Saturday, September 15, 2012
"This meeting believes there is no evidence of catastrophic warming remotely as catastrophic as the regulations, taxes and other costs imposed to ameliorate it".
On the upper floor of Yates. 134-136 West George Street
Tuesday 30th October 7 00 for a 7.30 start.
To be recorded & broadcast on Youtube
I am very pleased and proud to present the final speaker for the motion.
In the early 1970s Jim was very popular across Scotland as easily the most articulate and intelligent Labour Party MP and a "left wing" radical.
He then quit to form the Scottish Labour Party (no relation to the present lot) to campaign for devolution.
In turn he joined and became deputy leader of the SNP. Sillars, along with the 79 Group, including Salmond, and the former SLP members in the SNP, started to shape the SNP as a clearly defined, left-of-centre party.
He also married Margo MacDonald.
Jim's opposition to warming alarmism is of long standing, though he is now semi-retired.
In the September 10th issue of Holyrood magazine he wrote that the SNP is
"most leadership controlled party in the UK. If I did not know better, I would easily believe the leaders had been schooled in the old communist party, where the top, the elite, made the decisions and the rest fell into step automatically, with not a word of dissent. Totalitarian would be a fair description of Scotland’s majority party."based on the lack of any SNP MSP participating in internal debate, not just on warming but on almost anything.
Jim shows that disagreement on alleged catastrophic warming (& I would suggest most UKIP policy) is not a matter of "left" V "right" but of a rather older cultural divide in our country. That between those who accept authority unquestioningly and those who don't. On one side "the man of independent mind" and on the other the "belted knights", MSPs, quangoists, Beeboids, government funded "sock puppets" and those who "worship at their words" and say that the rest of us are not entitled to hear an open debate on the subject, we should shut up and fork over 10s of billions to them
His name is still so well respected within Labour that at First Minister's questions this week Johann Lamont, leader of the party now called the Scottish Labour Party applauded Jim Sillar's "wise words" and spoke of the need for Holyrood parties to engage in "dialogue" with the Scottish people. Being a Glasgow MSP she was one of the first people invited to "dialogue" in support of her party's position in this debate. She refused.
This is where we are having a slight difficulty. Holyrood voted unanimously for the most expensive and draconian Climate Change Act in the world with the BBC openly flouting its legal duty of balance to support them and the rest of the "great and good" lining up in approval. There should be no shortage of people willing to publicly support that position - not just in the TV studios where questions are obsequious and dissent is censored.
We wanted 3 speakers for the "consensus"
We have asked
All 129 MSPs
All 5 party organisations
Scottish Natural Heritage
The head of the Scottish Civil Service
The Carbon Trust
NERC (a quango you've never heard of but it gets £500 million a year to promote alarmism & did previously call for a debate)
Friends of the Earth
Stop Climate Change Scotland (an umbrella organisation covering around 90 other alarmist groups)
Professor Ann Glover (former Chief Scientific Adviser to the Scottish government, now to the entire EU, who once claimed that global warming would increase day length)
and a couple of individuals I won't embarrass by naming.
Between them these get several billions a year to promote alarmism
Also Glasgow University
Glasgow Caledonian University
and Channel 4
Not one of whom is willing to speak We are still seeking.
One or 2 unavailablewould not be surprising but it is statistically impossible for this to be coincidence. The Greens in particular were quite specific that they would never participate.
3 things, listed in increasing importance, follow with implacable logic from this:
1 - It is not just that the SNP are fairly totalitarian and that Labour have no interest in the "dialogue" with the people they call for but that all the Holyrood parties have deliberately divorced themselves from any influence from the Scottish people.
2 - That it is a statistical certainty that virtually everybody in these parties, the state owned media and the subsidy dependent "industries", even if they don't know for a certainty that catastrophic warming is a lie, know of no information that would allow them to present a convincing case in free debate that it is true, but that this in no way impedes their enthusiasm for laws that cost the people of Scotland many billions and are maintaining & will maintain the recession.
3 - In any democratic society where decisions are reached by the people after free discussion any movement which refused to engage in such discussion with those who disagree could never reach and thus never convince many people. Their only hope would be that it not be a free society and that the main media, owned or regulated by the state & propagandised for them & rigorously censored any dissent. Global warming is only the latest of dozens of "environmental" catastrophe stories which have been thus promoted - not one of which has turned out to be true.
The refusal to debate proves that all these people and government funded groups know that we live in a sham democracy & fairly totalitarian state in which the state media (primarily the BBC) censor dissent. The state owned BBC have "abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago" (Jeremy Paxman) and this is incompatible with a free society.
Widespread and general free debate is a necessary & possibly sufficient condition for a free society & this debate will be a step towards it.
* Scottish Renewables was asterisked. This is because a few days ago I found that the 30th of October is also the start of a 3 day conference at the SECC, organised by Scottish Renewables, 49 Bath St, Glasgow. 5,000 members of an "industry" that gets far more money out of subsidy than it ever does from making electricity and destroys 3.7 productive jobs for every subsidised 1 it creates will "network and do business".
If, after being reminded of this, Scottish Renewables are still unable to find a single person willing to put their case in an uncensored debate the conclusion will be inescapable.
Friday, September 14, 2012
At RenewableUK 2012 you will share ideas, network, and do business with leading companies in Renewable Energy. It's a great opportunity to extend your business and keep up-to-date with developments in wind, wave and tidal energy.5,000 warming alarmists, all feeding or intending to feed at the public trough at Scottish Renewables' 3 day knees up at Glasgow's SECC starting, by complete coincidence, on 30th November, the same day UKIP have our public debate:
Nearly 300 companies active in the UK wind, wave and tidal energy sector will be on display at the exhibition at RenewableUK's flagship event. Exhibitors include manufacturers, developers, contractors, consultants, suppliers/service companies, electricity generators/utilities, financiers, insurance companies, research institutes, engineers, recruitment consultants and many more.
"This meeting believes there is no evidence of catastrophic warming remotely as catastrophic as the regulations, taxes and other costs imposed to ameliorate it".Now lets see how many of these 5,000 "respectable" business people, making money from an "industry" that gets far more from government subsidy than it does from making electricity, will put themselves on the line to defend their fraud.
On the upper floor of Yates. 134-136 West George Street
Tuesday 30th October 7 00 for a 7.30 start.
Lets see if, when the BBC invite them into interviews, with all the easy obsequious questions that that corrupt propaganda organisation reserves for favoured government parasites, they can wholly censor any mention of us dissidents.
I wonder how much the conference itself is costing overall. I don't see any way it could come out at under £1,000 a head for an ordinary conference & knowing how government projects cost an average of 8 times what they could, I would assume at least £10,000.
Which makes £50 million!
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Obama said: "We must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms ... our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for the governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people."
The Libyan mob was the equivalent of our founding fathers! (If you overlook the part about it being a murderous Islamic mob.)
Meanwhile, Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit, said: "The people we are fighting for in Libya, the backbone of that movement, are former mujahedeen from around the world." We are "enabling people who may not be formally aligned with al-Qaida but who want the same things to grasp ever closer to power."
Scheuer said the media had taken "a few English-speaking Arabs who are pro-democracy and a few Facebook pages out of the Middle East and extrapolated that to a region-wide love of secular democracy," adding, "It is as insane a situation as I've ever encountered in my life."
No wonder Obama's running for re-election on his foreign policy expertise!
Among Republicans, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum all called for aggressive action against Gadhafi, including enforcement of a no-fly zone.
Santorum cited Reagan's 1986 bombing of Libya (after Gadhafi had killed American servicemen in Berlin), saying, "If you want to be Reaganesque, it seems the path is pretty clear."
Gingrich took all sides, first demanding: "Exercise a no-fly zone this evening. We don't need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we're intervening. This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with."
Then, two weeks later, he said: "I would not have intervened."
Only Mitt Romney and Haley Barbour resisted calling for aggressive action against Gadhafi, with Romney merely criticizing Obama's deer-in-the-headlights response, and Barbour stating more directly, "I don't think it's our mission to make Libya look like Luxembourg." No offense, he said, "but it is not ever going to look like what we'd like." ..
Learn your history, Americans. The American Revolution was not the revolt of a mob. It was a carefully thought-out plan for a republic, based on ideas painstakingly argued by serious men in the process of creating what would become the freest, most prosperous nation in world history.I think she may be overplaying the insanity of the mobs. There is also the fact that people chosen by the western powers as catspaws are inherently unlikely to be self effacing uncorrupt patriots. We recruited gangsters, drug lords, sex slavers and organleggers in Kosovo as our police. They cannot honestly avoid responsibility for them now being gangsters, drug lords, sex slavers and organleggers. We recruited the openly corrupt in Iraq and Afghanistan and got corruption. We recruited al Quaeda in Yugoslavia, Libya and Syria and again that is what we are getting.
The much-ballyhooed "Arab Spring," with mobs of men gang-raping American reporters, firing guns in the air and murdering their erstwhile dictators, is more akin to the pointless bloodletting of the French Revolution.
As, unfortunately, are the peoples of these countries More our fault than their's.
But if she is right to blame Obama for warmongering remember that he had to be dragged into a relatively background role in the war against Libya (providing most of the military capacity while Britain and France provided the bluster). The real enthusiasts for bombing Libya were Sarkozy (gone) and Cameron. If Obama is shown to be an ass what is Cameron?
Remember when the war against Libya was justified by a UN ruling which claimed it gave us some temporary claim to prevent Gadaffi defeating the "democratic" forces in Benghazi, which we parlayed into thousands of civilians bombed elsewhere.
These oppressed destroyers of war graves .
& ended the oppression of the US ambassador, well this one anyway
and are disappearing so many Gadaffi supporters/members of other tribes.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
And they never do the same for Democrats, or indeed for approved British politicos.
Well here is a doozy the entire Democrat Party managed.
On the last night of the Democratic National Convention, a retired Navy four-star took the stage to pay tribute to veterans. Behind him, on a giant screen, the image of four hulking warships reinforced his patriotic message.
But there was a big mistake in the stirring backdrop: those are Russian warships.
While retired Adm. John Nathman, a former commander of Fleet Forces Command, honored vets as America’s best, the ships from the Russian Federation Navy were arrayed like sentinels on the big screen above.....
These were the very Soviet-era combatants that Nathman and Cold Warriors like him had once squared off against.
For example, the ship in the foreground, on the far right, has a square radar antenna at the top of its masthead. That is the MR-700 Podberezovik 3-D early warning radar, commonly identified as “Flat Screen” for its appearance, a three-dimensional early warning radar mounted on the Kerch, said Eric Wertheim, editor of “Combat Fleets of the World.”
Similarly, the third ship has a MR-310 “Head Net” air search radar, shaped like two off-set bananas, at its masthead and is mostly likely the guided missile destroyer Smetlivyy. The first two ships seem to be Krivak-class frigates, but it’s hard to discern from the silhouette, experts said.
But the fact they are Russian ships is not in doubt. In addition to the ship’s radar arrays and hulls, which are dissimilar from U.S. warships, the photo features one more give-away: a large white flag with a blue ‘X’ at the ships’ sterns.
Polmar, who authored “The Naval Institute Guide to the Soviet Navy,” recognized the blue ‘X’-mark: “The X is the Cross of St. Andrew’s, which is a Russian Navy symbol,” Polmar said. (An anchored U.S. warship, by contrast, flies the American flag on its stern.)
Based on this specific group of these ship types, one naval expert concluded that this was most likely a photo of the Black Sea Fleet.
Expect to see zero Beeboids laughing at this one and saying it proves they are not competent to run the show.
A less silly event at the same convention was when the chair, at the behest of Obama, asked for them to change previously agreed convention rules which would have prevented any mention of God or of the capital of Israel being Jerusalem. All rather trivial but the sort of tokenism that annoys people and if they had been sensible would never have done in the first place. Because this was a late alteration it had to be accepted by a 2/3rds majority. So. early in the morning when there were few delegates there the chairman asked the assembly for permission to change it. To his obvious surprise delegates failed to pass it by acclimation.
So in the best traditions of the EU telling the Irish or Danes they had come up with the wrong answer, he asked them twice more. The third ended with opponents being at least a little louder than supporters. So instead of actually carrying out the vote as any democratic organisation would do, he just declared that his ears said it had passed anyway.
The issue itself is of little importance and the organisers were certainly right that to keep out God and Jerusalem would have unnecessarily annoyed a number of potential voters.
The real issue is how much contempt the party leaders have demonstrated they have for, in reverse order, their delegates, democracy, their own party constitution & that they think, correctly it seems, that the media would keep quiet about it.
People who will do that will break real laws when they have the real power and media which will censor silly stuff like that, even when the proof has been videod, will censor important and unquestionable lawbreaking too.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
We have institutions for nearly everything now, but we have lost the institutional means of long range planning. Who looks after our grandchildren? Surely not the politicians, who can hardly think past the next election, and are generally content to put problems off to be solved when the politician is safely out of office.
It isn’t strictly true that government always mucks things up, but it’s often enough so. A, if not the, major purpose of government is to extract money from non-government and use it to hire and pay government employees. This guarantees that government will always expand; and there inevitably comes a point at which the addition of people to a project has a negative impact. Almost all long-standing government agencies and projects have people http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/technology-article.asp?artnum=59; and the more conscientious they are about earning their pay the more they tend to get in the gears and bring progress to a halt.
It has certainly been that way in space R&;D and space operations. I needn’t give the history here. It can be summed up as early enthusiasm and success, expansion of the team, and then makework to keep the standing army busy or appearing to be busy. New centers are then started in hopes of having a new cycle of enthusiasm and success, and that works for a while, but eventually the system is clogged with memoranda, policy directives, reviews, reviews of reviews, and the rest. Everyone is familiar with the process. Nothing can be done because nothing can be approved, and nothing can be approved because the only way to justify one’s importance is to ponder approvals, rewrite requirements statements, and require rewrites. And always to add complexities and more mission requirements.
X Programs: An Exception to the Rule
One of the most spectacularly successful government projects in technological history was the X-program. Beginning with the X-1 and going on through the X-15 and beyond, X programs were instrumental – indeed essential – in making the United States far and away the technological leader in aviation and space technology. One example should suffice: the X-3 Stiletto, the first airplane to take off from the ground, go supersonic, and land to be flown again. This airplane was useless for operations. It could hardly maneuver. However, the Stiletto led directly to the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, and that airplane dominated military airspace for a very long time.
There were other such successes for the X programs; indeed, the program was cancelled not because of its failure, but due to its success. It generated so much new military technology that the arms control strategists were afraid of it. Whether or not arms control was a good strategy, one thing was clear, the X programs were not compatible with it; they had to go and they did.
Real X programs have certain characteristics, and while they are hardly all identical, we can tease out some common factors.
First, they are relatively small. They don’t have huge budgets. They don’t attract big attention and they are not good bait for large bureaucratic sharks or big companies. They are not profitable in the usual sense of the word. The payoff to a big company from participation in an X project is nearly all intangible: prestige at least within the profession, and some early technological advantages from having employed people who built and understood the new technologies identified or acquired by the project. Actual monetary gains are small and often negative.
Indeed, the payoff to everyone: sponsoring institution, contractors, the United States, and sometimes all mankind, is technology and experience and not much else.
Next, X-programs have limited goals, and are over and done with in a relatively short time. They are not intended for career building, and ideally there should not be any career opportunities in X-program management. One does the project and gets out. It’s over. There’s no empire to be built because the project doesn’t last long enough to allow that. This is key to X-success.
Finally, the best X-projects are based in out of the way places, generally unpleasant places. ...No one wants to build empires in the Mojave Desert.
The typical X project focused on a needed technology. Although the technique is applicable to many areas of technology, I’ll stay with aerospace for the moment. One designs the best ship possible given existing technology. There are to be few to no stretches or reaches: we are not looking for new technology, we are looking to see what the best we have can do – and thereby identify what’s needed next.
The ship is built. Typically there will be three vehicles (tail numbers in the jargon). The first is flown to find out its capabilities. Then those limits are tested, and tested again. Frequently tail number One is destroyed in the test process, although that’s not inevitable. Using what was learned from One, Two is modified and flown to its limits, and kept flying until there is no more to learn. Number Three makes a few token flights and goes to the Smithsonian.
From that process we learn what we can do, and what more we need to know.
There comes a time when you must fly something if you hope to learn more. We need data for those simulations. We are at that stage now in a critical area of space technology.
First and most obvious, the real cost of space is access. We over-build satellites because they have to last a long time, and they have to last a long time because it costs too much to replace them. Technology outstrips us every time: by the time a satellite or other spacecraft is launched it is generally obsolete, sometimes hopelessly so, as Moore’s Law takes another run along the exponential curve.
Ideally we would build satellites to last for a few years, then replace them with smaller, more powerful, and cheaper spacecraft; but we don’t do that. Instead we lock in electronics that are outdated before the design is completed, and design those systems to last a long time. This only makes sense if the launch costs are enormous. But of course they are.
The real key to space exploration is developing cheap and reliable ways of getting there. It’s pointless to speculate on whether we need humans in space when the costs are so high. My own view is that if access to the Moon cost anything like what access to the South Pole costs, we’d be there like a shot: we certainly have not been content to explore Antarctica with robots. But until the costs come a long way down, we have to be content with robots, and getting them to orbit and beyond is all but prohibitively expensive.
Airline operations cost a small multiple (typically 3 to 5) of fuel costs. It costs about the same in fuel costs to fly a pound to Sydney, Australia from the United States as it does to put that pound in orbit. It shouldn’t cost more in dollars, either. Of course the airline doesn’t roll the airplane into the sea after it gets to Sydney.
Although fuel cost drives airline operations costs, there’s another driver for space ops. A typical airline will have about 110 employees per airplane, but half of those sell tickets. Sixty in operations and maintenance is more likely. Now divide the number of NASA civil servants and contractor employees working on Shuttle by the number of Shuttles, and you will get some idea of why Shuttle flights are about a billion dollars a flight instead of the hundred million or so an airliner would charge. Understand I am not accusing NASA of featherbedding Shuttle: all those people are needed, but that’s just the problem. Shuttle was in some respects designed to need them. When your goal is to employ a standing army, you will reach that goal one way or another.
Operations driven designs are the key to our future in space.
That brings us to what I call the SSX. We sold this concept to the National Space Council in 1989, but alas it was only partially implemented before X-33 came to dominate space development.
SSX is a Vertical Takeoff Vertical Landing Single Stage to Orbit rocket with multiple rocket engines.
SSX-1 will probably have a negative payload to orbit: that is, it won’t get there. We will and should overbuild it. Flight safety and recoverability are more important than shaving the mass fraction.
Remember. X programs have no payloads, nor do they have mission requirements. The purpose of an X program is to learn how to build ships that do have payloads and can fulfill mission requirement...
when it’s done we’ll have numbers to input: we’ll have a much better idea of what the mass fraction, and thus the payload, of an SSTO VTOL ship will be. We will know what size the ship must be to make orbit. Perhaps we need much better engines, or to go to some kind of Two Stage to Orbit (with recoverable first or zero stage). But we will know these things, not merely guess at them.
More likely we will find the stress points, bore holes in the structure to remove needless strength and weight, and come close to orbit with this ship. My guess is that we may never make orbit but we can scare it to death.
Because we don’t have to make orbit or come close to fly the ship and bring it home we can experiment with different arrangements and tricks: extensible bells, dynamic aerospike geometries, and so forth.
And finally, we’ll relearn what X projects are all about, and that will be the best payoff of all.
Monday, September 10, 2012
David Cameron and George Osborne are to come down firmly on the side of those who object to payments currently worth £400 million a year to companies who produce onshore wind, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.Obviously Cameron flying a kite but if this happens Scottish windmills would have to be entirely subsidised by Scotland - whether we were independent or not.
MPs have no idea what the Climate Change Act means
They passed it almost unanimously, but MPs still can't grasp the consequences of the most expensive legislation in British history
The Scottish Act, which is considerably more restrictive, was passed absolutely unanimously. Whether that means they know more about the subject or that their ignorance is even greater rather depends on whether you think government actually try to do good, sometimes being prevented by ignorance, or try to retain ignorance in case knowledge might actually get in the way of their parasitism.
So far their response to being asked to say why they support the Act suggests ignorance and parasitism overrides.
Baroness Airhead whose knowledge underlay the Climate Change Act.
The more you understand science the more sceptical you are about warming.
The group who proved this were actually trying to prove the opposite. I suppose we should be glad, in the current era, that they didn't just fake it.
"The days of permanently available electricity may be coming to an end" National Grid Chief Executive
Based on the most current data it appears that 2010 is going to show the largest drop in global sea level ever recorded in the modern era.
Oh the catastrophe.
in my view, just as Luther triggered the Reformation, and in due course the Protestant church, I suspect that what McIntyre has done is trigger a new and Reformed style of science - one in which openness and transparency are the hallmarks, and which is faster, more dynamic, more creative - and more accurate - than the existing magisterium.If anything I suspect more than that. The needed Reformation should not merely or even mainly apply to scientists. The number of scientists who have endorsed CAGW is probably only in the hundreds, at most a few thousand, though they were individually very well paid by the politicians. Most merely kept silent & kept their heads down.
On the other hand the politicians were and are responsible for funding this fraud with money stolen from taxpayers, for reasons given by Mencken (see heading here). They were and are responsible for using the fraud to pass totalitarian legislation, not the first time ecofascist scares have been used thus. They were and are responsible for all the poverty, all the trillions wasted or stolen and all the unnecessary excess winter deaths.
These scare stories have, from the time Rachel Carson launched the DDT scare, been growing on the intensity with which they are promoted in the tame media, the degree of media censorship and in the speed with which they are disproven and replaced. Such a trend cannot go on. We see the MSM being increasingly ignored by decent people and their hysterical lies, to attract short term interest, merely means long term contempt.
How much longer before the same applies to our political class. In the US, perhaps only till November.
Sunday, September 09, 2012
There is no question that NATO police carried out these atrocities under the authority and with the active participation of our own leaders. The evidence is clearer and more prosecutable than for Hitler's preknowledge of the Holocaust.
By definition, every single British or NATO jurist who is not personally a wholly corrupt Nazi must have publicly called for the NATO funded ICTY to prosecute, with full vigour, up to the highest level ie Clinton & Blair . The fact that not a single one of them has done so does not in any way diminsh the logical certainty of that.
John Brignall lists things "universities" are trying to sell degrees in: Acting, Activity leadership, Acupuncture. Advertising. Advice work, African, Alternative medicine, Alternative theatre, Alternative therapies, Antiques, Applied theatre, Art direction, Art therapy, Beauty therapy, Biodiversity, Book arts, Broadcast presentation, Calligraphy, Campaigning,Casino operations, Child protection, Chinese Medicine (traditional), Citizenship, Climate, Clothing Engineering, Clothing studies, Community development, Complementary therapies, Costume, Crime scene, Culinary arts, Culture, Customer service, Dance, Entertainment technology, Entrepreneurship, European marketing, Families, Fashion promotion, Fire safety, Fire studies, Fitness studies, Floristry, Foot health, Football, Footwear design, Furniture production management, Garden design, Gender/sexuality studies, Golf studies, Greenkeeping, Hairdressing, Health and safety, Home economics, Jewellery, Knitwear design, Leadership, Leisure studies, Licensed retailing, Lighting studies, Machine management, Media studies, Office communication, Packaging, Play leadership, Renewable energy, Residential development, Retailing, Song writing, Sport performance, Sports journalism, Supply chain management, Surface pattern, Sustainability, Tableware design, Tourism management, Yacht operations ................................................................
Tim Worstall proves that, on yet another issue, this time food production, the eco-Nazis care not in the smallest degree about the people they claim to care about. In this case the term "eco-Nazis" is certainly justified because what they want to do would certainly deliberately kill large numbers of people:
those poor countries need to move to the higher-tech food collection, processing and distribution systems that we ourselves use. Which is excellent news for us, obviously, as we already do it we know exactly how to do it.
Except for just the one little point. When you read around the reports from the World Development Movement, Oxfam, Action Aid and the neo-peasants of the Green Party, Friends of the Earth and the Nef, you find that all of these things are exactly what they campaign against. We must fight against the agricultural commodity giants because they're, umm, well they're capitalist I think is the complaint. Certainly we must have a Robin Hood Tax, if not an outright ban on financial speculation in food: thus killing such companies' ability to manage their risk. Processed food is just not on at all, we must all be soaking our own lentils overnight and supermarkets are the very death of community. Aren't they?
That is, the very people who worry that there's going to be a food shortage campaign against the very solutions that their own research tells us will and does work. At which point words fail me.
Going round the climate sanity blogsphere - Despite the fact that the EU signed up to the Aarhus Convention, legally requiring them to make decisions on climate open transparent and evidence based they have quite obviously refused to do so.
I assume this Convention was originally introduced to allow Greens to meddle in and hold up any decisions they didn't like. Hoist by their own petard.
This Convention must thereby render Scotland's Climate change Acy non-legal since it is centred around the deliberate fabricatio0n od quotes alleged to be from the Stern Report. Where is Big Oil when you need them to spend £100,000 ( about 0.00001 of what the government spend on promoting the fraud annually) to mount the necessary legal challenge.
Spiked on the movement to ban Israeli dancers on Scotland.
Clearly whatever is accused against Israel, & repeatedly anti-Islael stories have been subsequentlyy proven lies without any of the liars apologising, is not nearly as serious as our and NATO's atrocitiries against the Yugoslavs, which are also of more direct relevance to us.
That is why every single person in the anti-Israel movement who is not personally a Nazi has publicly called for a boycott of all NATO country dancers, goods etc.
Anybody know of any anti-Israel campaigners not motivated by Nazism?