads to unemployment or the business going bust when a recession comes. Or it pushes up prices and makes the goods less affordable for large sections of the wider public.

    When the BBC shows scenes of closed steel mills, dock yards, mines, etc., from up north, what they don’t say part of the problem of the loss of British heavy industry is very simply the terrific success in unions in the past in negotiating higher wages and putting Britain out of business, since the Far East can undercut us. We’ve lost a huge amount of business because of the effect of our high salaries on products made in Britain, compared to China.

    There is no simple fix. If you ban imports by heavy import duties (and we already suffer heavy import duties on most goods), you just reduce natural competition, and force the British public and businesses to pay more than the odds in either being taxed to high heaven for foreign goods, or forced to buy expensive British goods which have a smaller production run with its associated problems of more “bugs”, and problems with expensive spare parts. The union action of driving up wages and therefore goods prices is equivalent to an additional taxation on consumers to boost the wage packets of union members.

    Then there is the really deep ethical problem. Unions that don’t end up sinking businesses down the plughole, end up in some kind of a collaboration with the management and shareholders, i.e. they end up effectively in some kind of profits sharing scheme when the workers get a payback from the success of the business. This is unethical, because it’s collaborating with Capitalists and profiteering from it. This is the opposite of the Marx’s socialist ideal, which is to cut the cost of goods by cutting salaries towards zero. It was particularly funny when some “communist” political agitators tried to infiltrate unions during the Cold War, unaware that despite all their “socialist ethics” talk, unions are actually anti-Marx and in complete idealistic sympathy with Capitalism: they just want a bigger share of the profits. There is nothing wrong with this unionist aim, provided it’s honestly admitted. What really p***es some people off, though, is the doubletalk union propaganda, where they claim they’re socialists and ethical and anti-Capitalist.

  3. JimmyGiro says:28th March 2011 at 10:45 pmNige,

    I think modern Marxists and Capitalists are not ‘opposites’ as Marx might have made out, but more orthogonal to each other.

    Old Marxism was about empowering the worker; I suspect new Marxism is about controlling them, by dictating what they can do and think. This allows new Marxists to enter a symbiotic relationship with Capitalists, using the worker as a mutual resource.

    The Marxists take over the bureaucracy, and effectively govern the workforce, deciding who can be offered jobs, and who works for their dole, or community service, from 4000 new criminal laws to entrap us by. And the large corporations, which are the only players in the economy of the nation, get virtually slave labour, only paying a relatively small premium to keep the bureaucracy fed; plus they have no threats to their monopolies, as the bureaucrats create crippling red tape to stymie the growth of any competition from small businesses.

    The new regime is like the old feudal system: with Knights, Clergy, and Surfs, cemented by religion, to be replaced by CEOs, Civil Servants, and ‘workers’, cemented by the Gleichschaltung of political correctness.

Comments are closed.