A Place to Stand

climate record according to Hubert Lamb, founder of the CRU and a real scientist from before this became a political football

   The Scotsman published the first half of this letter today in response to Tom Ballantine's reply to my letter (actually though he named me the answer was mainly to what other writers had said). Unfortunately they edited out the 2nd half which I think a shame because I believe it makes good points well. They have now twice edited out to comparison with "astrology scientists" I was slightly surprised that they didn't want to make use of the reference I made to their microgeneration article but it may be the Scotsman want to wind down this particular discussion now.

Tom Ballantine has had the courtesy to respond to my letter (his letter Thurs) but unfortunately not to answer either of the main questions. The first, in response to his denial of making a living out of opposing global warming is whether he, or indeed any senior member of the "environmental" movement, makes their living without public money. The second was whether he can name a single scientist, anywhere in the world, who supports catastrophic warming and is not ultimately paid by public money. I trust he will not object if I take silence as a negative.

As regards the alleged "97% of climate scientists" who support catastrophic warming - 100% of those who make their living by the practice of the "science of astrology" say it is true. If this is the best evidence the alarmists can produce it is no evidence whatsoever. In fact the largest expression of named scientist's opinion on the subject is the widely unreported 31,000 who have signed the Oregon Petition saying that CO2 rise is not only not catastrophic but likely to be beneficial (more CO2 means better growing crops).

When one bears in mind that those and such as those can sell intermittent and unreliable "renewable" electricity to the grid at 46.1p per kwh (Scotsman "new vistas for domestic power" 7th Sept) when French nuclear is produced at 1.4p a kwh (a 3,190% difference) and that the Prime Minister's father in law is making nearly £1,000 a day from "renewable" subsidies, it is clear that there are considerable incentives to keep the scare going despite the obvious lack of evidence, after 32 years, that the planet is suffering.
 Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the 750,000 Scottish homes in fuel poverty or our few remaining real industries expected to compete with economies where energy prices are under 1/4 of ours. Such government parasitism can explain why we are in recession while China and India are growing 10% annually.

Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the 750,000 Scottish homes in fuel poverty or our few remaining real industries expected to compete with economies where energy prices are under 1/4 of ours. Such government parasitism can explain why we are in recession while China and India are growing 10% annually.

Ref - 750,000 fuel poverty http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/fuel-poverty-crisis-warning-1.1112254


Father in law's £1000 a day http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100103077/sir-reginald-sheffield-bt-an-apology/

Oregon Petition http://www.oism.org/pproject/ - all BBC mentions ever of Oregon Petition - http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/?q=oregon%20petition - 2 out of the 3 are responses from members of the public.
 
PS The Scotsman article about microgeneration was in the energy supplement in the business sectio on Weds 7th Sept. It is not online but states that we are legally required to pay 43p per kwh for "renewable" electricity generated and used in the home and on top of that another 3.1 p to anybody who, not having a use for it at the time "sells" it to the grid, which, odds on, won't have a use for it at that time either. Nice non-work if you can get it.