Monday, March 24, 2014
Criminalise Payment of the BBC Tax
I don't know what all the fuss has been about decriminalising non-payment of the BBC tax (aka the licence fee). As far as I'm concerned I'd go a big step further and criminalise payment of the tax. The BBC has long reached the stage where it should be privatised completely - I think it needs to be stripped of every penny of funding from taxation - whether that be a licence or through direct state funding.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Lib Dems To Ban The Wheel
Following internal discussions, leading Lib Dems are set to announce a range of new green policies. In addition to a plan to phase out the internal combustion engine for cars, a policy said to have support from the highest reaches of the coalition party, the new policies include a plan to ban the use of the wheel. An unnamed source within the party claimed that banning petrol and diesel engines in cars was only the start. For too long, the source claimed, the wheel had dominated. "No wheel, no transport, no transport and you've got the perfect solution to many of our environmental problems".
Leading Tories are said to be furious. "To be honest," a spokesperson from Conservative Central HQ is quoted as saying, "this is policy that is completely consistent with our policy of putting local first. Without the wheel pretty much everything will be local. So really, even though the Lib Dems are set to announce this first, it's really one of our policies."
Following an enthusiastic reaction to this leaked policy from the BBC, with both Matt McGrath and Roger Harrabin tumescent over the idea, other parties have been quick to respond.
Labour leaders are privately said to be angry because they have long been looking at this as a policy option too. "The wheel, basically a circle if we're going to be technical, has dominated other shapes for far too long. Why should our transport and industrial systems be geared around a circle and not, say, a triangle or a rectangle? As part of our diversity strategy we are going to pump public money into a transportation system that gives equal access to other shapes".
The reaction of the green party has been less positive. "You think this is a green policy? It's a cynical attempt to put a green tinge on neo-liberal policies. Think that's green? We're going to ban humans, now that's really green".
Round-faced Lib Dem minister Ed Davey has denied that he's banning the wheel because his face looks like one.
Leading Tories are said to be furious. "To be honest," a spokesperson from Conservative Central HQ is quoted as saying, "this is policy that is completely consistent with our policy of putting local first. Without the wheel pretty much everything will be local. So really, even though the Lib Dems are set to announce this first, it's really one of our policies."
Following an enthusiastic reaction to this leaked policy from the BBC, with both Matt McGrath and Roger Harrabin tumescent over the idea, other parties have been quick to respond.
Labour leaders are privately said to be angry because they have long been looking at this as a policy option too. "The wheel, basically a circle if we're going to be technical, has dominated other shapes for far too long. Why should our transport and industrial systems be geared around a circle and not, say, a triangle or a rectangle? As part of our diversity strategy we are going to pump public money into a transportation system that gives equal access to other shapes".
The reaction of the green party has been less positive. "You think this is a green policy? It's a cynical attempt to put a green tinge on neo-liberal policies. Think that's green? We're going to ban humans, now that's really green".
Round-faced Lib Dem minister Ed Davey has denied that he's banning the wheel because his face looks like one.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Guess What?
I was stunned, stunned I was, to read the headline on the BBC website: "Fracking 'could harm wildlife'".
Now I've been trying to avoid the BBC news site since I saw the Matt McGrath's article that pretty much said that climate change 'deniers' had come round to the truth because they now accepted that CO2 was a greenhouse gas and that the world had warmed. Either McGrath is a moron, or he's a slimy motherfucker deliberately playing the warmist game of 'we were right all along ...'. It really is one of the most outrageous bits of warmist propaganda I have ever seen, anywhere.
Anyway, mustn't think about it now, because my blood pressure rises and I end up ranting that we should privatise the BBC, or better yet just close it down completely. Our state broadcast is as despicably Orwellian as you can get when it comes to climate, environment, immigration, the EU, the cuts...ad infinitum.
So, back to the shock horror that fracking could - note the weasel word right there in the headline - harm wildlife. The source of this is a report from a completely disinterested group of environmental and green group, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (you know, the green charity that has tireless campaigned against wind turbines - or not, because chopping up birds is fine if they are collateral damage in the fight against global warming). The summary report, which is what the headlines are based on is available here: http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/shale_gas_summary_tcm9-365778.pdf
One would assume that such a document would largely be about the damage to wildlife that fracking has been shown to cause in countries where the technology has been used extensively - in other words based on the experience of the US. So I looked in the report for the evidence of extensive damage to wildlife habitats and the harm that this had done to wildlife. But no, there are some vague mentions of damage, but nothing substantive and most of the report is about climate change, methane, and vague 'could do...' prognostications. It's a science-light propaganda piece that is there just to agitate for tough restrictions on fracking because fracking is bad in and of itself. At the end of the day, these people would rather have birds sliced by wind turbines and the environment scarred by wind farms than go for a lower carbon fossil fuel like shale gas.
And of course, no such exercise would be complete without the BBC there to cheer-lead the way.
Now I've been trying to avoid the BBC news site since I saw the Matt McGrath's article that pretty much said that climate change 'deniers' had come round to the truth because they now accepted that CO2 was a greenhouse gas and that the world had warmed. Either McGrath is a moron, or he's a slimy motherfucker deliberately playing the warmist game of 'we were right all along ...'. It really is one of the most outrageous bits of warmist propaganda I have ever seen, anywhere.
Anyway, mustn't think about it now, because my blood pressure rises and I end up ranting that we should privatise the BBC, or better yet just close it down completely. Our state broadcast is as despicably Orwellian as you can get when it comes to climate, environment, immigration, the EU, the cuts...ad infinitum.
So, back to the shock horror that fracking could - note the weasel word right there in the headline - harm wildlife. The source of this is a report from a completely disinterested group of environmental and green group, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (you know, the green charity that has tireless campaigned against wind turbines - or not, because chopping up birds is fine if they are collateral damage in the fight against global warming). The summary report, which is what the headlines are based on is available here: http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/shale_gas_summary_tcm9-365778.pdf
One would assume that such a document would largely be about the damage to wildlife that fracking has been shown to cause in countries where the technology has been used extensively - in other words based on the experience of the US. So I looked in the report for the evidence of extensive damage to wildlife habitats and the harm that this had done to wildlife. But no, there are some vague mentions of damage, but nothing substantive and most of the report is about climate change, methane, and vague 'could do...' prognostications. It's a science-light propaganda piece that is there just to agitate for tough restrictions on fracking because fracking is bad in and of itself. At the end of the day, these people would rather have birds sliced by wind turbines and the environment scarred by wind farms than go for a lower carbon fossil fuel like shale gas.
And of course, no such exercise would be complete without the BBC there to cheer-lead the way.
Thursday, March 06, 2014
Christiana Figueres and the Silver Lining
There's a predictable, and understandable, sense of outrage over the statements made by Christiana Figueres, head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, about the recent flooding in the UK. She is quoted as saying that the recent flooding has a silver lining in that it reminds us about climate change:
‘It’s unfortunate that we have to have these weather events, but there is a silver lining if you wish, that they remind us [that] solving climate change, addressing climate change in a timely way, is not a partisan issue.’
Of course she is only saying out loud what so many warmists believe anyway. Again and again they are on record as wishing for 'global warming' to really get going so that they can be proved right and we sceptics proved flat out wrong. Unfortunately for them nature doesn't want to play ball. We've not had the increased warming due to CO2, instead we've just had weather and a flat-lining of global temperatures (accepting for a moment that the very idea of a global temperature is a algorithmic construct that actually tells us very little). So, the words have morphed and now any unusual weather event is used as evidence of climate change, even in the face of no evidence and no way of attribution.
However, she's right of course, and with the BBC and most of the rest of the media and politicians playing the same game, the warmist message has definitely been boosted by the floods.
‘It’s unfortunate that we have to have these weather events, but there is a silver lining if you wish, that they remind us [that] solving climate change, addressing climate change in a timely way, is not a partisan issue.’
Of course she is only saying out loud what so many warmists believe anyway. Again and again they are on record as wishing for 'global warming' to really get going so that they can be proved right and we sceptics proved flat out wrong. Unfortunately for them nature doesn't want to play ball. We've not had the increased warming due to CO2, instead we've just had weather and a flat-lining of global temperatures (accepting for a moment that the very idea of a global temperature is a algorithmic construct that actually tells us very little). So, the words have morphed and now any unusual weather event is used as evidence of climate change, even in the face of no evidence and no way of attribution.
However, she's right of course, and with the BBC and most of the rest of the media and politicians playing the same game, the warmist message has definitely been boosted by the floods.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)