A rather lengthier piece (12 and a half minutes) starting at 1 min 12 secconds on yesterday's programme. Unlike Channel 4, they interviewed a sceptic, Fred "the models are useless ... we conclude that the cause of climate change is primarily natural" Singer, as well as a warmenist.
H/t Dearieme. The girl is indeed very plain.
A grim document
2 hours ago
12 comments:
The climate change models are probably no more reliable than the neo-classical economic models.
The former cannot account for some major destabilising factors (they admit this)
The latter cannot account for the theft of labour (they deny this)
Climate change theory might well be a red herring anyway. I would move on... There is plenty of clean, free energy, it is simply being kept out of use by Big Fossil monopoly
http://gco2e.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-much-free-energy-is-there-why-do-we.html
Isn't it curious how the economic deniers, the climate change deniers and the big fossil interests are the same people ?
I think the cracks are beginning to show on the current global warming campaign.
The truth is the science is not settled, indeed it very rarely is.
Andrew Neil in The Daily Politics had two profs on yesterday, one warmist, one not.
He said this was the first of a number of pieces they would do on 'global warming' over the next couple of weeks.
Neil is the best political interviewer. I would guess his own view is that the science is not yet in on 'global warming'. He certainly isn't the standard BBC interviewer just listening to one interviewee's points and then putting them to the other.
Free energy? Oh for crying out loud. It may be free at the point it hits the earth. It's anything but by the time it's been converted into some useful form and distributed. Solar PV's economically-viable time may well come, so when it does he can he can go invade - or pay - some desert countries to allow him to install his conversion equipment.
Bugger. It's not free any more.
Then we sit back and wait for the distribution infrastructure...
Shit. It's even less free now.
If I can see that, you'd hope a Tory Councillor and Social Entrepreneur with sunglasses on his forehead would be able to see that, too.
wv: ingitio :-)
RS, the Home-Owner-Ists say that house prices can only go up; the warmenists say that temperatures can only go up, and both are asking for taxpayers' money to prove it.
MITS, let's hope so.
JP, thanks, I have linked in the next post.
FT, this is a polite blog, and RS is one of my real life friends, as it happens.
That is a a good piece from Newsnight. It has always been apparent that Paxman didn't believe the warming scam but knew which side his bread was buttered having produced this sarcasm -
“I have neither the learning nor the experience to know whether the doomsayers are right about the human causes of climate change. But I am willing to acknowledge that people who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that it is the consequence of our own behaviour. I assume that this is why the BBC's coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago.”
Jeremy Paxman, BBC "news" presenter
Clearly he has recognised change in the wind. Nonetheless the BBC use Newsnight, which has a very small audience, to put out inconvenient facts while the popular news programmes were doing a puff piece on George Osborne's commitiment to alarmism. They did the same when they put their only report on the way NATO police had been allowed to dissect Serbs, while alive, to sell the body parts to our hospitals. Until it is getting EXTENSIVE coverage on the 10 o'clock news we are still seeing censorship.
PS Susan Watts may not have been chosen for her looks but when the BBC want a journalist who actually knows which end of a bunsen burner is hot they go for her. She also played a significant part in the Iraq scandal by interviewing Kelly.
Then if I've been rude, you have my apology. It hadn't occurred to me that it I had been, though. Robust, perhaps. Are asterisks preferred?
The argument about free energy is the same intellectual level as the people who used to suggest (and still do in some cases) that they way to overcome lack of power generation from windmills when the wind doesn't blow is to use the electricity they do produce, when they produce it, to electrolyse seawater for hydrogen and oxygen. Then you just "store the hydrogen until you need it", completely betraying a certain ignorance of the properties of hydrogen and the energy gradient between producing the hydrogen, losing much of it, and reusing what remains.
NC, did Paxo really say that? Cool. I still don't like him though.
FT, of course there's no such thing as 'free energy' just like there's no 'free drinking water' (even though the raw material falls from the sky), I'm right with you there, but that's a minor point.
Susan Watts may well know her stuff but in her item, from within the very heart of the Met Offices new supercomputer, she mentions two slightly different versions of the warmist vision and then tells us @03:50 " so no wonder some people can be confused about what's going on and who to believe..."
I don't call that putting both sides of the argument.
@ formertory
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to fall into the trap of pro monopoly trollism, often an end for anyone suffering that horrible disease of the mind. Denial of what cannot be disputed.
Simple answer is: Lets spend just 1% of the subsidy given to Big Fossil since its birth on collecting sunshine. Can you see it now ???
But "Free Energy" has nothing to do with the price. It has to do with what is provided "freely" to all by nature.
"Costly Energy" is what we are compelled to use now because the fossil monopoly keeps the free stuff out of use. Monopoly profits to the holder are tax to everyone else.
Very expensive, very destructive, very stupid.
ZSince "Big Fossil" (burning dinosaur bones perhaps) has paid overv a trillion in taxes over the years I think it would be unfair to demand solar power instantly pays over £10 billion of such reverse subsidy.
Yet again we see the very highest standrd of honesty to which the eco-fascist aspire is just to make up any old lie they want. Robinj & the other parasites parasites receives a subsidy of over £1 million a year from the rest of us - a little gratitude would be appropriate.
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to fall into the trap of pro monopoly trollism, often an end for anyone suffering that horrible disease of the mind. Denial of what cannot be disputed.
Oi! I thought this was a polite blog? I'll accept your apology any time :-).
Denial of your arguments and "facts" are my prerogative, and the truth of both can be denied any time. As befits them.
But "Free Energy" has nothing to do with the price. It has to do with what is provided "freely" to all by nature.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Oil is provided freely by nature, too. It's finding it and drilling it out, then transporting it, then refining it and then distributing it that costs.
"Costly Energy" is what we are compelled to use now because the fossil monopoly keeps the free stuff out of use.
Pish (woops, sorry MW). The free stuff costs too much to make useful just yet. You can't build infrastructure on 5V DC.
Very expensive, very destructive, very stupid.
Exactly what subsidies are. Ask the Spanish; they subsidised wind power because wind is free, innit? They destroyed earnings in the existing economy without creating any to speak of in the "new" economy. You might enjoy reading the work of the very excellent Frederic Bastiat.
Now there was a man who knew about subsidies!
Post a Comment