Saturday, January 07, 2012
Climate change will be good for British farming, according to Caroline Spelman, the Environment SecretaryThe point about this is that Spelman is not some thoughtful free thinker but very much a loyal to whoever is in charge apparatchik. She has held "girlie" posts in foreign aid and environment and fought for the "pro-environmental" policy of fortnightly rather than weekly bin collections. This is pro-environment because it means the money saved goes to fund expensive and wasteful "recycling" rather than keeping real people's environment free of waste and rats.
In a speech at the Oxford Farming Conference, she said that, although problems such as droughts would become more frequent, warmer weather would also mean a longer growing season and less frost damage, allowing the introduction of crops such as peaches, maize and sunflowers. Already 10,000 melons are expected to be harvested in Kent this year.
Mrs Spelman said farmers must “seize the opportunities” of increased production ..... “It could also bring longer growing seasons, reduced frost damage, and the opportunity to introduce new crops and livestock species.”
An advice service for farmers will offer tips...
A study commissioned by the conference from the Scottish Agricultural College even suggested that the boost from a warmer climate could help Britain compete in the global market
She was sufficiently loyal not to get into trouble when she was found to be fraudulently using paying her nanny out of Parliamentary expenses. Obviously she voted for the Climate change Act, which requires the economic destruction of Britain, like a loyal sheep.
If she is saying "global warming" is not only not catastrophic but to he welcomed that party line has obviously changed.
This fits closely with Osborne's call for "Labour's Climate Change Act" which he and all but an honest handful of Tories, not now in office, voted for should not be enforced more thoroughly than any in any other European country which doesn't have it.
The catastrophic warming scam goes down the official memory hole, even as some new ecofascist lie is developed, but the government jobs, regulatory ratcheting and overall parasitism remains.
Of course we will get no apologies from the thieving parasites in Westminster who put it in place. Indeed, since the whole purpose of embracing ecofascism is not about the environment but about keeping us eager to be led to safety there is no contradiction between the government spending billions annually on propagandising ecofascist scare stories to increase their power over us (£450 million to one quango NERC alone) and at the same time spending more on an "advice centre" to promote the advantages of warming. Truth is irrelevant - the common factor is that "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
On the other hand Spelman is not as scientifically illiterate as the NERC board member and Chief Scientific Adviser to Scotland who says global warming will increase day length.
Ms Spelman climbing down
Friday, January 06, 2012
In their anxiety to suppress technology which can make the world rich the ecofascists have been desperately searching for an argument against shale gas. The only one that has seemed to hold any water is that extracting the gas can cause "earthquakes". This "magnitude 2.3 earthquake" was used to stop the British industry in its tracks, at a time when the American economy is starting back into modest growth purely because this new energy source has cut gas costs to 1/4 of ours.
However the Richter scale works on 10 fold increases for each point.
Below 5 on the Richter scale, which is the magnitude for international reporting, it cannot honestly be called a quake.
"4.0–4.9 Light Noticeable shaking of indoor items, rattling noises. Significant damage unlikely. 13,000 per year (est.)
5.0–5.9 Moderate Can cause major damage to poorly constructed buildings over small regions. At most slight damage to well-designed buildings. 1,319 per year"
"Rattling noises" are purely an Earth tremor.
tremor. A shaking or vibrating movement, as of the earth.
Actually a 2.3 tremor is 1/500th of even the dividing line and "not felt but recorded" and there are over a million of them annually. I think one should quake much more about the thought of there being a single elected politician or journalist anywhere in the country willing to pretend that any of the claims of any of the murdering ecofascist parasites, unsupported by overwhelming independent proof, being worth a moment's consideration. In any case the word "quake" can never honestly be used instead of tremor to describe such low magnitude "threats".
Magnitude - Description Earthquake effects - Frequency of occurrence
Less than 2.0 - Micro Micro earthquakes, not felt. Continual
2.0–2.9 - Minor Generally not felt, but recorded. 1,300,000 per year (est.)
3.0–3.9 - Often felt, but rarely causes damage. 130,000 per year (est.)
4.0–4.9 - Light Noticeable shaking of indoor items, rattling noises. Significant damage unlikely. 13,000 per year (est.)
5.0–5.9 - Moderate Can cause major damage to poorly constructed buildings over small regions. At most slight damage to well-designed buildings. 1,319 per year
6.0–6.9 - Strong Can be destructive in areas up to about 160 kilometres (99 mi) across in populated areas. 134 per year
7.0–7.9 - Major Can cause serious damage over larger areas. 15 per year
8.0–8.9 - Great Can cause serious damage in areas several hundred kilometres across. 1 per year
9.0–9.9 - Devastating in areas several thousand kilometres across. -1 per 10 years (est.)
10.0+ - Massive Never recorded, widespread devastation across very large areas; see below for equivalent seismic energy yield. - Extremely rare (Unknown/May not be possible)
H/T Al Fin
Thursday, January 05, 2012
It is quite possible for somebody to overstate or even talk nonsense in the heat of the moment but when they continue to maintain the inaccuracies over a long period of time, knowing the facts and unable to produce any factual basis for such claims there can be no possible doubt that the lie is deliberate and premeditated. By definition somebody willing to do so blatantly cannot ever be assumed to be telling the truth in any other case. This is what SR was and still is doing.
When it is done by somebody who knows that the lie they are telling is being done to deliberately results in the death of the 25,000 pensioners who die, unnecessarily, because of fuel poverty annually in Britain who could, in whole or large part, be saved by substantially lower energy costs I do not see that it is possible for anybody to say they are not responsible for the consequences they seek. This applies to every person who knowingly supports fuel poverty.
It would be possible for "environmentalists" to properly argue that the cost of these deaths is justified by the saving to the world in retaining the supplies of uranium in the ground or preventing another Chernobyl (though it would take 500 Chernobyls in Britain alone each year to match the death toll) or some other reason. So far nobody has done so but I would be willing to publish it if they could.
Which brings us to the conundrum in the title here.
Having taken long term advantage of the fact that sceptics are, due to our liberal nature, always willing to allow alarmists a free voice (usually, as here, excluding posts which make no attempt at debate and limit themselves to obscenity and rudeness - something common among those who claim to care about the environment) Scottish Renewables has chosen to make his own clearly well funded site the site of an attack on me claiming I am insane. The ultimate irony being that, obviously having, used sceptic's commitment to free speech to lie and made such a claim SR has censored my reply. In part in one case and in whole in 2 others.
So here they are. And on a different thread
Anybody who wants to can follow the trail of gratuitous lies you used to get to this point. You have repeatedly been asked to proved verification for the claims you made and repeatedly answered not with facts but with ad homs. Even in the reply to the post mentioned you make a medical claim about me. It is possible that you are a qualified doctor but I doubt it. If not then in what way is describing you as a liar inaccurate?
There is no dispute that fuel poverty kills around 25,000 pensioners a year. Nor that it could be effectively ended by a free market in power - which would mean nuclear rather than windmills. The "environmentalists" benefiting from windmill subsidies or paid by the government to promote it cannot deny this. Thus in what way is the term “murdering ecofascist parasite” non-factual?
Anybody reading here can see you do not & cannot dispute the fact of 25,000 people being killed, quite unnecessarily, every year by fuel poverty. Nor that you are actively promoting the ecofascism that causes it. Therefore, if the English language has meaning you are a hired parasitic murderer and fascist.
You have made no attempt to provide the medical qualifications necessary for your accusation of lunacy to be even theoretically possibly anything other than a fascist lie. I note you have not attempted to withdraw it and must accept it as representing the pinnacle of honesty to which you ever personally aspire. I await your apology.
I note that every single supporter of "environmentalism" here, who possesses any trace of integrity, has had to dissociate themselves from your lies. That there is not a single person in the "Green" movement with any integrity is hardly my fault, but equally hardly disputable.
I tend to assume you will censor this post as you did the last, or moreso. Which only proves that you know you are a wholly corrupt fascist liar whose claims cannot survive honest discussionAnd
Unsurprisingly all of the 15 "myths" about the stupidity of windmills are true.
Obviously anybody wishing to "play fair" on the subject, as the article requests, would be willing to allow discussion on the facts but since no "environmental" blog anywhere in the world, let alone either this one or the one delineating the "myths" allows free debate you will just have to accept that they all know for certain their claims are unsustainable.Should SR feel at any time able to factually dispute anything I have said he is, of course, welcome to do so. Unlike him I do not approve of suppression of free political discussion, regarding that as fascist (as did Mussolini).
Equally should anybody know of any "environmentalist" site anywhere in the English speaking world which does not practice political censorship of discussion I would be very interested to hear of it. That one at least would not be properly described as ecofascist. Having previously asked for a single identifiable prominent supporter of alarmism, not just a "climate scientist" who is not ultimately paid by the state I would also like to extend it to a single identifiable prominent alarmist who is opposed to the fascism of political censorship.
Is there a single solitary "environmentalist" anywhere in the world who posseses a sufficient trace of honesty to be willing to say that anybody who makes deliberately dishonest claims of "lunacy", or claims designed to assist in killing people is doing something wrong? They deserve the chance to prove if there is even 1.
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
Predictions for 2012
We will continue to underperform the UK recession. All the main parties in Holyrood will continue to, wrongly, blame Westminster rather than themselves for this. Electricity prices will continue their rise. Some Westminster politician will say that if Scotland becomes independent there will be no requirement to buy expensive electricity from us if cheaper gas is available - this will be denounced as speculation. At first, under their new leader, Conservative support will fall. However after that support for all the main parties will fall in tandem which will merely show as contempt for all Scottish politicians. Those politicians will continue to only discuss "independence" avoiding any real debate.
The policitaly maintained recession will be maintained. Every MP & MSP will know how to get out of recession in days but only a few "right wing" (according to the BBC) Tories will suggest doing so.
The Euro will be retained in name but in fact for Greece, Italy, Spain & Portugal it will become a separate currency, just as the Swiss and French Francs are different. This will not cause catastrophe but the EU will maintain its recession. One of the Scandinavian countries may decide to hold a referendum on leaving. Anti-EU parties will increase their vote in virtually all members with elections.
A progressive (in the sense of supporting progress) candidate will be adopted by the Republicans, probably Gingrich. The campaign will be as dirty as any in US history, with the media and Democrats producing new or revamped scandal stories daily, at least 99% of which will have nothing both new and true in them. Nonetheless Obama will lose, though his last 2 months, after losing, will be nasty. What happens after that, though good, will be for 2013.
The world economy may slow slightly but will continue to grow at 4% or more and China's at 8% or more.
South Korea will work hand in glove with China over North Korea. Their objectives will be, in order, to prevent disorder and millions of refugees; to prevent a war; to open up NK. A 3 sided war of secession will break out in Iraq with Turkey, Iran and Saudi each intervening to stop their chosen enemies winning. There will be considerable western supported terrorism in Syria, armed stand-offs in Libya and anti-Christian pogroms in Egypt. Pakistani terrorist will carry out atrocities in India and Pakistan
SpaceX's commercial spaceship will dock in February with the ISS. By the end of the year commercial space flights will be becoming regular and we will be seeing the start of a major investment boom in space.The EU will be trying to get agreement with the rest of the world to stop it and failing.
Catastrophic global warming will never be referred to and the scare story will largely be about other potential unknown effects of CO2 rising. Some other eco-scare will be being promoted - perhaps species extinction.
World oil/gas production and reserves will rise rapidly. There will be continued technological progress in virtually all scientific fields. There will be uncertainty about whether the Higgs Boson has been discovered and about whether commercial exploitation of low energy nuclear reactions is practical but not about their existence.