Friday, May 25, 2012
This is the comment I put up in reply.
This would almost automatically mean a lot of Tories keeping their seats and relatively few UKIPers. The corollary of that, with UKIP now reaching 46% of the declining Conservative support in the polls, would have to mean UKIP dominating policy.EU Referendum also expresses his opinion, with an interesting tale which paints Hannan as not entirely trustworthy. I also put a comment there to the effect that UKIP could not just act as drain on the Tory vote and that we must be prepared to negotiate if a serious offer is on the table.
Personally I think that if the party members were offered a deal whereby they supported a fairly run referendum; an enquiry into whether the BBC have vitiated their Charter duty of "balance" by giving only 1/40th as much coverage to UKIP, per vote, as to the "lefty" Greens; an end to the catastrophic global warming fraud and all the attendant carbon nonsense; a free market in energy with a level regulatory playing field; cutting back the state; and all the pointless and damaging regulations and thus among for at least the average growth rate of the rest of the world (6%) then the large majority of Tory activists would jump at it.
In fact I think the majority of Tory activists would like that simply for its own sake, it is just that "their leaders" don't.
I also happen to think that is a programme which a large majority of the British public would go for which is the real point.
Since such a pact would require a vote of all the UKIP members it would be very strange & suspicious if the Tories were not to poll their own members over it too. I personally think the Tory party members would jump at a pact involving a fairly conducted EU referendum, no more subsidy of catastrophic warming lies, no windmill subsidies, the government to examine whether the BBC, by giving 40 times more coverage oer vote to the Greens as to UKIP, cutting the deficit by firing cutting government shale gas and nuclear being allowed & consequently a fast growing economy.
Of course it is possible, even likely, that Cameron's successor would not be willing to make a deal like that, even with UKIP's poll rating being 46% of the Tories own (recent Mail poll) but if so it would be obvious which party it was that was denying the Tories a victory.
Another point is that whatever Mr Hannan may be spinning this government has 3 years to run. And it is going to be run with them beside the LibDems. The Tories can't really negotiate with another partner when they are still in a marriage. There is therefore no hurry whatsoever.
However there are some things that would be needed as a sign that the Conservatives were dealing from the top of the deck & should be a precondition for serious discussion..
- I can't see any way that the sort of major changes, including giving up the warming scam could be done with Cameron in charge. Also Cameron is a liar and has publicly called us fascists
- The examination of the bias of the state broadcaster. If the Conservatives are even half way sincere the fact that the BBC give 40 times more coverage per vote to the greens as to UKIP must be anathema to them. While I have said the Greens are a wholly reactionary movement they are accepted as being part of the "left". So on purely tactical terms the Conservatives should do something about this obvious bias which enhances the "left".
- Any pact must pass a vote of Conservative party members. If it did that the leadership would be committed. If they refuse to do so they can only be leaving themselves a way to break their word as soon as the election is over (as all the approved parties did after promising a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty).
The Tea Party has rejuvenated the republicans because the primary system gives them a chance to reform within the party system. Come the next election it is likely that the USA will have joined the fast growing warming sceptic world consensus leaving only the EU behind. If the Conservative leadership decide they will not change they will be eclipsed but, unless UKIP eclipse them before the run up to the next election (not that unlikely the way the polls are going) they might doom the country to another 5 years of Labour incompetence.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Perhaps equally important is the way this has gone virtually unreported by the traditional media, only on the blogsphere has it been covered.
This is what Mr Davey told Parliament
Graham Stringer - Will not the biggest impact on reducing domestic energy bills be achieved by bringing shale gas online as quickly as possible?
Mr Davey: I do not think so. We had a seminar at No. 10 recently, which the Prime Minister participated in, along with myself and the Business Secretary. We heard from experts in the shale gas industry who had been working in America and looking at the major opportunities in places such as Ukraine and China. They were clear that it would take some time for shale gas to be exploited in the UK. They were also clear that we needed strong regulation to proceed and that the shale gas reserves in this country are not quite as large as some people have been speculating.There were also "leaks" to various papers saying that these leading companies in the industry had said the the assessments by the leading companies in the industry of how much gas was there were untrue and how they had insisted they needed much more government regulation to prevent them working. Ed Davey himself also appeared on the BBC to say the same as had been briefed to the papers. Naturally, it being the BBC, he wasn't asked any difficult questions.
But who were these shale gas industry experts who had said this. No Hot Air did report
who was present at this meeting?
"The Prime Minister convened the Downing Street summit to hear from companies including Shell, Centrica and Schlumberger"
Centrica of course has a huge vested interest in locking people into high gas price fears, scamming the government out of nuclear funds and getting a good price for when they eventually sell themselves to Gazprom. A reality of low gas prices makes Centrica stock look way overpriced.
As for the mention of Shell, the meeting would sound more convincing if it also included BP,Exxon Mobiil, ConocoPhillips,Chevron, Marathon, BP, Statoil, Eni, and Total. Where were they? Besides, the story of shale is that it has been the product of small companies. It's natural to trust multi-nationals, but those very companies had a lengthy history in the US of dismissing shale as some kind of fad that would never work. Until, that is, they were forced to spend billions on buying companies. It makes economic sense for Centrica or Shell to dismiss the economic impact of UK shale for an obvious reason: They are trying to negotiate a lower price.
But of course the main absence, which can't be confirmed, would appear to be that of the people who actually look for shale gas: Cuadrilla, Igas and Dart Energy among others. Let's recall recent revelations from the last two, as well as Cuadrilla not only defending their 200TCF estimate but now publicly declaring it conservative.So it looks like Davey has been talking not to the leading companies in "the shale gas industry" but to the leading companies in the competing gas industry, mainly multinationals. Astonishingly enough they want government to strangle their competitor, at birth, in government red tape. But that is not what he said. He told Parliament that it was the industry itself that wanted the strangulation - the exact and total, opposite of the truth.
History is replete with examples of established traders wanting the government to prevent competition It is not uncommon for government to let themselves be bribed into doing so. In bribing ministers growing companies are at a disadvantage because they haven't yet grown rich enough to do much of it.
This is why it has always been a liberal principle that government should allow economic freedom. The concept of a corporate state, where all the big companies, unions etc, divvied up the national cake and prevented competitors arising was part of the foundation of fascism - a philosophy diametrically opposed to liberalism.
Ed Davey deliberately lied to Parliament to deliberately promote fascist principles and to oppose the founding principles of liberalism.
Them, No Hot Air went out and did what no traditional journalist had thought of. He went and asked Caudrilla, the real leading "expert in the shale gas industry" who said
No, we were not invited. Nor were we consulted about potential shale gas production in the future. I was surprised to see negative statements from people who have never seen our core data or open hole log data. They may consider getting their facts in line next time since this is such an important issue to the country.
No question - Davey is a liar who, in any previous era, would have been out on his ear.
His LibDem predecessor Chris Huhne, coincidentally now facing trial for lying, had previously told his party that he intended to strangle the shale gas industry to prevent it competing with windmills since, even with the current outrageous subsidy he recognised it would be no competition.
By involving the PM's name this looks very much like a LibDem attempt to put Cameron on the record as being complicit in this lie, or at least not repudiating it, which would mean he would have to support LibDem policy of extravagantly expensive power and consequent permanent recession.
This matters because it is shale gas alone, which has brought the US out of recession, as cheap energy always does. This graph from Bishop Hill
Whether there are any circumstances under which a LibDem minister should not be assumed to be lying , or indeed has interest in getting Britain out of recession, depends on whether his party calls him on the lie.
Then whether any Conservative minister can be more trusted or is more interested in Britain's wellbeing depends on whether the rest of the government act.
Since John Redwood decided not to allow this comment of mine the chances do not look good.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
On Ed Davey’s claim, to Parliament, to the media and through a number of unoficial leaks, that at a meeting with the shale gas industry leaders they told him and Mr Cameron that their estimates of the amount if gas were false and that they needed much more government regulation.
It definitely seems that, while not suggesting that it represents anything other than the highest standard standard of hionesty to which he and his party ever aspire, it was a total and deliberate lie. We still don’t know what was actually said but we do know that the industry leader was definitely not present, or even invited.
“a comment from Cuadrilla Resources, the company that is at the forefront of efforts to develop a shale gas industry in the UK.
No, we were not invited. Nor were we consulted about potential shale gas production in the future. I was surprised to see negative statements from people who have never seen our core data or open hole log data. They may consider getting their facts in line next time since this is such an important issue to the country.”
Ed Davey has lied to Parliament and if that is in any way wrong these days must resign. While he was simply carrying out Luddim policy of strangling the shale gas industry and anything else that might get us out of recesion, he has lied and thus if his own party wishes to claim any trace of honesty, they must lead the call for him to go.
And then, as Tim Worstall points out, whether the amounts of gas are sufficient to exploit or not is simply not the sort of decision a government committed to economic freedom would want to make or indeed which almost any government could ever be comptent to make. That is why markets exist.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Anyway this is a letter of mine that they published
The elephant in the room, unmentioned by politicians on both sides of the debate about ‘austerity”’ or growth is that while the EU countries wallow in recession the rest of the world’s economies are growing at a staggering average of six per cent, with places like China managing 10 per cent or better.
Clearly if such growth is taking place, such growth is possible.
All that is necessary is for the politicians to stop getting in the way. What the fastest growing economies have in common is that they don’t have politicians spending 50 per cent, or more, of the national economy; they don’t have endless rules and regulations which, in our case, destroy 50 per cent of the possible economy (for example, house prices have risen four-fold compared to the RPI over recent generations simply because the political classes prevent more houses from being built); most importantly they don’t increase electricity prices and restrict supply with the Luddite promotion of windmillery and opposition to nuclear.
The close connection between electricity use and GNP is so clear that nobody denies it, but the European politicians choose to ignore it and these other factors. Thus professional politicians on both sides are actually promoting neither austerity or growth. Suddenly voting for professional comedians looks more sensible doesn’t it?In response to this article "Posturing Against Austerity" which makes a number of good points about the "leftist" politicians who say they are in favour of "growth" when they actually mean printing and borrowing to give the illusion. It is a good article but doesn't go far enough.
Spiked also has a new article by Professor Colin McInnes whose enthusiasm in spreading his vision of ptogress and contempt for ecofascists makes me look restrained.
the dead Earth itself achieved consciousness - not as the mythical Gaia suggested by greens, but as thinking, self-aware humans...
If the potent self-organising enterprise that is humanity eventually escapes from the Earth, then we have the resources and opportunity to fill a dead and apparently empty cosmos.
Or, we could simply stay put, cocooned and culturally ossifying in a sustainable society, waiting to be scoured from the Earth when the next big rock slams into us. Save the planet and bring self-organising life to the cosmos? Yes, it’s a big ask, so let’s not screw it up through lack of ambition.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
SpaceX launched the first commercial spaceship to the International Space Station at 8.44 BST today, after a number of delays. I have sent this letter out to a wide range of newspapers but this is far to important to hold back merely because one or more of them might be interested.
Space industrialisation is the most important extension of the humanity since we left Africa and arguably since we came down from the trees. It is certainly far more important than Columbus, who merely extended the European world to a single new continent.
Sir,Ref - SpaceX costings http://www.spacex.com/usa.php
The first commercial true spaceship is on its way to resupply the International Space Station. With the shuttle programme over NASA with its $20 billion a year budget, was embarrassingly expecting to have to rely on the Russians to get Americans there for many years. But Elon Musk's company SpaceX promises to be able to do it commercially, for under £90 million.
It seems certain that if politics does not interfere and that is unlikely in every country he could base himself in, that Mr Musk has ushered in the era of space industrialisation. I trust he will get filthy rich out of it - he is earning it.
"The sky's the limit" considerably understates the potential for human settlement and development beyond Earth. At these prices space tourism is merely the start. Solar power satellites can give us unlimited power with, once established, almost zero cost. A group of billionaires are investing in asteroid mining. They would not require to mine the gold, platinum and other precious metals from many asteroids to become trillionaires.
All of this could have been done decades ago (see the movie 2001 to see how it was expected to) but politics intervened. The effective way for government to support space development is through prizes, such as the $10 million X-Prize given for the first suborbital flight won by Virgin's Spaceship One. Such prizes, when they work have a record of being at least 33 times more cost effective than conventional funding (when they don't they are infinitely more cost effective as they cost nothing).
But governments are more interested in using popular enthusiasm for space to build massive bureaucracies that waste so many billions - like NASA. It does give them personal patronage for friends and supporters - the only way in which prizes cannot compete.
However even NASA has always looked good compared to the European Space Agency. Its total budget is half of NASA's but what have they ever done with it?
Well, a few days ago they did issue a report, along with the WWF, saying we should give up modern technology and start to experience the joys of life as a medieval peasant. This is the European idea of the purpose of a Space Agency?
For such pearls of wisdom the British taxpayer pays them £280 million annually, in the fond belief that it is going for space research. I know of no engineer, economist or even politician who doubts that if that money had been put into a British X-Prize Foundation rather than to another unproductive European bureaucracy, Britain would long ago have attracted Mr Musk (born in South Africa not America) or one of his competitors to build that spacecraft here.
To be fair I also don't know of any main party British politician, & I have asked a few over the years, who didn't prefer to waste that money on technophobic Luddite European bureaucracy. Perhaps that will change now and we will get the British X-Prize Foundation that would give us at least a share in an economic boom far greater than Columbus ever produced.
ESA/WWF report on how we should be medieval peasants http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/16/wwf_living_planet_report/nt.
Here is an article from the estimable Register taking apart Britain's space industry pretensions and the Institute of Directors Report claiming it. The conclusion is that we don't do enough to justify a grandiose spaceport and that Britain, not being on the equator, isn't a suitable venue.
I accept the basic argument but think that we should do something to promote a more grandiose industry if we are ever to have one. That is why I, years ago, promoted the idea of a British and potentially world leading spaceport on Ascension Island, in the mid Atlantic just south of the equator.
Everyone knows about Britain's soaraway space sector. It turns over £8bn a year – the same sort of money as the remaining automotive industry – it employs tens of thousands of people, and it's growing faster than the Chinese economy. And, famously, it has done all this without any significant government help.....
Of the 25,000 directly employed in UK space, just over 7,000 work in "upstream" businesses like SSTL, actually building and operating spacecraft. The other 17,000+ work in "downstream" space business.
What's "downstream" space?
The short answer is, it's Sky TV, accounting for two-thirds of the downstream jobs and turnover. BSkyB, the IoD report tells us, is "the biggest player in the UK space economy ... without BSkyB it [UK space] would be half the size, probably less."
....it certainly doesn't seem to call for a spaceport. Nonetheless the IoD is full of enthusiasm, alluding to the new "Spaceport America" now being built in New Mexico as a base for Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic space tourism venture....
In any case, for actual serious space endeavour as opposed to up-and-down joyrides, you need to be able to achieve orbit - and orbit is a matter of velocity more than altitude. For most space applications, it helps a lot if you can take off from a piece of ground, and ascend through a piece of atmosphere, which is already moving fast through the Earth's gravitational field, as is the case near the Equator... not somewhere in the high latitudes like Canada or Scotland.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Furthermore, the people you are debating with are real researchers. Like Mandas, Richard S., Chris, and others I too have a track record of peer reviewed publication in the finest journals in my field. They and I have a basic demonstration of competence the likes of which a fool such as yourself will never comprehend.That there should be, at least, some truth to his claims of validity in the field was supported by the fact that neither the site runner nor any of the named people said "who he" or that they were unable to confirm being in the same scientific club as "Skip", though it was indeed obvious his real identity was known. If you are going to accept that a lying charlatan shares equality with you you must accept being known as a lying charlatan.
Of course the idea that anybody at "scienceblogs" was in any way interested in truth or science took rather a knock when Greg Laden, who runs one of the sites, publicly claimed to be a "climate scientist" and I subsequently proved that he was in fact an unpaid assistant anthropology teacher. A more serious dent to "scienceblogs" credibility came when Greg kept his site and nobody whatsoever on their even suggested that being proven so wholly and completely dishonest and contemptuous of science was, in even the slightest way, reprehensible.
Obviously such action is incompatible with any "sciencebloggers" being in any way honest or scientific.
Anyway Skip promised me that he was going to not only come on my blog and engage, for the rest of time, on what, for him, passes as intellectual debate but also to do so on any other site I commented on (which would include the sole "scienceblog" site that allows a certain amount of free speech.. In fact he limited himself to this site since presumably making himself look like and idiot on a wider stage seemed not to be a good idea.
Occasionally his comments have contributed what purported to be a matter of fact (for example his repeated claims that the government's Chief Science adviser never made the ludicrous claim that by 2100 "Antarctica will be the only habitable continent" and that the papers reporting it were nonexistent/lying because they are controlled by deniers/mistaken). All his claims of fact were easily and amusingly proven false. The rest of his posts have focused on calling me a Nazi, saying that everybody in Glasgow shags the sheep which are everpresent in our city centre & that the proof that I am a Nazi is that I tend to delete his obscenities (though I specifically do not delete argument that attempts to be fact based).
Being a wholly corrupt, child abusing*, animal he hasn't.
So who is this expert in climate science Skip. Well not entirely coincidentally, he turns out to be linked to a child abusing (*there did anybody think I was merely being discourteous when I said that earlier) organisation I have dealt with previously, NCSE (National Center for science Education more properly known as Nazi Child-abusers for the Suppression of Evidence).
So who is he
have a look at this account of Skip Evans, formerly of the National Center for Science Education, conversing with some of the local creationists in Madison, WI.
Skip's account. The idea of pretending to be a real scientist seems to be presaged by a comment he adds
a couple of guys talking to Larry and Kevin the Creationists decided they were sociology professors doing an experiment to see how people reacted to complete nonsense presented as fact.With the NCSE connection, which I did not connection, it appears the world of know of when I the reported the lecture by their boss on CAGW ("you can't blame her for not answering your questions - she's not a climate expert"(. Run by the Glasgow Skeptics (with grandstanding by ecofascist Green MSP Pat Harvie, previously gay government paid youth worker though I would never match the ecofascists by saying that he had ever shagged any of the aforementioned sheep) it seems the world of anti-science spouting is even smaller and more incestuous than it previously appeared.
Posted by: Skip
July 27, 2010 12:43 AM
From the obscene thieving Nazi Child abuser's entry on NCSE
Should the disgusting animal wish to apologise or feel able make any explanation, without obscenity, or indeed should any member of BCSE feel I have been in any way unfair I extend my invitation, as normal, to give them a platform and possibly a piece of rope. If not to me it might wish to apologise to the people of Glasgow and all the sheep in Sauchiehall Street.
UPDATE It seems Skip Evans has died. No mention of cause though he was clearly relatively young. Since he didn't apologise or produce any evidence to support his lies I don't think any other comment would be appropriate.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Con 19% , Lab 41%, LibDem 4%, UKIP 4%, SNP 33%, Green 2%, BNP 1%
UKIP have traditionally done much worse in Scotland than nationally and to be fair this is still under half the vote shown across the UK. On the other hand it is a considerable step up and when you bear in mind that we have a relatively proportional voting system here, augers well. It is particularly valuable because we have a wider number of parties, even if they don't offer much electoral choice.
This shows UKIP matching the LibDem vote and doubling that of the, everpresent on the BBC, Greens. It also gives us nearly a quarter of the votes the Conservatives get. An 8% swing to us would make us the standard bearer of free marketists in Scotland (ignoring whether the Scots Tories are such) and because of our voting system we do not run the risk of "splitting the vote" that exists in the south.
Considering that (A) we have let ourselves be painted as not Scottish based and (B) the media, led by the outrageously biased & statist BBC have virtually censored any appearance, this is a gain.
I am including this with my unpublished Scotsman letter because it may be that my inclusion of a mention of this poll result was part of the reason it was not printed. Scottish Renewables had replied to GM Lindsay's & my letters with a string of obvious lies. Most seriously, to my mind was the claim that windmills produce "more than 1/3" of our energy. This is an obvious lie and the fact that they thought they could get away with it without the Scottish media nailing these government funded propagandists and that they didn't says much about the Scottish media. It is the factual equivalent of letting the government away with saying Santa Claus took all the money.
Unfortunately the Scotsman decided to not to allow my reply though it did allow Dr Lindsay's. On Tuesday you published a letter from me in which I suggested that the public letter writers from Scottish Renewables regularly claimed things which were not so. Lo and behold on Wednesday we had a reply from Naill Stuart, from Scottish Renewables who asserted that SR are "apolitical" (which as a government funded organisation they certainly should be) & an industry "that meets more than a third of the country's power needs"UPDATE
Clearly the question of whether the taxpayer should pay out £1 billion a year to subsidise windmills (enough to reduce income tax by 3p) is indeed a political one, even if UKIP (admittedly only at 4% in the latest Scottish opinion poll but larger than the LibDems across the UK) is the only party opposed to doing so. Thus SR is a political organisation.
As regards the other claim - according to Scottish government statistics http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Business/TrendElectricity all "renewables" other than hydro produce around 6 Gigawatt hours of electricity out of 50 across Scotland. That is 12%. In what universe is 12% "more than a third"? It is possible that some parts of what SR claim may be infinitely more accurate than these ones but it seems improper to me that public funds should be thus devoted to promoting "environmentalist" counterfactuals.
On the other Colin McInnes letter on the same day was a breath of fresh air. He is correct to make the comparison between Lenin's belief that socialism could be achieved by "the electrification of the whole country" and the present faux-left's adoption of the Green Luddites, whose obvious wish is to close any practical electric generator. The 25,000 pensioners who die, unnecessarily, each winter because of artificially high electricity costs may not, even over decades, match the killings of Stalin but at least he thought he was working in the cause of human progress not merely to make windfarms profitable.
Whether the adoption of Luddism by the "left" is a result, or a cause of socialism's failure may be subject to debate but is a sad end to a movement which once aspired to be progressive.
This UK poll result just in
Survation/Mail On Sunday Poll CON 25.8% LAB 36.6% UKIP 11.5% LIB DEM 7.4%
That not only gives us clear water well ahead of the LibDems but gives us almost half the vote of the Conservatives.
Last week Charles Kennedy spoke on Andrew Neil's show of what the LibDem leader would be saying at the next election TV debate between "the 3 party leaders". While Neil made no demurral it is obviously increasingly impossible for even the BBC to maintain their blatant censorhip.