Britain’s New Prime Minister Drives a Stake Through the Heart of the Green Vampire

Incoming Prime Minister Theresa May has driven a stake through the heart of her predecessor David Cameron’s fluffy, faux-Conservative project by scrapping the Department of Energy And Climate Change (DECC).

Established in 2008, DECC was a hangover from the Gordon Brown era of woeful misgovernance. Its first Secretary of State was future failed Labour leader candidate Ed Miliband whose only significant political achievement also happened to be one of the most expensive and pointless in British parliamentary history: the drafting of the truly disastrous Climate Change Act.

Under the terms of the Climate Change Act – written by a green activist from Friends of the Earth called Bryony Worthington; endorsed by Cameron’s Conservative opposition and rejected by only five MPs – Britain is legally committed to more stringent “decarbonisation” targets than any other country in the world, at an annual cost of around £19 billion a year.

Miliband’s successors, under the awful Conservative/Lib Dem Coalition government were even worse. For some bizarre reason probably not unconnected with utter fecklessness, green delusion and a fatuous desire to virtue signal, Prime Minister Cameron decided to hand over the keys to DECC to his Lib Dem Coalition partners.

So began probably the worst appointments since some bright spark said: “I know. Let’s make Gaius Verres Governor of Sicily.”

Sure, DECC might have seemed on the face of it a nothing department which could safely be handed over to the losers, perverts and half wits the Liberal Democrat party tends to attract. What appeared to have escaped the Prime Minister’s notice is that any department with the word “Energy” in the title – effectively puts the people who run it in charge of a goodly part of the economy.

First, the job was given to Chris Huhne, an automaton-like, Westminster-educated, millionaire Europhile ex-City boy with at least five houses to his name and a zealous urge to carpet the British countryside with wind farms and solar arrays.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Hayes, Fallon, Deckchairs, Titanic

Shaking up green ideologues

You know what? There was a time – perhaps as recently as six or twelve months ago – when I would have been seriously heartened by the news of Cameron’s latest mini reshuffle. I’m a massive fan of the tough, free-market-minded Michael Fallon. Appointing him as the minister at the Department of Energy and Climate Change is a bit like sending in King Herod to shake up the Judaean Child Services Unit. But it’s a symbolic gesture, nothing more. Fallon’s predecessor in the job – John Hayes – was just as old school Tory, just as much a conviction politician, just as opposed to the insanity of wind – and look where it got him: absolutely nowhere.

While DECC’s departmental boss Ed Davey may not be quite as sinister a machiavel as his predecessor Chris Huhne (whatever did become of my old mate Huhney by the way? He has been curiously absent from the Westminster scene of late), he has certainly got DECC stitched up. What Fallon will find – as Owen Paterson has found at DEFRA and Hayes definitely found at DECC – is that it’s very hard to push forward robustly Tory policies when your entire department consists of green ideologues and where even your own press office briefs against you. On day one of his job, Hayes had planned to announce a moratorium on onshore wind farm building – which would have been a hugely popular gesture in the Tory-voting shires. Unfortunately, just before he delivered it he was rumbled by DECC’s spies and Davey ordered him to water it down, while insisting there were no plans to halt the growth of onshore wind. By the end of his six months at DECC, Hayes was so enfeebled that he’d almost gone native: even to the point of finding himself on the wrong side of an argument – with David King, of all people – on biofuels. Amazingly, despite copious evidence to the contrary, Hayes could be heard declaring on Radio 4 that they were a good thing.

So you see now why I’m not as impressed as I might be by the tiny slivers of red meat Cameron has just tossed to us True Conservatives. It’s not enough to feed us; just enough to make us more tormented and ravenous. Which is why, as I explain in this week’s Spectator, I have completely abandoned every last vestige of faith I had in the current Tory party to do anything useful or sensible, and why I’m throwing my lot in with the one party out there with genuine political principle – UKIP.

Related posts:

  1. Five reasons why the Conservatives deserve to lose the next election
  2. In praise of Lord Tebbit
  3. Arguments for wind power are just hot air
  4. Tory sleaze is worse than ever: Yeo and Deben must go!

 

Climategate 2.0: Lawson squishes Huhne

Have you noticed that whenever our beloved Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne speaks his lips never move, only his butt cheeks?

None more black

It was the same again on BBC Question Time last night. “But Huhne, this is just arrant nonsense,” you kept wanting to scream at the TV. “And either you know it’s nonsense in which case you’re a liar. Or you don’t know it’s nonsense, in which case you’re more incredibly stupid, more badly informed and more ill-advised than any Minister of the Crown has any decency to be.”

Anyway, now he’s been called on it by two heavyweights – ex-Chancellor Lord Lawson and former Cabinet Secretary Lord Turnbull, writing under the auspices of the increasingly feisty and effective Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Here’s their smackdown and it’s so brutal (in the politest, most restrained politico-diplomatic way, of course) that it deserves printing in full:

Dear Secretary of State

25 November 2011

We are pleased that you have decided that a public response to growing criticism of your climate policies is now required. We regret, however, that you do not address our main arguments and key concerns. Neither are we impressed by evidently ill-advised assertions.

For a start, you make the mistake of connecting the reality of 20th century global warming, which no one doubts, with the various causes for it. You claim that the evidence for man’s influence is getting stronger every year, yet you fail to provide any empirical evidence for this statement.

In reality, over the past few years there has been a growing realisation among scientists that other influences (such as solar, stratospheric water vapour, oceanic cycles, to name but the most dominant) are likely to be more significant than previously thought. These factors have seriously impinged on estimates of the magnitude of mankind’s influence.

Your faith in the conclusion of Australia’s Garnaut Review – that there has been no change in the rate of global warming in recent years – is wholly at odds with the latest scientific work and even the Government’s own Met Office: Most research papers published in the last 12 months confirm that there has been no warming trend in the last 10 years.

It is true that the fundamental greenhouse effect yields only a 1.2°C increase for a doubling of CO2 (so-called climate sensitivity) and that larger increases depend upon various feedback mechanisms. There is no convincing evidence, however, to support your assertion that the increase of the level of water vapour in the atmosphere (as a result of doubling of CO2) would (other things being equal) raise global average temperature by around 3°C.

In reality, the magnitude of water vapor feedbacks, positive as well as negative (such as increased cloud cover and precipitation) remains a poorly understood subject. Do you seriously belief that only ‘one or two people’ (sic) have published research that shows moderate rather than catastrophic warming in the next 100 years?

You do not seem to appreciate the incomplete state of scientific knowledge regarding these extremely complex feedbacks. In reality, most scientists will tell you that we do not know all of them; and that most of those we do know, we understand only rudimentary.

What is more, estimates for climate sensitivity in the peer reviewed literature have been going down. You and your advisers will no doubt take a look at the latest research findings on this very subject by Schmittner et al. published this week in the journal Science. This is yet another study that corroborates a low estimate of climate sensitivity and concludes that “these results imply a lower probability of imminent extreme climate change than previously thought.”

Your faith in the integrity of the IPCC process is no less ill-advised. There have been three reports on the IPCC – by the InterAcademy Council in 2010; the recent book by Donna Laframboise; and the report by Professor Ross McKitrick published recently by the GWPF (a copy of which is attached). You and your advisers need to study all three as they all identify a common set shortcomings in the IPCC’s scientific approach and its working methods.

The IPCC seeks to present itself as embodying the independent, impartial advice of the world’s best scientists in the field. All three reports reveal serious flaws in this claim – its lack of transparency in how the so-called experts are chosen, its resistance to views challenging its orthodoxy, its lack of proper governance to deal with conflicts of interest, its excessive use of non-peer reviewed (grey literature), and its infiltration by activists from environmental pressure groups.

We are surprised that you have been so slow to recognise that the IPCC, which has influenced a great deal of UK policy, no longer carries the credibility necessary to persuade society of the massive changes it is advocating. It should be drastically reformed or wound up and replaced.

We note that you appear to be denying the charge on unilateralism in UK policy. This is curious as you and your predecessors were keen to boast that the Climate Change Act made Britain a world leader in decarbonisation. And you personally have been urging the EU to adopt even more ambitious targets, fortunately unsuccessfully.

Admittedly, you limit your claim that Britain has not adopted unilateral policies to “until 2020,” but even this ceiling is at odds with the introduction of the carbon floor price which you wish to introduce in the next couple of years. This scheme most certainly is a unilateral folly which is already having a devastating effect on manufacturing and energy-intensive industries – which, of course, are also concerned about what is planned for after 2020.

In reality, the UK stands alone as the only country in the world to impose long-term legally binding CO2 emissions targets. No other country in the world is willing to inflict such unilateral burden on its business sector and economy.

Even within the EU Commission major concerns about its unilateral targets have begun to surface. The EU is now seriously considering to discontinue its unilateral decarbonisation in the absence of a global agreement.

Whether you like it or not, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, has pledged that the government will no longer be bound by unilateral decarbonisation targets that cut CO2 emissions in Britain faster and deeper than other countries in Europe. We trust that his promise to abandon the path of green unilateralism will be followed, sooner rather than later, by a less extreme and more pragmatic policy.

Lord Lawson

Lord Turnbull

If you want to remind yourself of the farrago of Huhnian propaganda and drivel which inspired it, you can read it here.

The significance of this letter should not be underestimated. Lord Lawson generally plays a very careful game on the climate war front, taking great trouble to ensure that the GWPF has cross-party representation, and that it concern itself mainly with economic policy rather than the fraught scientific issues. But here he is with Lord Turner, gently suggesting in a roundabout way that Huhne is both incredibly stupid and a big fat liar.

I think that most of us agree: the sooner the CPS makes the right decision on that small driving issue, the sooner the rest of us can sleep slightly more easily in our beds.

Related posts:

  1. Why isn’t Lord Lawson dead yet?
  2. Millionaire Chris Huhne finds new ways to waste your money
  3. Lord Turnbull: the IPCC is useless
  4. Greenies: the Red, the Dumb and the Angry

3 thoughts on “Climategate 2.0: Lawson squishes Huhne”

  1. Henrycuttlefish says:28th November 2011 at 5:43 pmIn the spirit of openness and transparency, who exactly are the Global Warming Policy Foundation? What are their aims, what do they want? Who is paying for them?
    1. Gordonrear says:29th November 2011 at 9:03 amGood question, GWPF complains about scientists but then this lobby group has refused 4 x FOI requests itself and doesn’t disclose its source of funding.
  2. Simon says:3rd December 2011 at 10:56 amLook at this funny illustrated article on The Register web site to see an explanation of how science scare stories take hold.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/25/climategate_symptoms/

Comments are closed.

How many died in the great Blackpool earthquake of ’11? | James Delingpole

October 19, 2011

Blackpool 2013???

….Exactly same number of people killed in the terrible nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island, funnily enough. And with just the same result: masses of manufactured green outrage; demand by a highly vocal minority of anti-capitalist activists (Eg that living argument for never sending a boy to Westminster, Huhne C) that still more extravagant precautionary measures be adopted to ensure that producing energy is even more costly and difficult than it was before. (H/T GWPF)

This is what’s happening now in Blackpool with shale gas:

CONTROVERSIAL gas drilling DID cause Fylde coast earthquakes.

And now energy chiefs have sent a stark warning to shale gas company Cuadrilla Resources – stop the tremors or we will shut you down.

It comes as the company this week held urgent talks with the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to consider a report into the risk of earthquakes associated with fracking – the process used to extract shale gas from deep beneath the Fylde coast.

The meetings followed the British Geological Survey’s (BGS) conclusion two recent earth tremors felt nearby were most likely to have been caused by fracking.

Sounds scary. Could this mean that Blackpool is the new San Francisco, its proms, amusement arcades and fish n chip shops under constant threat of being sucked into gaping crevices? Uh, no, not exactly:

Seismologist Brian Baptie added: “These are still very small earthquakes, even by UK standards and won’t cause any damage, if fracking continued I couldn’t see the tremors getting much bigger.

So, tiny, barely perceptible tremors which aren’t going to get significantly bigger are yet being advanced as a serious reason by the Department of Energy and Climate Change for denying Britain thousands of real jobs and billions of pounds worth of cheap, abundant energy? This is madness – and about the only good news on the horizon is that at long last people are coming round to recognise that it’s madness.

My Spectator boss Fraser Nelson has made it his big new cause:

How big does Shale have to get before our policymakers wake up to its implications? There is an Energy Summit in No.10 today where Chris Huhne wants to focus on the need “to help consumers save money on their gas and electricity bills”. A preview interview on the Today programme underlined the dire situation. First, Huhne was not asked about how his own green regulations have massively contributed to the problem. Then, the managing director of British Gas was invited on to say that “unless someone discovers huge amounts of gas and imports it into the UK…”. And, bafflingly, no-one mentioned the small fact that one of BG’s rivals recently discovered 200 trillion cubic feet of gas near Blackpool. As Matt Ridley says in this week’s Spectator, that’s enough to keep the entire British economy going for many decades. And it doesn’t even need importing.

It’s being kept off the agenda because the big energy companies see this as competition from upstarts. Green warriors don’t want to know because it confounds their careful predictions of apocalypse — and destroys the rationale for subsidising hugely expensive renewable energy. When oil was discovered in the North Sea in the 1970s, Wilson’s government was delighted: here was a cash boon that would transform Britain. The discovery of Shale in Britain is being studiously ignored, because it goes against the conventional wisdom on green energy. Ridley’s brilliant feature gives you a full briefing.

And of course, the Matt Ridley piece he refers to is an absolute must-read.

Even the Sunday Times – which, like its daily sister paper, has been championing for years the kind of environmentalist scaremongering that has brought us to this dreadful pass – is now beginning to recognise that we have a serious problem here.

After years of talk about the green revolution as a far-off eventuality, it has finally collided with the real world, and everyone is running for cover.

What is certain is that the penny has finally dropped. One in four households is now “fuel poor”, which means that more than 10% of its net income goes on energy bills. Things are going to get worse — and not just because unemployment last week hit a 17-year high. Britain is on the cusp of a £200 billion low-carbon overhaul. The government wants to replace our dirty coal-fired stations with expensive offshore wind farms and nuclear reactors to meet climate change targets. The makeover is the biggest since North Sea oil and gas came on stream in the 1970s — and you and I will pay for it. Analysts said the average domestic energy bill could hit £1,800 a year by 2020.

After years of talk about the green revolution as a far-off eventuality, it has finally collided with the real world, and everyone is running for cover.

“It’s here now. Cheques are going to have to be written to build this stuff,” said Mark Powell at KPMG. “But the world has changed and all of a sudden the question of affordability has come front and centre.”

As I’ve argued elsewhere, shale gas is our lifeline at one of the darkest hours in our economic history. One day, David Cameron may finally come round to appreciating that not offending your more obstreperous Coalition partners is slightly less important an issue than not bankrupting your economy. By that stage, though, unfortunately, it may already be too late.

Related posts:

  1. Watermelons v the Shale Gas Miracle
  2. Fracking: why have we allowed the left to make it a dirty word?
  3. ‘Imagine there’s no shale gas…’
  4. Green jobs? Wot green jobs? (pt 242)

2 thoughts on “How many died in the great Blackpool earthquake of ’11?”

  1. John Fourie says:20th October 2011 at 11:11 pmJust came to your website to say that you are the lowest form of life. Lying and over exaggerating without even understanding the basics. Dont read anything this man says people he only wants you to go to his website to get some click, he is what we call an internet troll and does not deserve a second of your time. Please die so that the world can be a better place.
    1. Michaelmulligan says:30th October 2011 at 8:52 pmMr. Fourie,
      Very embarassing to read your ad hominem attack. Just finishing Watermelons here in the USA. Hope to refer hundreds to our author. Check out the origin of “Limey”; which involved medical science mistakenly thinking a microbe was responsible for scurvy for a hundred or so years while a Naval Surgeon’s historic report sat buried in library archives. mike mulligan, esq.

Chicken Little jumps the shark

When I heard Chris Huhne’s proposal that the new 80mph speed limit should apply to electric cars only, I knew it could only be a joke.

Cartoon by Fenbeagle.

No one, not even an alleged economics “expert” who had argued so wholeheartedly for the Euro a few years back, could be quite that wilfully perverse, surely?

Apparently, though it’s true.

Just like the story about him comparing Baroness Warsi to Dr Goebbels for her extremely Nazi-like crime of, er, saying “No to AV” was true. And the story about him being caught on Twitter briefing against Theresa May was true. And the one about him casually trying to smear another of his cabinet colleagues Phil Hammond (in the same weekend) was true.

All this might be more amusing than it is if Huhne didn’t wield such extraordinary power. He is the man behind the costly, pointless drive for “renewables” which is not only blighting the British countryside but threatening to drive one in four households into fuel poverty as we approach the third bitterly cold winter in succession.

The Government faces demands to tear up or delay plans to force through a £200billion shift to wind turbines, wave power and new nuclear power stations.

Energy industry analyst Martin Brough, of Deutsche Bank, warned that a quarter of households could be driven into fuel poverty by 2015.

He said: ‘Our analysis suggests rising energy bills and sluggish income growth will make household energy less affordable than at any time since the oil shocks of the 1970s.’

Energy tariffs have leapt by around 20 per cent in the past year, pushing up the annual average bill to £1,293. Deutsche Bank predicts bills will rise by another 25 per cent – around £325 – by 2015, taking the figure to £1,618.

The shift to green energy is being driven by the EU and commitments made by both the last Labour government and the Coalition, based on the support of Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne.

What makes his stance more disgraceful yet is that he is quite deliberately standing in the way of the miracle development which could not only save the British economy at its darkest hour of need but also solve the fuel poverty problem at a stroke: shale gas.

Why does he do these terrible things? And more to the point, how does he go on getting away with it?

Huhne’s swaggering arrogance and brinkmanship, I fear, is not unakin to that of all those rioters who “owned” the streets of London for the best part of three days in the summer. They got away with it because they could. In the rioters’ case it was because they understood British policing policy had grown so touchy-feely and lax that they could loot and burn almost with impunity. In Huhne’s case it’s because he knows that Cameron is so desperate to avoid a split in his bastard Coalition that he can get away with murder. (Literally, probably. I’m trying to think what might make Cameron reconsider. Starting a nuclear war with China? Genocide?)

This really has gone on long enough. Having Huhne in charge of Britain’s energy policy is like having Homer Simpson run the Springfield Nuclear power plant in the middle of a meltdown. The fact that Cameron can’t see this speaks volumes about his lack of judgement. If he’s going to ditch Liam Fox, as I suspect he will, then he must – he absolutely must – make it a two for one deal and get rid of Huhne too.

Related posts:

  1. If the police aren’t able to defend people and property, what exactly are they for?
  2. The Met Office: lousier than a dead octopus
  3. Is George ‘Jello’ Monbiot too chicken to debate ‘Global Warming’ with an expert?
  4. Churchill’s conservatives are, ‘like, total Nazis’, says Dr Goebbels

Posted on 16th October 2011Author jamesCategories Blog

2 thoughts on “Chicken Little jumps the shark”

  1. Charleshenrywilliams says:16th October 2011 at 1:59 pmWe could do with your help, James …

    http://www.angryharry.com/esFailingMiserably.htm

  2. John Fourie says:20th October 2011 at 11:12 pmJust came to your website to say that you are the lowest form of life. Lying and over exaggerating without even understanding the basics. Dont read anything this man says people he only wants you to go to his website to get some click, he is what we call an internet troll and does not deserve a second of your time. Please die so that the world can be a better place.

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

An Ppen Letter from My Old Mate David Cameron to the People of Britain

August 25, 2011

 

Cameron: an apology (Photo: Rii Schroer)

Cameron: an apology (Photo: Rii Schroer)

In the latest Spectator I have written an open letter to my old university mate David Cameron. Here is a companion piece: the letter I’d like to see him write to the nation, having at last recognised the gravity of the crisis we’re in.

He won’t write it, of course.

Dear Britain,

If you realised just how totally stuffed we are you wouldn’t waste time getting to the end of this letter. You’d already be outside Number 10 with pitchforks demanding my head on a spike – and you’d be quite right to do so, for I have failed you. My cabinet has failed you. My Coalition government has failed you. And it’s no good our trying to blame the Tony Blair and Gordon Brown administrations for having failed you even more. We are where we are – and where we are is about as dire a place as Britain has ever found itself in in its entire existence.

That includes, let me assure you, even the darkest days of the Second World War. Back then, however bad things might get, we were cushioned by an empire, by America, by a sense of unity and purpose, by a national character defined by resilience, self-reliance, patriotism, decency and an absolute determination – even unto death – never to surrender to tyranny in any form.

Today, none of this applies. Our empire is gone; the US – read Mark Steyn’s brilliant After America – is now owned by China; our national character has been diluted by waves of unchecked immigration and by the sapping of moral and intellectual purpose which comes with decades of ingrained “progressivism”. As for tyranny we’ve already long since surrendered to it. It’s called the EU – and the fact that it has a caring, sharing, equality-loving, nurturing, “communitarian” face does not make it any less dangerous or anti-democratic than the kind of regimes that Louis XIV or Napoleon or Hitler or Stalin were trying to impose on Europe’s once-sovereign peoples. It just makes it more subtle, and sly, and ultimately more effective, that’s all.

Some people will laugh at me for telling you this. They’ll say that I’ve lost my head; that I’m panicking you needlessly. Oh really? And which one of the problems facing us, would you say, was overstated: the fact that the European economy is on the verge of collapse; that Britain currently has a £4.8 trillion debt, which it is nowhere close even to beginning to shave off; that our best ally, America, is in worse shape than we are thanks, not least, to the reckless spending of President Obama; that one in five children have parents who have never been in work; that, thanks to our abysmal, dumbed down, low-expectation schooling we have two generations without literacy, numeracy, or even the beginnings of an understanding of what it might involve to pursue a career which doesn’t depend either on crime or state handouts; that we can no longer afford an effective military; that our police force is so hamstrung by political correctness it is incapable of protecting people or property; that our political class is so utterly remote and ineffectual that voters can scarcely see any point in going to the ballot box any more, for wherever they place the X it won’t make the blindest bit of difference. First came Blair; now you’ve got the Heir To Blair. Nothing has changed; nothing will change until a politician of principle stands up and says: “Enough is enough.”

And that’s why I’m writing this letter to you now. I want, first, to apologise for the disaster I have been since “winning” – or rather “not quite losing” – the last General Election for reasons which were almost entirely the fault of myself and my political advisers.

We took the view – the cowardly, defeatist and wrong view, I now admit – that Britain had grown so irredeemably socialised under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown that the only way a Conservative administration could ever regain power was by offering still more of the same (only with a green-tinged blue rosette instead of a red one, to give the punters the illusion they had some kind of democratic choice). The problem with adopting this attitude of “managed decline” – as my ideological soulmate Ted Heath found in the 1970s; and I’m finding now – is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So what’s to be done? The good news that what needs to be done is very, very simple: the exact opposite of what got into us this mess in the first place. And what got us here, is excessive taxation, regulation, and government spending. We need to remember that there are only two kinds of government money: the kind it rips off from taxpayers in the productive sector of the economy; and the kind it borrows at rates of interest which mean it either has to borrow still more money or take still more money off the taxpayer. Either way the result is the same: an economy in which it becomes increasingly difficult for entrepreneurs, traders, small businessmen – the backbone of an economy – to go about their work. If they can’t go about their work then the economy cannot grow. And if the economy cannot grow, the government will need to take still more money from the taxpayer, or borrow still more money (at possibly even higher rates of interest) merely to maintain its current spending levels. The inevitable result is a spiral of decline.

But while the good news is that the remedy is very simple, the bad news is that it will be extremely hard to apply. One of the main reasons for this is the nature of the political class: whether on the Left or what currently passes for the “centre-Right”, its instincts are much the same – always to ask “what more can the Government do to help?” This is the wrong question, for the answer is always the same: more stifling bureaucracy; more parasite-like layers of administration; more regulation; more spending of money that the government simply does not have.

The other main reason is you, the British people. Far too many of you, for far too long have got far too used to the idea that government’s job is to wipe your backsides for you. And it’s not. Not from now on, at any rate. For one thing we can’t afford the paper. For another thing we can’t afford the staff to do something which most of you are perfectly capable of doing for yourselves. It’s a scandalous waste of other people’s money – taxpayer’s money – and the very last thing we need if we’re even to begin to hope to compete in a global economy against places like India and China and Brazil where the work force are perfectly capable of putting in 12 hour days and wiping their own backsides without any expectation that the state’s role is to do their dirty work for them.

That’s why I’m writing to you now to tell you like it is. What I’m hoping is that I’m straight with you, you’ll be straight with me in return. You’ll never again take the soft, easy, head-in-the-sand path of voting for which ever political party offers to bribe you the most with money it doesn’t have. You’ll vote for the one which acknowledges the scale of the problem facing us all and which has the courage and the will to deal with it.

That political party ought, by rights, to be the Conservatives. And perhaps – before I embarked on my misguided quest to “detoxify the brand” – it would have been. But as you may have noticed recently this is no longer case. We have a Justice Secretary more interested in the rights of criminals than law-abiding citizens; we have a Home Secretary who believes that policing should primarily serve the interests of Britain’s senior police officers rather than the citizens they’re supposed to protect; we have a Foreign Secretary – formerly a principled Eurosceptic – who has since done a Portillo and decided that his post-politics employment prospects are better served by selling British interests down the river at every turn, for that way a comfy future on the Euro gravy train lies.

And if you think the Conservative wets in my cabinet are a liability, imagine what it’s like having to govern with Liberal Democrats. We have an Energy and Climate Change Secretary whose primary purpose is to bomb our economy back to the age of the wattle and daub and the coracle; we have a Business Secretary who loathes business; we have a Deputy Prime Minister who doesn’t know what he wants except that it has to be the opposite of whatever Conservatives want otherwise he’ll get torn to pieces by his own party.

This is no way to run a country. It is especially no way to run a country on the brink of a precipice. That is why today I’m going to offer you a clear political choice. I’m scrapping the Coalition, because 2013 is far, far too late to start out on the rescue package which needs to be initiated now. Instead, I’m going to stake my political career and the future of Britain by calling an immediate general election.

After that it’s up to you: liberty or the soft, enervating tyranny of the Left; growth or stagnation; future or no future; jobs or no jobs for your children and grandchildren. You choose.

Related posts:

  1. Cameron’s price for saving his Coalition: the destruction of Britain
  2. Climategate: why David Cameron is going to be disastrous for Britain
  3. I hate to say this but Cameron’s speech has just won him the election
  4. David Cameron’s shale gas lifeline

 

Churchill’s conservatives are, ‘like, total Nazis’, says Dr Goebbels | James Delingpole

June 21, 2011

Herr Ubergronwindfarmwirtschaftsselbstmordfuhrer Huhne, yesterday

Herr Ubergronwindfarmwirtschaftsselbstmordfuhrer Huhne, yesterday

Winston Churchill and his fellow Conservatives are “like, a bunch of total Nazis”, Germany’s Reich Minister of Propaganda told a conference yesterday.

“All we’re trying to do is make Europe (and those parts of the Soviet Union and anywhere else in the world we overrun) the Greenest Continent Ever. And what’s that fascist Nazi Churchill trying to do? Why only to derail our plans at every turn with his obsessive right-wing fixation with liberty and economic freedom and sovereignty and not killing people who disagree with you. That man’s a zealot, I tell you. A total zealot. Does he not care a damn about all the polar bears that would have been saved, all the fractions of a degree which would have been shaved off global climate change, all the green jobs which would gave been created, if only he hadn’t been so foolish as to resist the Fuhrer’s plans to turn Continental Europe Plus into a Green Eco Haven (TM) with wind farms on every corner, Atomkraft Nein Danke Kombis on every Autobahn and death penalties for anyone who fails to recycle?”, asked an incredulous Dr Joseph Goebbels.

However, a spokesman for Churchill’s Coalition government said: “Look, if anyone’s a Nazi round here it’s got to be Goebbels. His party is actually called the Nazi party. Anyway, he’s got some bloody cheek poking his head above the parapet and saying this stuff so soon after allegedly lying to the Gestapo about that driving offence. That Goebbels is giving the Nazis a bad name and if I were Herr Hitler I’d kick him out of his cabinet right away.”

Sources close to Herr Goebbels said he wasn’t remotely bovvered about being counter-called a Nazi. “Because that’s like, Godwin’s Law, isn’t it?” said the spokesman. “And if someone uses Godwin’s law against you it doesn’t count because even if you are a Nazi you just mention ‘Godwin’s Law’ and suddenly the accusation no longer carries any weight. Or at least that’s what I read on Tvitter or at Komment Macht Frei or somewhere.”

This blog post wishes to apologise in advance for any impression it may inadvertently have given that it considers David Cameron to be in any way a Churchillian figure. Obviously were the analogy to work properly he would have been cast in a role more akin to Lord Halifax, Lord Haw Haw, someone of that nature….

Related posts:

  1. Nazis: the gift that goes on giving
  2. No. 6 in Total Politics Media Blogs? Moi???
  3. I have just seen the Conservatives’ future. Unfortunately, it’s in New Zealand.
  4. Why do I call them Eco Nazis? Because they ARE Eco Nazis

 

Why Ken Clarke Should Stay

Soft on crime but . . .

Rape is a very complex issue

Rape is a very complex issue

No I’m not happy, either, that Ken Clarke is our Justice Minister. He’s soft on crime, soft on the causes of crime. He doesn’t believe that prison works whereas all the evidence suggests it does – if only through the simple expedient of keeping off the streets habitual criminals who would otherwise be out there doing the rest of us a mischief. He is there not because he is any good or because he has anything useful to offer the country (let alone his party) but as a cynical expedient on Cameron’s part to suck up to his Lib Dem Coalition partners by appointing to cabinet positions “Tories” so irredeemably left-wing they make Simon Hughes look like Augusto Pinochet.

If Clarke were sacked tomorrow no one would be more delighted than me. But I’d like it to be for the right reasons: because of what he stands for politically rather than for an ill-phrased remark made in the heat of the moment in a radio interview.

Yesterday I watched Clarke trying to explain away his unfortunate remarks on rape in an interview with Nick Robinson – and only digging himself a deeper hole. And what I felt for him was huge empathy. Had Robinson been viciously skewering him on the disastrous consequences which are certain to result from Clarke’s liberal sentencing policies I would have rejoiced and revelled in the Justice Secretary’s every last sweaty, blubbery squirm. Instead, Clarke was being steered to the brink of political suicide for a slip so venial it doesn’t even count as thought crime – because I’m quite sure Clarke doesn’t even “think” the thing he’s supposed to have meant.

Much has been made of Clarke’s chuckle as he defended his position. Well wouldn’t you have laughed nervously had you been in his shoes? Here you are: a career politician, of such long service you saw action under Margaret Thatcher, so skilled in the art of political swordsmanship that no interviewer, however experienced, can bypass your guard to prick your pachydermal hide. And suddenly, you find yourself placed in a position where you’re trying to argue that there are two kinds of rape – “good” rape and “bad” rape – and saying to yourself: “Hang on. How on earth did I end up here?”

If we weren’t so worked up in our fit of righteous moral rage, most of us would concede that the point Clarke was trying to make was perfectly unexceptionable. Of course the kind of violent rape committed against a woman by a predatory stranger is of a different order to the kind of rape which a hungover woman decides the day after may have been committed against her during a night’s heavy drinking with a friend she’s not sure whether or not she fancies. The fact that both extremities of crime embrace the terribly emotive “r” word represents a big problem for judges, juries and police prosecutors. Clarke – I suspect – was doing no more than try to reflect these complexities in an honest way.

Many of Clarke’s many enemies must be thinking rather they are of Chris Huhne: who cares why he gets booted out – just so long as he’s booted out, that’s the important thing. But I’m not so sure about this. I think it goes to the heart of what has gone wrong with our relationship with the political class: we’re obsessed with presentation at the expense of substance, with how well they come across on Any Questions or how effectively they parry Jeremy Paxman, rather than with their core values and with the policies they are trying to impose on us.

Sometimes, of course, the two are connected. For example, you could argue that Chris Huhne’s alleged lack of probity concerning his speeding ticket – not to mention the brazenness with which he is trying to ride out these allegations now – has a direct bearing on his probity as a politician. If (allegedly) he’s capable of lying about a driving offence, how can we be sure he’s not lying about, say, the cost and efficacy of “renewable” energy?

But in Clarke’s case the connection is not so clear. The man is a bleeding heart liberal not some DSK lothario who thinks all women are secretly gagging for it. The fact that he is now being pilloried for being otherwise reflects on nothing more than (uncharacteristically) poor presentational skills.

Is this really how we want to judge our politicians? On how smoothly and effectively they lie to us? On how cleverly they sneak under our radar policies that are going to ruin our lives? If it is, we deserve the appalling governments we have had for the last 13 years. It was presentational skills that kept Blair in power so long; it’s this same obsession with appearances (eg doling out £8 billion of foreign aid because it looks nice, not because it works) which tells you everything you need to know about Cameron and his dismal Coalition.

We deserve better than this. A man like Ken Clarke should be sacked not because he looks like an idiot but because he is an idiot. And there is a difference, you know.

Related posts:

  1. Kenneth Clarke is right about Europe
  2. A rude shock for fake Tories
  3. Is Edward McMillan-Scott the most tedious, annoying and ghastly member in the entire Euro parliament?
  4. Why would anyone want to vote Tory? (pt II)

 

Japan: Whatever Happened to the Nuclear Meltdown?

Godzilla: where the hell is he?

Godzilla: where the hell is he?

Amazing, isn’t it, what a little light military intervention can do to a nuclear crisis?

One minute, the world is facing nuclear meltdown armageddon to rank with ooh, Three Mile Island at the very least, and quite possibly Chernobyl. A few (shockingly expensive) missile strikes over Benghazi and Tripoli later, though, and the Japanese nuclear crisis has all but vanished from the face of the earth.

Maybe we should start small wars more often. Or maybe even better the MSM could learn to start reporting on nuclear incidents like journalists instead of activists from Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.

I’m with Lewis Page on this one. In the Register, he writes:

As one who earns his living in the media these days, I can only apologise on behalf of my profession for the unbelievable levels of fear and misinformation purveyed this week. I have never been so ashamed to call myself a journalist.

Page puts the Fukushima incident in its proper perspective:

The Fukushima reactors actually came through the quake with flying colours despite the fact that it was five times stronger than they had been built to withstand. Only with the following tsunami – again, bigger than the design allowed for – did problems develop, and these problems seem likely to end in insignificant consequences. The Nos 1, 2 and 3 reactors at Daiichi may never produce power again – though this is not certain – but the likelihood is that Nos 4, 5 and 6 will return to service behind a bigger tsunami barrier.

The lesson to learn here is that if your country is hit by a monster earthquake and tsunami, one of the safest places to be is at the local nuclear powerplant. Other Japanese nuclear powerplants in the quake-stricken area, in fact, are sheltering homeless refugees in their buildings – which are some of the few in the region left standing at all, let alone with heating, water and other amenities.

Nothing else in the quake-stricken area has come through anything like as well as the nuclear power stations, or with so little harm to the population. All other forms of infrastructure – transport, housing, industries – have failed the people in and around them comprehensively, leading to deaths most probably in the tens of thousands. Fires, explosions and tank/pipeline ruptures all across the region will have done incalculably more environmental damage, distributed hugely greater amounts of carcinogens than Fukushima Daiichi – which has so far emitted almost nothing but radioactive steam (which becomes non-radioactive within minutes of being generated).

And yet nobody will say after this: “don’t build roads; don’t build towns; don’t build ships or chemical plants or oil refineries or railways”. That would be ridiculous, of course, even though having all those things has actually led to terrible loss of life, destruction and pollution in the quake’s wake.

But far and away more ridiculously, a lot of people are already saying that Fukushima with its probable zero consequences means that no new nuclear powerplants should ever be built again.

One of those ridiculous people is inevitably the noisome Energy Secretary Chris Huhne. In true Rahm Emanuel style he is using the perceived crisis as an excuse to push forward his anti-nuclear, eco-loon agenda. He claims:

“We can do the 80 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050 without new nuclear, but it will require a big effort on carbon capture and storage and renewables.”

If implemented this will most assuredly cause brown-outs and tremendous economic damage by the time the energy gap begins to widen in 2020. But since Huhne will no longer be in office then and since he is wealthy enough not to have to face the consequences of his political stupidity this is unlikely to bother him.

Another of those people is the Hon Sir Jonathon Porritt, who could be heard on BBC Radio 4’s Any Questions grandstanding about his  opposition to nuclear and being given a free pass by Jonathan Dimbleby to spout his spurious eco-propaganda as if it were actually true. At one point, he actually claimed that wind farms did not cause noise disturbance. (Maybe, Sir Jonathan, I should give you the phone number of the poor Welsh chap who has been advised that he should now sleep with his windows shut at night to cut out the noise of the wind farm which has destroyed the value of his property and ruined his retirement).

One of the main objections raised about nuclear power is how incredibly expensive it is. There’s a reason for this: thanks to forty years of hysterical, dishonest propaganda from “Atomkraft Nein Danke” eco-activists like Porritt and Huhne, the bar for safety has been set to such impossibly high standards that it cannot compete economically with less heavily regulated industries such as oil, coal, gas or indeed wind. I was pleased to hear Toby Young on Any Questions reiterating my point about the safety records of the nuclear and wind industries:

Nuclear fatalities in the last ten years: 7

Wind farm fatalities in the last ten years: 44.

In those ten years nuclear provided thirty times the energy of wind. This means in the last decade, nuclear has been around 200 times safer than wind on an energy produced/accidents basis.

And entirely unsurprised when the Hon Sir Jonathan Porritt, having pompously thanked Toby for raising the safety issue, chose to ignore the inconvenient truth of these statistics.

Let’s leave last word to this German astronomer and physicist, Dr Peter Heller, who has written a moving essay on how the scientific truth on nuclear power has been warped by political activism. (Hmm. Reminds me of another area of “science” which has been similarly distorted by scientists, politicians and activists with an agenda. Can anyone jog my memory?) (H/T Roddy Campbell)

So it fills me with sadness and anger on how the work of the above mentioned giants of physics is now being dragged through the mud, how the greatest scientific discoveries of the 20th century are being redefined and criminalized. The current debate in Germany is also a debate on freedom of research. The stigmatization and ostracism of nuclear energy, the demand for an immediate stop of its use, is also the demand for the end of its research and development. No job possibilities also means no students, which means no faculty, which then means the end of the growth of our knowledge. Stopping nuclear energy is nothing less than rejecting the legacy of Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr and all others. It is tantamount to scrapping it, labelling it as dangerous – all in a fit of ignorance. And just as creationists attempt to ban the theory of evolution from the school books, it almost seems as if every factual and neutral explanation in Germany is now in the process of being deleted.

The media suggests a nuclear catastrophe, a mega-meltdown, and that the apocalypse has already begun. It is almost as if the 10,000 deaths in Japan were actually victims of nuclear energy, and not the earthquake or the tsunami. Here again one has to remind us that Fukushima was first hit by an unimaginable 9.0 earthquake and then by a massive 10-meter wave of water just an hour later. As a result, the facility no longer found itself in a highly technological area, but surrounded by a desert of rubble. All around the power plant the infrastructure, residential areas, traffic routes, energy and communication networks are simply no longer there. They were wiped out. Yet, after an entire week, the apocalypse still has not come to pass. Only relatively small amounts of radioactive materials have leaked out and have had only a local impact. If one considers the pure facts exclusively, i.e. only the things we really know, then it exposes the unfounded interpretations of scientific illiterates in the media. One can only arrive to one conclusion: This sorrowful state will remain so.

Read the full essay at Watts Up With That? It’s a blinder.

Related posts:

  1. Nuclear power – some perspective
  2. What really happened on BBC Any Questions
  3. Climategate: Greenpeace hoist by its own petard
  4. Greenpeace goes postal

4 thoughts on “Japan: whatever happened to the nuclear meltdown?”

  1. Nige Cook says:23rd March 2011 at 8:29 am

    Let’s leave last word to this German astronomer and physicist, German astronomer and physicist, Dr Peter Heller, who has written a moving essay on how the scientific truth on nuclear power has been warped by political activism. …

    “So it fills me with sadness and anger on how the work of the above mentioned giants of physics is now being dragged through the mud, how the greatest scientific discoveries of the 20th century are being redefined and criminalized. The current debate in Germany is also a debate on freedom of research. The stigmatization and ostracism of nuclear energy, the demand for an immediate stop of its use, is also the demand for the end of its research and development. No job possibilities also means no students, which means no faculty, which then means the end of the growth of our knowledge. Stopping nuclear energy is nothing less than rejecting the legacy of Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr and all others. It is tantamount to scrapping it, labelling it as dangerous – all in a fit of ignorance. And just as creationists attempt to ban the theory of evolution from the school books, it almost seems as if every factual and neutral explanation in Germany is now in the process of being deleted.”

    Deja vu. This groupthink episode has sadly happened before, namely after German defeat in WWI when their physics mainstream went bananas, as Paul Forman’s paper explains: “Weimar culture, causality, and quantum theory: adaptation by German physicists and mathematicians to a hostile environment,” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, vol 3 (1071), pp 1-115.

    The Weimar culture from 1918-33 in Germany was a sellout of rationality and causality due to their alleged failure in WWI. This led to widespread applause for Heisenberg’s 1st quantization Uncertainty Principle of 1925, which assumes intrinsic indeterminancy exists in the universe, without a mechanism. (From 1927 Dirac and other proponents of 2nd quantization disproved this and showed that indeterminancy results from particulate or quantum force fields, like Brownian motion of pollen being due to a sum-over-histories of discrete individual air molecule impacts on the pollen grain.) Heisenberg’s 1920s neo-Nazis fellow travellers wanted the Uncertainty Principle because it seemed to say that German defeat in 1918 was due to a random wavefunction collapse with no cause, and that Germany won the war in a parallel universe.

    Adolf Hitler then rewarded Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle 1st quantization theory by making Heisenberg head of nuclear research in the Third Reich. You know the story. Heisenberg knew nothing about real science, so he failed the make a nuclear bomb. The detail he got wrong was simply not knowing that boron electrodes were used in producing graphite, and that boron (a neutron absorber) contaminated the graphite and make it useless. America simply changed electrodes and used pure graphite for their reactor moderators, producing plutonium. Heisenberg rejected graphite altogether and switched moderators, choosing heavy water from a Norway plant, soon blown up by commandos.

    Exactly the same thing has occurred after the second German defeat in 1945. Instead of screwing up the future of theoretical physics by changing the pursuit of mechanistic models into the pursuit of mathematical obfuscation, this time the German fascists chose to back the USSR by trying to get the West into nuclear disarmament, so the USSR would achieve world domination. To do this, they lied this time about nuclear radiation dangers.

    For a good technical debunking of low-level radiation media hype scare-mongering (such as that from Dr Ernest Sternglass), please see: http://www.broadinstitute.org/~ilya/alexander_shlyakhter/92h_radiation_risk_leukemia_cancer.pdf

  2. James Delingpole says:23rd March 2011 at 8:39 amI do enjoy your posts Nigel. They’re better than my blog.
  3. Nige Cook says:24th March 2011 at 9:17 pmThanks for the witty sarcasm, James.
  4. John D says:27th March 2011 at 4:55 amJames and Nige, what a great sycophantic double act.

Comments are closed.

What did our grandchildren do to deserve the Prince of Wales?

Toward a worse world.

"One day, son, all this will be wind farms and solar panels!"

“One day, son, all this will be wind farms and solar panels!”

Today, in that bastion of liberty and open markets the European Parliament, the Prince of Wales argued fervently for the inalienable right of our children and grandchildren to enjoy a worse standard of living than their parents.

Not, of course, that he put it quite so explicitly:

“There is, surely, no way round the fact that we have to move away from our conventional economic model of growth, based, as it is, on the production and consumption of high-carbon intensity goods.

“We need to meet the challenge of decoupling economic growth from increased consumption in such a way that both the well-being of Nature’s ecology and our own economic needs do not suffer.”

But which ever way you gloss it, the opposite of the “economic growth” is economic stagnation. That means a shrinking economy. That means – especially when you take into account population growth – a decreased GDP per capita. That means less disposable income, fewer creature comforts, fewer amenities, poorer healthcare, less travel and less leisure time for everyone. (Well, those whose kids aren’t heirs to the Duchy Originals fortune and who don’t own half of Cornwall, say) And apparently – so our future king thinks – we should accept all of this with joyful hearts because it’s for our own good.

Hard to believe that this is the son of a man who during the 1970s wrote learned papers on free market economics and is a patron of the classical liberal Mont Pelerin Society (founded by FA Hayek). Small wonder that the Prince Of Wales and his rather brighter father Prince Philip do not often see eye to eye.

It would be nice to dismiss all this – as Dan Hannan has done much more politely than I ever would – as the Neo-Malthusian drivel of a certified eco loon. The real worry, though, is not that the future King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland thinks this way, but that so too does our both our current administration and its Opposition.

Today in Westminster, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Chris Huhne has been hosting an inquiry into perhaps the most exciting energy revolution in our lifetime. Shale gas will not only provide the world with cheap energy for many years to come but also free us from the shackles of our reliance on energy from such unstable places as Russia and the Middle East.

You might have thought this would be good news all round. And so it is. Shale gas is little short of miraculous: cheap, abundant, and available right on our doorstep. It is, as this article puts it, a global game changer. (H/T Global Warming Policy Foundation)

The distribution of shale gas is so widespread that locally produced shale gas may become the standard fuel in many places. Traditional gas imports (by pipeline or as LNG) may become incremental sources.

The potential of shale gas implies a loss of political leverage for some sellers. For example, Russia has used threats of interruptions – and actual interruptions – like old-time gunboats, notably with Ukraine, but with other European countries too.

I recently attended a conference on shale gas in Poland on behalf of Mayer, Brown. The Poles share with other Europeans concerns about fracking, water recycling, and environmental issues. They have no tradition of American-style entrepreneurship. What they do have is reliance on Russia’s Gazprom in a power-constrained economy. They want to accelerate the development of their shale gas reserves. This story is repeated many places.

So whose advice is our Government is seeking on our energy future?

Well here, as Bishop Hill has noted, is a meeting which took place this morning in the House of Commons:

9 Energy and Climate Change

10.00 am Room 19 (private) 10.15 am (public)

Subject: Electricity Market Reform.

Witnesses: Riverstone, Citigroup Global Markets, Virgin Green Fund, and Climate Change Capital; RSPB, Greenpeace, WWF, and Friends of the Earth (at 11.15 am).

Hello. Excuse me. What on earth do environmental activist lobby groups have to do with Britain’s energy policy?

And here, as Bishop Hill has also noted, are some of the expert from this morning’s shale gas inquiry.

Who will give evidence?

At 9.45 am

  • Nigel Smith, Geologist, British Geological Survey, and
  • Professor Richard Selley, Petroleum Geologist, Imperial College London

At 10.45 am

  • Jenny Banks, Energy and Climate Change Policy Officer, WWF, and
  • Professor Kevin Anderson, Tyndall Centre, University of Manchester

Yep. A geologist and a petroleum geologist. Fair enough. But Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre – the deep green activist group which recently called for a “managed recession” in order to curb the economic growth which is supposedly harming our environment? And a woman from the World Worldlife Fund?

Huhne’s is the same department, let it not be forgotten, which has now committed British energy users to paying an annual £360 million every year (to be added on to their electricity bills) in order to subsidise the feed-in tariffs for the country’s entirely pointless solar energy programme.

Britain is in trouble. Big trouble. Its energy policy is a disaster and it seems no one in any position of power has the courage or knowledge to speak up and explain why it’s a disaster. So while Prince Charles may hold forth in his airy, ill-informed, irresponsible way about climate “sceptics”

I would ask how these people are going to face their grandchildren and admit to them that they failed their future.

the poor deluded fellow is talking out of his hat. It’s people like him, David Cameron and Chris Huhne who pose the real threat to our grandchildren’s future. Not all those decent, principled sceptics who are merely trying to observe above the shrill screeching of the mob that the climate emperor is wearing no clothes.

Related posts:

  1. Wales is in danger: why isn’t the Prince of Wales saving it?
  2. Prince of Wales to give up his Aston Martin, two Jags, two Audis and Range Rover to save planet. Not.
  3. WTF? Prince of Wales tells disgraced CRU: ‘Well done, all of you!’
  4. Why the Prince of Wales’s letters shouldn’t be kept secret