Ofgem — the UK government regulator responsible for energy — has been caught covering up two major scandals in the ‘low carbon’ energy industry.
The cost of these scandals — involving smart meters and the renewable heat incentive (RHI) — may run into the tens of billions of pounds.
But rather than protect the consumer, which is supposedly its job, Ofgem has taken the side of the vested interests profiting from these industries. It has done this by using draconian gagging orders to silence two whistleblowers who had wanted to expose the scandals.
Ironically, the story was broken in The Guardian — a newspaper which has long been committed to supporting the corruption- and incompetence-riddled green industry that the whistleblowers were hoping to expose.
Caroline Lucas was and is Britain’s only Green MP, though people are now starting to weary of her strident watermelon posturings.
George Monbiot used to be the Guardian‘s environmental disaster guru till everyone realised that, as with Chicken Licken and the BBC’s Roger Harrabin, his doomy prognostications have to be taken with a pinch of salt the size of Lake Assal.
‘I Stopped Going to the Gym Because of Trump. Now I Can’t Open Jars’.
This is an actual headline to an actual story written by an actual journalist in the Guardian newspaper.
It was November 2016 and the only person I knew who believed Trump would win the US election was the owner of my gym. This was clearly a ridiculous prediction so, seeing the chance for some easy money, I offered to bet him $100 that Hillary would win.
But the gym owner, clearly not wanting to do his dough, pointed at this horrible thing in the corner with the name “sled” and said: “If Trump wins you have to pull 70kg on it.”
It was double what I could usually pull. And, if I won the bet, the gym owner would pull double his personal best.
I didn’t want Trump to win – he’d grabbed women by the pussy and mocked a reporter’s disability. He’d promised to build a wall and called Mexicans “rapists”. The thought of his presidency was frightening but so was pulling the sled. What if I herniated a disc?
Etc. You can guess the rest. Sometimes, you almost wonder whether the Guardian isn’t secretly a sinister right-wing plot to make left-wing people look utterly ridiculous.
The climate loons – and their amen corner in the liberal MSM – want you to panic about a new study claiming that sea level rise is accelerating.
‘Miami could be underwater in your kid’s lifetime,’ says USA Today.
‘Satellite observations show sea levels rising and climate change is accelerating it,’ says CNN.
‘Melting ice sheets are hastening sea level rise, satellite data confirms,’ says the Guardian.
At the current rate, the world’s oceans will be on average at least 60cm (2ft) higher by the end of the century, according to research published in Monday’s Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences.
Based on 25 years of satellite data, however, the research shows that the pace has quickened. It confirms scientists’ computer simulations and is in line with predictions from the UN, which releases regular climate change reports.
“It’s a big deal” because the projected sea level rise is a conservative estimate and it is likely to be higher, said the lead author, Steve Nerem of the University of Colorado.
Don’t believe a word of it.
Or, as Paul Homewood puts it:
To call it junk science is being too generous.
You can read his full scientific explanation here.
I’ll give you the short version which is that – yet again – the doomsday scenario is based on computer modelled projections which, in turn, are based on false assumptions.
Jordan Peterson has called bull on the left’s claims that SJW media maven Cathy Newman has been a victim of “threats” and“alt-right” bullying.
In his first video appearance since totally owning Newman in a must-watch Channel 4 studio discussion on feminism, free speech and social justice, Peterson expressed regret at having given any credence to the threat claims.
“Define threats,” Peterson says, when asked whether he believes if these “threats” ever actually existed.
Because there is no evidence that these “threats” were credible, Peterson now wishes he had never tacitly endorsed their existence when he asked his Twitter followers to “back off” from being rude to Newman.
His critics just exploited this by using it as proof that threats had indeed been made.
Jordan Peterson’s must-watch takedown of SJW media maven Cathy Newman has gone viral, with over 2 million views on YouTube.
If you haven’t read my previous piece on the interview, shame on you! At least watch at least a few minutes of the video to get a sense of the totality of Peterson’s triumph.
Now, predictably, the left-wing media is trying to reframe Newman’s abject humiliation as a case of misogynist bullying by the “alt-right.” The aim, of course, is to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat by implying that anyone who takes the side of Newman’s critics is anti-women and pro-abuse.
Now my attempts to moderate the discussion surrounding the channel 4 interview with are being used as proof that she is a victim. Is this how you want this to go, Cathy @cathynewman ? Are you going to stand forth as a victim?
Channel 4 News has called in security specialists to analyse threats made to presenter Cathy Newman following her interview with a controversial Canadian psychologist who has attracted a following among the “alt-right.”
Ben de Pear, the editor of Channel 4 News, said Newman had been subjected to “vicious misogynistic abuse”. Having to call in security specialists was a “terrible indictment of the times we live in”, he said.
“Security specialists.” Really? Speaking as a Channel 4 shareholder — as I guess all British subjects are, being as the channel is publicly owned — I’d be interested to see how solid the evidence is to warrant these drastic and presumably costly measures.
Today is Earth Hour and as usual I shall be lighting a candle – several, actually; plus turning my Rayburn up to eleven; plus turning on all the house lights; plus lighting the patio heaters; plus starting my Landrover and leaving its diesel engine to idle outside in the drive; plus switching on the immersion heater; plus running several hot baths – in tribute to the world’s climate heroes.
I refer, of course, to the tiny, elite fellowship of scientists, economists, politicians, journalists and bloggers who have bravely taken the right side of the climate argument and spoken up for truth, integrity and the scientific method in defiance of the vast and terrifying propaganda behemoth they call the Green Blob.
Many of them were present at the annual Heartland Institute Climate Conference in Washington DC this week. I was sorry not to have been able to make it there myself this year because these people have become my friends. Shared adversity does that for you: everyone from our elder statesman Fred Singer downwards has been brutally vilified, traduced, mocked and monstered by the Servants of the Green Blob over the years – because when the evidence isn’t on your side (as it hasn’t been for a long time where the alarmist cause is concerned), blustering appeals to authority, affectedly high-minded ridicule and below-the-belt cheap shots are pretty much the only weapons left to you.
My sceptical filmmaking friends Phelim McAleer and Anne McElhinney once made a movie exposing the nonsense of the greenies. It was called Not Evil Just Wrong. In my view this was a misnomer. It should have been called: Wrong – And Totally Bloody Evil Too.
There many reasons why the alarmist establishment – the Climate Industrial Complex as Myron Ebell calls it – is so totally loathsomely evil. If I had to list them all this would be longer than War & Peace.
One is that they’re such hypocrites: if you really cared about the environment in the way these fascistic loons claim they do, then you’d be vigorously opposing renewable energy (such as the bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes defacing our landscape and slicing and dicing our avian fauna) and instead going all out for fossil fuels.
This was a point often made in the Heartland panel discussions – which you can catch up with here .
In the one on Sustainability – Panel 5A – independent scientist Indur Goklany pointed out that without fossil fuels we wouldn’t have the fertilizer we need to make our agricultural land so productive. This in turn would mean we wouldn’t be able to leave nearly so much space free as fallow land, as nature reserves or as wilderness.
You’d think the Greenies would get this fairly basic scientific point – given how much they’re always banging on about “the science” – but they never do because, as I argued in my book Watermelons, their commitment to environmentalism owes much more to quasi-religious ideology, to straightforward greed and to anti-free-market control-freakery than it does to a genuine love of nature.
Then there’s the hatred. Pretty much everyone speaking at the Heartland Institute will have suffered personally for speaking out against the Great Global Warming Scare. Willie Soon‘s travails are typical. It’s why only the brave – or the elderly, who have nothing to lose – who speak out.
The same applies, of course, to all the other professions which dare to confront the climate “consensus”. I wrote in my book, for example, about how popular British TV presenters David Bellamy and Johnny Ball both effectively had their careers destroyed when they took the “wrong side” on global warming.
Journalists get it in the neck too, of course.
Let me close by treating you to some examples of the kind of hate I got recently simply for pointing out that Australia’s Great Barrier Reef isn’t actually being wiped out by man-made global warming. Sure, it has experienced some serious bleaching in some parts – probably the result of the recent El Nino – but not nearly on the scale that has been claimed by politically- and financially-motivated climate alarmists. And it will recover, just like reefs always do and have done for millennia, sometimes in warming far more extreme than anything we have experienced today.
The analysis, the most comprehensive to date, indicates that animal populations plummeted by 58% between 1970 and 2012, with losses on track to reach 67% by 2020.
The report analysed the changing abundance of more than 14,000 monitored populations of the 3,700 vertebrate species for which good data is available. This produced a measure akin to a stock market index that indicates the state of the world’s 64,000 animal species and is used by scientists to measure the progress of conservation efforts.
The biggest cause of tumbling animal numbers is the destruction of wild areas for farming and logging: the majority of the Earth’s land area has now been impacted by humans, with just 15% protected for nature. Poaching and exploitation for food is another major factor, due to unsustainable fishing and hunting: more than 300 mammal species are being eaten into extinction, according to recent research.
Pollution is also a significant problem with, for example, killer whales and dolphins in European seas being seriously harmed by long-lived industrial pollutants. Vultures in south-east Asia have been decimated over the last 20 years, dying after eating the carcasses of cattle dosed with an anti-inflammatory drug. Amphibians have suffered one of the greatest declines of all animals due to a fungal disease thought to be spread around the world by the trade in frogs and newts.
Rivers and lakes are the hardest hit habitats, with animals populations down by 81% since 1970, due to excessive water extraction, pollution and dams. All the pressures are magnified by global warming, which shifts the ranges in which animals are able to live, said WWF’s director of science, Mike Barrett.
What can we do to prevent this happening?
Well I can think two immediate steps we can all take.
This is the concert at the Royal Albert Hall when all the Union flags come out, when English composers like Elgar and Vaughan Williams are celebrated, when the patriotic revellers lustily bellow Land Of Hope and Glory without a trace of fashionable irony or politically correct embarrassment.
So, of course, it’s inevitable that the whiny losers who were outvoted 52 to 48 in the EU referendum are seeking to hijack it in order to vent their kill-joy Europhile spleen on the patriotic majority who love their country and are much happier now it has voted to quit being the vassal of a weird Euro superstate run by power-crazed, socialistic nonentities.
As Breitbart Londonreported, some rejected Europhiles are planning to try to overwhelm the Union flags with horrid blue-yellow-starred European ones.
Yes. That will be popular with the boisterous Last Night crowd, I’m sure. Short of getting Eddie Izzard on as the warm up man to explain in five different languages why Brexit was such a dreadful mistake, I can’t think of a move better guaranteed to test the revellers’ traditional good-natured tolerance.