Click to get your own widget

Saturday, December 14, 2013

"Britain is the Fourth Most Unequal Counrty" - Easily Proven A Total Lie

       Murdo Fraser has an interesting article on ThinkScotland today looking at a regular lie from the Yes campaign and leftists generally - that Britain is the 4th most unequal country in the developed world or the most unequal in the west or the 4th most among the richest 25.

        I must admit that having seen this repeatedly, without ant demur by the likes of BBC interviewers, I had assumed it must have some factual basis, however tenuous.

         But Murdo looks at the standard measure of inequality, the Gini Coefficient (0 means total equality, 1 means .... well whatever total inequality would be) . It is an interesting read whether you believe total equality is desirable and humane or the ultimate suppression of human individualty and freedom (or both).

        As it turns out in this table we are not in 4th place (Botswana at 63) or even 4th in the developed world. 13th behind Hong Kong, Singapore, USA, Russia, Israel, Portugal, Japan, New Zealand, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Estonia, 5 of which are, per capita, richer than us. Both Hong Kong and Singapore are high in inequality though Singapore has a strong welfare state and socialist history while Hong Kong is probably the most free market place in the world.

        Overall we place a rather boring 92nd  most unequal out of 134.

       Interesting to see trends. There is certainly a trend for poor countries to be more unequal - it is dominated by poor African countries down to our Marxist foe Zimbabwe (24th at 50.1).

       The most equal, from Finland (117th at 29.5) are all EU members except our Marxist foe Belarus (122 at 27.9) and Albania (I don't believe any figures from Albania).

       Among developed countries there is a trend for the efficient (Hong Kong, Singapore, USA, Switzerland to be higher) but not a strong one. Estonia, the most libertarian of the Baltics places 91st while Latvia and Lithuania are 84th and 85th.

        All in all total equality (or inequality) seems a perverse target to choose, certainly if you are putting it ahead of wealth creation as the SNP are..

        So this "leftist" claim turns out to be wholly, completely and totally, a lie. Where did it come from? Mainly it looks like everybody quoting each other as a source and nobody on the "left" being interested enough in the truth to look. Which says much about the "left" and the integrity of what the Yes campaign say generally.

         Not going to go through all 5.8 million sites telling this lie.

         According to Gerry Hassan in the Scotsman the ultimate unimpeachable authority for this is  ‘Fair Play: A Daniel Dorling Reader on Social Justice’, another site claimed an unspecified UN report. The point is that it is clearly a total lie and equally clearly those pushing it don't care.

        Next time they make some assertion the question must be "What proof have you that this claim is more than 5.8 million times more trustworthy than your last false one?"

1Namibia 70.72003
2South Africa 65.02005
3Lesotho 63.21995
4Botswana 63.01993
5Sierra Leone 62.91989
6Central African Republic 61.31993
7Bolivia 59.22006
8Haiti 59.22001
9Paraguay 56.82008
10Brazil 56.72005
11Bosnia and Herzegovina 56.22007
12Panama 56.12003
13Guatemala 55.12007
14Chile 54.92003
15Colombia 53.82005
16Honduras 53.82003
17Hong Kong 53.32007
18El Salvador 52.42002
19Papua New Guinea 50.91996
20Zambia 50.82004
21Niger 50.51995
22Swaziland 50.42001
23Gambia, The 50.21998
24Zimbabwe 50.12006
25Dominican Republic 49.92005
26Peru 49.82005
27Argentina 49.0January-March 2007
28Sri Lanka 49.02004
29Venezuela 48.22003
30Singapore 48.12008
31Costa Rica 48.02008
32Mexico 47.92006
33Madagascar 47.52001
34Mozambique 47.32002
35Nepal 47.22008
36China 47.02007
37Rwanda 46.82000
38Malaysia 46.12002
39Ecuador 46.02006
40Philippines 45.82006
41Uganda 45.72002
42Jamaica 45.52004
43Uruguay 45.22006
44United States 45.02007
45Cameroon 44.62001
46Cote d'Ivoire 44.62002
47Iran 44.52006
48Nigeria 43.72003
49Turkey 43.62003
50Guyana 43.21999
51Nicaragua 43.12001
52Cambodia 43.02007 est.
53Kenya 42.52008 est.
54Burundi 42.41998
55Thailand 42.02002
56Russia 41.5September 2008
57Senegal 41.32001
58Georgia 40.82005
59Turkmenistan 40.81998
60Mali 40.12001
61Morocco 40.02005 est.
62Tunisia 40.02005 est.
63Jordan 39.72007
64Burkina Faso 39.52007
65Ghana 39.42005-06
66Indonesia 39.42005
67Malawi 39.02004
68Macedonia 39.02003
69Mauritius 39.02006 est.
70Mauritania 39.02000
71Israel 38.62005
72Portugal 38.52007
73Guinea 38.12006
74Japan 38.12002
75Timor-Leste 38.0
76Yemen 37.72005
77Armenia 37.02006
78Vietnam 37.02004
79India 36.82004
80Uzbekistan 36.82003
81Azerbaijan 36.52001
82Benin 36.52003
83New Zealand 36.21997
84Latvia 36.02005
85Lithuania 36.02005
86Algeria 35.31995
87Poland 34.92005
88Laos 34.62002
89Tanzania 34.62000
90Egypt 34.42001
91Estonia 34.02008
92United Kingdom 34.02005
93Switzerland 33.72008
94Bangladesh 33.22005
95Moldova 33.22003
96Greece 33.02005
97Mongolia 32.82002
98France 32.72008
99Tajikistan 32.62006
100Canada 32.12005
101Ireland 32.02005
102Spain 32.02005
103Romania 32.02008
104Italy 32.02006
105Korea, South 31.32007
106European Union 31.02005 est.
107Ukraine 31.02006
108Netherlands 30.92007
109Bulgaria 30.72007
110Pakistan 30.6FY07/08
111Australia 30.52006
112Kazakhstan 30.42005
113Kyrgyzstan 30.32003
114Ethiopia 30.02000
115Montenegro 30.02003
116Serbia 30.02003
117Finland 29.52007
118Cyprus 29.02005
119Croatia 29.02008
120Belgium 28.02005
121Hungary 28.02005
122Belarus 27.92005
123Germany 27.02006
124Albania 26.72005
125Austria 26.02007
126Luxembourg 26.02005
127Malta 26.02007
128Slovakia 26.02005
129Czech Republic 26.02005
130Iceland 25.02005
131Norway 25.02008
132Denmark 24.02005
133Slovenia 24.02005
134Sweden 23.02005

Labels: , ,

Friday, December 13, 2013

Rail Costs - the Facts

     As I have said before I think there is a place for rail, if we get it running fully automated, with lighter vehicles and a braking system that would allow trains to run close together. All of that is currently technologically possible. If not probably best to tarmac them over and call them roads.

    This, from Transport Watch, is a listing of current technological specs. It is damning:

1. Capacity and use
(a) Rail has one third to one quarter the capacity to move people compared with motor roads managed to avoid congestion - go look at Waterloo.
(b) National Rail carries an average flow per track equivalent to only 300 buses plus lorries per day. It is difficult to find a minor road anywhere in the country so lightly loaded in terms of vehicles.
(c) The density of use achieved by the National Rail system is one third to one fifth that obtained from the Motorway or from the Trunk road and motorway network.
(d) Only 3% of passenger journeys go by national rail corresponding to just 6% of all motorized passenger miles. (Now, August 2013,  7.5%)
2. Energy consumption
In 2003 the fuel consumption of national rail in the UK was equivalent between 280 and 298 million UK gallons of diesel - passenger rail returning 115 passenger-miles per gallon and rail freight 181 tonne-miles per gallon, ignoring the drag in and out to the rail head, and 144 tonne miles per gallon if the drag in and out is 10 miles at each end of the line haul. In comparison:
(a)  An express coach may return 10 miles per gallon in uncongested conditions. With 20 people aboard that yields 200 passenger miles per uk gallon
(b)  A lorry may return 8 miles per gallon and deliver and average of 15 Tonnes (30 tonnes out back empty). That yields 120 tonne-miles per UK gallon
Applying those values to the national rail function yields 222 million gallons - 20-25 % less than by rail.
New data is available at facts sheet 5, leaving the conclusion in tact
3. Journey lengths, speed and fares
(a) Dividing passenger-km by passenger journeys available from Transport Statistics Great Britain yields an average passenger journey length of 41 km (25 miles).
(b) The 2004 National Travel Survey data shows that 50% of passenger rail journeys are less than 30 km (19 miles) long and that 90% are less those 120 km (75 miles) long. For most of those journeys the express coach, given the right of way, would match the train for journey time particularly after taking account of a service frequency up to 12 times greater.
(b) Fares by express coach are often a fraction of those by train despite the coach paying taxes and making a profit. If rail were to operate without subsidy fares would have to double at least without loss of passengers.
4. Safety
The railway lobby has embedded in the public mind the notion that rail is overwhelming safe compared with road. That has been achieved by (a) ignoring usage, so exaggerating the relative safety of rail by a factor of 18 and (b) comparing passengers killed in so-called "train accidents" with all those killed system-wide on the road network. E.g.
In contrast to that we find that (a) if ordinary traffic, void of motorcycles, pedestrians and cyclists were to be transferred to railway alignments, then the deaths per passenger-km (the death rate) would be similar to, or below, that imposed on society by the railways and (b) if rail passengers transferred to express coaches using rail's rights of way the death rate suffered by those passengers would be halved - see facts sheet 2  (This now out of date.  We now believe deaths to passengers are so few in number and so variable, by either rail or express coach as to make comparisons impossible, See facts sheet 2)
5. Widths and headroom  (See Facts sheet 3)
Despite many examples of successful conversions the railway lobby pretends railways are too narrow and lack adequate headroom to be converted to roads. The reality is that although greater widths may be desirable:
(a) A two-track railway typically offers room for a UK standard 7.3-metre carriageway with one-metre marginal strips but no other verges.
(b) On the approaches to towns and cities there is often room for a dual two or three lane highway.
(c) Where there is overhead electrification headroom would often be adequate for a triple-decker.
6. Costs
(a) The annual capital cost of rail passenger rolling stock is 3 times as high as equivalent floor space in express buses.
(b) Track maintenance for rail costs are between 5 and 10 times that required by road transport.
(c) The cost per track-km of the West Coast Main-Line Modernisation programme is 10 times higher than the cost per lane-km of building the M1 built from scratch including the cost of land.
(d) The net tax revenue per lane-mile for the Motorway and Trunk Road network has the range £(275-360) thousand per year. In contrast the 20,000 miles of rail track is being subsidised to perhaps £5 billion per year or at the rate of £250 thousand per track-mile.
(e) The rail Modernisation Programme was to cost over £60 billion. Its target was to increase passengers by 50%, e.g.. from 6% to 9% of passenger-km, and to increase rail freight from 11% to 17% of tonne-km. However, that could have only a negligible effect on traffic - reducing growth from 15% to 13% over 10 years. Further, despite the Government's guarantee Railtrack's share price collapsed prior to receivership. Hence, in purely financial terms, the £60 billion was and is being almost entirely wasted - equivalent to burning the residential accommodation for a city of 1.5 million people.
(f) In contrast, replacing the railway lines by a road surface managed to avoid congestion would cost at most £12 billion. The effect would be to offer faster journey times for all but the longest journeys at fares a fraction of those charged to most by rail passengers.
For more detail see the facts sheets 7 to 9
Wp ref. Website/Topic 2
 "a unit cost of £12.5 million per track-km. (Source is the SRA).

Alternatively .... (at decade old prices) ..... the cost of the national programme had the range £(6.25-8.7) million per track-km.

In contrast to that the Independent of 17th February 1999 reported a Treasury study which estimated the replacement cost of the M1 as £2.1 billion for all works and land, or £2.5 billion at 2007 prices.  The lane length, assuming 6 lanes all the way from the M25 to Leeds, is 1800 km. Hence the cost is £1.5 million per lane-km......

Furthermore the motorway and trunk road network is used 2.5 to 3 times as intensively as is the national rail network despite the latter having the advantage of serving the hearts of our towns and cities.  That widens the cost advantage of road to a factor in the range 12.5 to 30."

Labels: , ,

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Brave New Scotland - You Can Be Arrested For Insult - But Yes Supporters Can Freely Threatedn Murder

      This is on Spiked

       "The Daily Star reports the case of a man arrested and held for eight hours for making two jokes about the then seriously ill Nelson Mandela. Neil Phillips from Staffordshire was arrested after a complaint to the police by a local councillor. He was eventually freed and has not been prosecuted for the comments due to ‘lack of evidence’. Nonetheless, the idea that merely making a joke online should require the attention of the local constabulary should be shocking. The fact that the story isn’t really that surprising is a measure of how much free speech has been called into question in recent years.

Another case involves social-media comments made after the recent accident in Glasgow, in which a police helicopter lost power and crashed into a busy bar, The Clutha. A 16-year-old boy has been arrested and two other people have been reported to the police for their comments about the crash. According to The Sunday Times: ‘Frank Mulholland, the lord advocate, has issued an operating instruction telling procurators there is to be a “strong presumption in favour of criminal proceedings” where it appears offences were motivated by “a hateful reaction to the events at the Clutha bar”.’

The Scottish crackdown seems to come under the 2012 Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act, a thoroughly draconian law that provides for imprisonment for up to five years simply for saying something the authorities decide is ‘sectarian’ - or even the mere singing of popular folk songs by football fans. While working-class football fans, much maligned by the political and chattering classes, have been the initial target of the law, it’s no surprise that once the authorities were given a draconian new power, they have enthusiastically gone looking for other people to apply it to.

Social media represent an important new way of raising ideas and expressing thoughts. But instead of giving us greater freedom, the powers that be have used the internet as a way of making an example of anyone who dares to express what is regarded as an unacceptable opinion. Whatever you may think about making bad jokes about a dying man, or vicious comments about accident victims, such comments should not be grounds for imprisonment. The authorities even have the backing of the ‘dead tree’ media, too. Glasgow’s Herald newspaper has declared in an editorial that a ‘hard line on internet comments is welcome’.
It is truly perverse that when politicians and commentators are waxing lyrical about Mandela, a man who fought for freedom in South Africa, people can be arrested for making a joke or a rude comment in the UK - and get the backing of members of the media when they do so."

      The Herald, of course, supports the prosecution of a 16 year old boy for saying something online:

     "the 16-year-old who allegedly made the comments was arrested last week - it will not be the first time that social networking sites have been the source of vile comments on tragic public events and it will surely not be the last. The question is: how can such comments be controlled?"

       I put up this comment. I'll let you know if the Herald censor it.

       "But when Yes supporters throw a liquid at UKIP supporters and shout "next time it will be petrol" nobody is charged, let alone prosecuted, indeed the fat controller goes out of his way to praise these racist thugs..

We are all equally entitled to free speech but some of us, in the brave new Scotland, are clearly more equal than others."

         Arguably Salmond's remarks supporting these thugs' violence and denouncing UKIP in hate speech terms makes him a criminal too. But, particularly with our police now directly controlled from Edinburgh, I don't think anybody believes the law will apply to him. Indeed with no prosecution for the attack on Farage, I don't think anybody expects the law to be applied to anybody in the Yes campaign.

       Fast as free speech is being rolled back in England it is being rolled back faster here - evidence that our political class is even more dissociated from the people and our media censoring even more, that the rest of Britain's. 

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

How To Get On The BBC - Call For The Criminalisation Of Democracy

  Last Thursday I referred to one of the guests on BBC's "Big Debate", Alan Miller, as a professor of political correctness.

    This was perhaps unkind. He is "Deputy Principal (Research & Knowledge Transfer), Heriot-Watt University"  and  "elected in 2007 by the Scottish Parliament to become the first Chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission" which is a more formal and respectful way of phrasing it.

   I'm mentioning this as I have seen him twice more on the BBC since then. It is possible I have missed a few. On Sunday Politics saying nothing very interesting and yesterday on Newsnight Scotland saying promoting judicial activism in lawmaking and that it should be criminal for political parties to stand for laws that he and his pals don't like, such as the Spare Room Subsidy (or as the BBC falsely called it "Bedroom Tax" - this nomenclature may be going largely unopposed but it is clearly Orwellian to claim that a subsidy is the same as a tax). Dellers makes the same point about a lie told in the opposite direction (calling a lack of tax a subsidy) by the same PC types.

   By comparison a Scottish UKIP spokesman has been on BBC Scotland in the last 6 days as often as in the last 6 months - precisely never.

   One guy, with zero electoral support compared to the 4th party in Scottish politics and 3rd in UK. If our state broadcaster was making any slightest attempt to keep to its legal duty of "balance" the party would be getting at least 100 times as much coverage as the unelected prof. That would be 300 spokespersons on in the last 6 days or 9,000 in 6 months.

   Which, mathematically makes the BBC less than 0.012% honest or more than 99.989% corrupt totalitarians.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

The Ultimate Resource

      I thought it worth mentioning 2 serendipitous discoveries of resources available at sea. Once again proof that we are not "running out of resources" & never will as long as human ingenuity is allowed.

Japan has discovered methane hydrate lying over a large area in the Sea of Japan in northwestern Japan, in addition to previously discovered areas in the Pacific Ocean, the trade ministry said.

The government plans to spend the next three years trying to determine the nation’s reserves of methane hydrate – a frozen gas known as “flammable ice” – as part of its goal to achieve commercial production within six years.
A geological survey in June and July confirmed 225 “gas chimney” structures off Joetsu and Noto Peninsula, which likely contain methane hydrate, the ministry said. The survey also confirmed shallow methane ice forming over a large area within one of the structures.
In March, Japan succeeded in producing 120,000 cubic meters of gas over six days from a test tapping of methane hydrate in the Pacific Ocean off Aichi Prefecture in central Japan.


Freshwater reserves have been found under the ocean floor  that could sustain future generations.
Australian researchers claim to have found 500,000 cubic kilometres (120,000 cubic miles) of freshwater buried beneath the seabed on continental shelves off Australia, China, North America and South Africa

Labels: , ,

Monday, December 09, 2013

Big Engineering 57 Prospecting Asteroids

    This comes from a comment I tossed off on Next Big Future. Brian Wang had written of the possibility of hundreds or indeed thousands of Cubesats being sent to soft land on asteroids, thereby establishing some claim to ownership.

"Interplanetary missions as secondary payloads

Many sizes of small satellites can be included in unused launch space" (with pictures and links)

     This is not a million miles from my early proposal, in 2002, that Scotland should offer a £20 million X-Prize for the first satellite, if Scots, to soft land on an asteroid within 50 years. Dismissed laughingly by the LudDims as impossibly optimistic.

      "Conference calls on the Scottish Parliament to offer a prize of 20 million pounds to the first Scottish group to soft land a vehicle on an asteroid beyond the orbit of Mars by 2050"

     Except that I was obviously hopelessly pessimistic about timescale, cost and numbers. That'll show me.


     Since then we have had Cubesats (vehicles 10 cm on a side which can be added to conventional launches for thousands rather than millions of £s and because of Moore's Law and miniaturisation can carry far more processing capacity than enormous satellites of decades ago).

     And at least in theory, can be flown around the solar system as easily as large ones since they can have the same power to weight ratio.

     My idea is that when an asteroid has landed all it needs to do is to send out sonic waves through the rock. That and a lot of patience. Recording the sonar at various frequencies would, over several years, allow computer modelling of the structure of the asteroid in great detail. Not just size but how the asteroid is built up and of what materials, where.

     Whatever the legal benefits of having put your flag on an asteroid (and they are by no means certain, space law on individual property being almost non-existent)  the commercial advantages of knowing in advance what asteroids contained valuables, what they were, how much there was going to be and where exactly on the asteroid they were located would be beyond value.

     Nobody without such information could hope to compete by conventional prospecting (ie going there and digging).

     Moreover this information would allow the owner to raise investment capital.

     In the long term it would affect futures prices of all these materials. Just knowing that there is 1,000 tons of gold and platinum which could be brought to Earth in 5-10 years would change the market in those materials and in the industries which use half of the gold mined and almost all of the platinum. We would have new industries springing up to use these even before they had reached Earth, perhaps before they were mined.

       I think this is very viable even without any state funding. However it never does any harm, so long as the state doesn't start micromanaging anything beyond setting up prize conditions.

         On the other hand extra money never does any harm, except that after it works you will have statists saying they always supported the idea and were integral to it working (which, in certain circumstances, could be a significant disadvantage).

      I suggest that we go back to the total of £20 million but divide it into a number of segments - 1st cubesat to move beyond the Moon under its own power; 1st to Mars; 1st demonstration of sonar scanning to necessary level etc. The actual landing would probably only need a token prize because the project, once working, is so lucrative.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, December 08, 2013

What The Warming Theory Actually Promises

   The date when the catastrophic warming scare became officially accepted and since when dissent has been censored with the remark "the debate is over" in July 1988.

    That was when James Hansen testified to Congress about CAGW.

     Compare the promised catastrophe with the reality of the climate widget above, which shows no effective correlation with CO2 rise (Hansen's promises of 1988 were made just before the 3rd line).

    I thought it might be nice to find out what he actually promised. So here it is.

"But today Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration told a Congressional committee that it was 99 percent certain that the warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere.

which puts the IPCC raising their certainty from 90% to 95% look sick

If Dr. Hansen and other scientists are correct, then humans, by burning of fossil fuels and other activities, have altered the global climate in a manner that will affect life on earth for centuries to come.....

He and other scientists testifying before the Senate panel today said that projections of the climate change that is now apparently occurring mean that the Southeastern and Midwestern sections of the United States will be subject to frequent episodes of very high temperatures and drought in the next decade and beyond. But they cautioned that it was not possible to attribute a specific heat wave to the greenhouse effect, given the still limited state of knowledge on the subject.

Several Senators on the Committee joined witnesses in calling for action now on a broad national and international program to slow the pace of global warming.

Senator Timothy E. Wirth, the Colorado Democrat ("Wirth in an interview to PBS, admitted to staging the hearing by intentionally scheduling it on the historically hottest day of the summer and opening the windows to the hearing room the night before so the air conditioning would not be working" - Wikipedia) who presided at hearing today, said: ''As I read it, the scientific evidence is compelling: the global climate is changing as the earth's atmosphere gets warmer. Now, the Congress must begin to consider how we are going to slow or halt that warming trend and how we are going to cope with the changes that may already be inevitable.'' .....

If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit (2-6 C) from the year 2025 to 2050, according to these projections. This rise in temperature is not expected to be uniform around the globe but to be greater in the higher latitudes, reaching as much as 20 degrees, and lower at the Equator.

As you can see it is up about 0.1 C, 1/20th to 1/60th from 1988 with 2/3rds of that time passed

The rise in global temperature is predicted to cause a thermal expansion of the oceans and to melt glaciers and polar ice, thus causing sea levels to rise by one to four feet by the middle of the next century. Scientists have already detected a slight rise in sea levels. At the same time, heat would cause inland waters to evaporate more rapidly, thus lowering the level of bodies of water such as the Great Lakes.

Well that's a pack of lies isn't it. The alleged detection of a slight rise was simply the 10th-20th of an inch per decade since the ice age. If this were not fraudulent would now be up 6 inches to 2 feet

Dr. Hansen, who records temperatures from readings at monitoring stations around the world,

Anthony Watts started his blog checking out these monitoring stations and finding so many of them were faked - places that had been in countryside 50 years ago and were now in suburbia and worse

 had previously reported that four of the hottest years on record occurred in the 1980's.

proven false at least for the USA where the warmest years were in the 1930s

In the first five months of this year, the temperature averaged about four-tenths of a degree above the base period, Dr. Hansen reported today. ''The first five months of 1988 are so warm globally that we conclude that 1988 will be the warmest year on record unless there is a remarkable, improbable cooling in the remainder of the year,'' he told the Senate committee.

Note that he is using a five month period as significant - now alarmists give their word that 18 years without warming isn't - well only those who aren't even 5/216ths honest but there appears to be none who are more honest than that

Dr. Syukuro Manabe  ''it is likely that severe mid-continental summer dryness will occur more frequently with increasing atmsopheric temperature.''

While natural climate variability is the most likely chief cause of the current drought, Dr. Manabe said, the global warming trend is probably ''aggravating the current dry condition.'' He added that the current drought was a foretaste of what the country would be facing in the years ahead.

Dr. George Woodwell, director of the Woods Hole Research Center in Woods Hole, Mass., said that while a slow warming trend would give human society time to respond, the rate of warming is uncertain. One factor that could speed up global warming is the widescale destruction of forests
Some experts also believe that concern over global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels

Since the warming trend is at least 20 times slower than promised that "time to respond" promise seems proven, not that the alarmists now mention it
  Note that this is as close to a foundation document as alarmism has and it is clearly dishonest in a couple of points and arguably more importantly from a science point of view, overwhelmingly wrong in its predictions. In science, or indeed in common sense, a theory which predicts falsely on virtually every point should be treated as unscientific rubbish.

    At the very least any remotely honest "environmentalist" not willing to publicly admit that the sceptics are telling the truth and they aren't must be able to explain why sea levels have actually risen by 6" to 2' without actually doing so.

    Anybody not doing so is, by definition, a corrupt totalitarian fascist liar who can never be trusted to be telling the truth on any other subject either. Over to you LabNatConDems & BBC.

Labels: , ,

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.