JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

UK politics shows signs of life? Maybe big win for small gov coming…

News today: Nice.  Boris Johnson decided to back BREXIT – the campaign to get the UK out of the EU. A bit of a bombshell apparently after weeks of speculation, and a very nice win for UKIP, Farage and silly people who think that in a democracy you are supposed to be able to vote for those who make the decisions.

It will make all the difference says Delingpole:

Last week, when lots of other armchair experts didn’t, I correctly predicted that both men [Michael Gove and Boris Johnson] would inevitably vote out.

I’m very glad they did since I think it will make all the difference to the #Brexit campaign. Put it this way, had Gove and Johnson not come out for Brexit, the “Leave” camp would never have stood a chance of persuading wavering middle-ground voters to take the plunge. With Boris’s charisma and popularity and Gove’s intellectual heft to back it Brexit now stands a serious chance of becoming reality.

Apparently Johnson wants the top job (Camerons) and he may have noticed how well the Republican candidates are doing in the US by not “aiming for the centre”. The likely successor for Cameron is George Osborne who’s pro EU. Nice point of difference there for Johnson. (Read Dellers for the details).

In Australia, meanwhile, Turnbull is down in the polls — since both parties look so similar, the similiar polling fits.   So there is suddenly talk of an early election.

See the poll on 2GB:

“If you voted liberal in the last eleection, who’s your preferred Prime Minister now?

Tony Abbott 96%,       Malcolm Turnbull 4%

And when people tell you of the power of consensus, just say “eggs”.

In other news, High-cholesterol diet, eating eggs do not increase risk of heart attack, not even in persons genetically predisposed, study finds. At least one egg a day is OK even if you are an APOE4 gene variant.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (75 votes cast)
UK politics shows signs of life? Maybe big win for small gov coming..., 9.2 out of 10 based on 75 ratings

170 comments to UK politics shows signs of life? Maybe big win for small gov coming…

  • #
    Robk

    We live in hope. May that apprehension extend to the UN juggernaut.

    110

    • #
      Peter Miller

      For our Australian friends, this is a summary of what has just happened in the UK.

      1. The UK Establishment sent in its heavy shooter to get some mild concessions out of the EU autocracy.

      2. The political pygmies in the EU autocracy morphed the mild concessions into a list of meaningless intentions, which are neither enforceable nor legally binding.

      3. The heavy shooter triumphantly claims victory over the EU autocracy on his return to the UK.

      4. An old school chum of the heavy shooter and the most savvy and popular politician in the UK cries, “BS and let’s give the political pygmies the finger,” accompanied by loud hurrahs from most/much of the UK electorate.

      5. The heavy hitter then throws a very public hissy fit, screeching, “You want my job, so yah boo sucks to you!”

      So what, do you ask, has this to do with supposed change? Well, the heavy hitter and the EU autocracy believe it is the greatest threat to mankind evuh, while the savvy politician says that he is not convinced, even sceptic.

      So just like in the crazy world of climate science, the war of words begins on the doubters and sceptics, as the Establishment turns its big guns on those who dare defy the opinions of their scaremongering ‘political elite.’

      320

      • #
        Dennis

        I could not believe that the UK PM was talking about a new style of EU.

        70

        • #
          toorightmate

          The EU has some enormous changes planned. For example:
          The car park lines will be painted white instead of yellow AND the curtains are to be changed from floral to plain.
          How much change do you people want???

          110

      • #
        Owen Morgan

        I noticed that the euroloons were measuring out the ground over the weekend for Cameron’s attack, with articles claiming that Boris Johnson could declare his preference for “Out”, only at the risk of being accused of wanting the top job – and, waddyaknow, there, on Monday, was Cameron, denouncing Johnson in exactly those terms. Cameron, like Obama, is incapable of speaking anything if it hasn’t been scripted for him by a committee, and his particular committee’s activity had been a bit too conspicuous.

        As Mayor of London, Johnson has done a lot with little, since he has more influence than actual power. His predecessor as Mayor, Ken Livingstone, could be a model for Malcolm Turnbull. When Labour won the election to run the then Greater London Council, the local Labour leader was Andrew McIntosh. The next day, he was ousted by Livingstone.

        100

        • #
          Robert R

          The following is so intriguing. David Cameron says Donald Trump is ‘divisive, stupid and wrong’ but we shouldn’t ban him from Britain”. read story here:

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3362449/Donald-Trump-divisive-stupid-wrong-shouldn-t-ban-Britain-says-David-Cameron.html

          Regardless of anything, what is he thinking to make such comments about someone who could well become president. Will he apologise and make up to to him if that happens?

          70

          • #
            AndyG55

            Once he’s president of the USA, the UK would look pretty darn STUPID banning him :-)

            70

          • #
            Owen Morgan

            You’d think he’d have to and I assume he is praying for just about anyone else. I say “just about”, because he can’t want Hillary, either.

            Having said that, now that Cameron is committed to supporting staying in the EU, which we all knew he intended, all along, he may not have long to go as PM. He certainly can’t survive a defeat, but, according to order-order.com , he is currently opposed by more Conservative MPs than support him and grass-roots supporters overwhelmingly support an exit. An In-Win will depend on Labour votes and the SNP and all those cemeteries in East Kilbride that come to life at election-time, or the bedsits in Tower Hamlets which miraculously pack in twenty-seven voters each. His nakedly corrupt approach to the campaign will include employing the tax-payer funded civil service, relying on the biased and tax-payer funded BBC and accepting bungs, originally paid for by British tax-payers, from Brussels. He is making so many enemies that he can’t survive, whatever the outcome.

            All of which means that whoever wins the US Election in November won’t be spending any time talking to Cameron.

            40

  • #
    Yonniestone

    All interesting subjects however the real issue jumps out for me in the first two words ‘News today’ or more so how the news is absorbed by the general public, the traditional MSM methods of newspaper, radio, TV are now being increasingly ignored as people become frustrated with biased reporting and now have the internet with a vast array of alternate views.

    While this sounds more confusing for the average punter to filter BS from fact I believe the opposite is true as through the process of doing an online search they are actually thinking about the subject matter not just relying on the local paper to give a one sided story, through this process people will slowly learn that personal education is essential and PC is evil.

    260

    • #
      Joe Lalonde

      Perhaps, one day, we will learn that we didn’t inherit the planet and have many vested interests who want man made currency and power over advancing our knowledge and technology that is not being destroyed for profits over life.

      60

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      It isn’t about the article itself. It’s the comments under the article which enlightens the reader. That’s where the value is, and that’s where learning about the subject is greatest.

      80

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    In other news, High-cholesterol diet, eating eggs do not increase risk of heart attack, not even in persons genetically predisposed, study finds.

    So for all the years I stopped on my way to work to have scrambled eggs, hash browns (fried shredded potatoes if you don’t know the term) and bacon for breakfast I was apparently not doing myself any harm? I thought so.

    From my own observation of what people are ordering in restaurants it appears that government and medical expert’s eating guidelines are lining the bottom of a lot of bird cages. That’s probably not the best thing. But then consider how far wrong some of the food guidelines really are and you want to rebel against official interference with what you eat.

    210

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I do hope the UK can muster up the nerve to get out of the EU. That will be a big weight removed from around their necks as they try to swim their way through this climate change nonsense.

      321

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        After the utter craziness of the last several years in Britain, it would be nice to a sensible decision for a change.

        160

    • #
      Dennis

      Maybe the problem is Bacon & Eggs swimming in oil while cooking?

      61

    • #

      Roy, I have to say it (sorry) the bacon is full of nitrates. The vegetable oil they cooked it in (after, what 1980?) was possibly loaded with omega 6s which increase inflammation, and or trans fats, which no one has a nice thing to say about. The story was that one egg a day was fine… Perhaps yours was cooked in good old fashioned lard, or butter which appears to be better than marg/vege oil/hydrogenated lipid. (forgive me for being the food bore at the party). yeah yeah…

      150

      • #
        Annie

        When we have bacon it is cooked in its own fat. Eggs are cooked in that bacon fat or butter!

        60

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        I’ve been using olive oil for the last several years, and I believe the flavor is far better. The good cooks nicely in it, and it’s just good for you in every way. Olive oil is one of the massage oils, great for the skin. The ancient Hebrews used it in their hair, Jesus had some rubbed on his feet and hair. And like Fish Oil, it’s very healthy to ingest too.

        40

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Greg,

          They say that oil is oil and fat is fat, implying that there isn’t one better than the other. I don’t know if that’s really true or not. And there’s a large part of the problem, which “expert” do you believe?

          20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Roy, I have to say it (sorry) the bacon is full of nitrates… etc.

        Help, help, help !!! I’m surely going to die. ;-)

        Someday.

        Jo,

        I’m now 13 years out from coronary artery bypass surgery and symptom free for all that time. My cardiologist has given me a clean bill of health in each of the years 2014 and 2015 (post retirement, I wasn’t stopping at Denny’s every morning) so I could have minor surgical procedures under anaesthesia. And if not for my present problem I would have been having the same tests done already this year. In 2003 there was just one small artery involved and it couldn’t be fixed by angioplasty or stents (every bit as stubborn as I am) so I finally had to do the bypass. The rest of my heart was clear and everything has stayed in good shape now for 13 years.

        I’m not an MD, much less a cardiologist but I can make decent conclusions from what’s going on both with me and in the world around me. And I think that people are sufficiently individual in how their bodies handle what they eat that the one size fits all food scare just isn’t worthwhile. Perhaps the medical profession prefers to err on the side of caution (where have we heard the “precautionary principle” before?) but when it comes down to each individual, people get to make up their own minds. I won’t even get into the activist types, the food police or obesity either.

        My wife is marvellous cook and I have no idea what she puts in some of the things she comes up with, I just enjoy them.

        The bottom line is this — when I saw statistics that said on average I might live from 3 or 4 months to a year longer by following all those food guidelines a lightbulb went on inside my head. Would I rather live those few months longer while eating unpalatable meals or would I rather eat meals that are worth eating? The decision makes itself.

        40

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Neither will I mention all the cooking sins I was subjected to so I cold get to the point where so many experts were telling me how to eat, except to say I survived them all. :-)

          30

      • #
        stan stendera

        Your tormentor from Marietta, GA, USA is back after a long hiatus!

        I have a cooking hint for the best fried chicken you will ever eat. Cook the chicken in lard, then let it drain on a slice of plain white bread which sucks the grease out of it. Heaven results. This is an old Southern (USA) trick for fried chicken.

        Stan, good to have you back. Your email address was missing an o in the last three letters. I have fixed them, but please stop your autofill from propagating the error. Thanks – Jo

        00

  • #

    If anyone is inclined to help with some small financial contributions to a Brexit movie please see here:

    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/brexitthemovie/brexit-the-movie/

    We are all in the fight against big government together.

    90

    • #
      R2Dtoo

      I wish this movement had started earlier. We are locked into a spend-spend spend issue in Canada for years. Trudeau is a PC nerd and will leave us in huge debt. Show us the way please.

      70

  • #

    If the UK does exit the EU and really starts to prosper, I think it will send a message to everyone that the EU was a crazy idea from the outset (other than for a small, power hungry elite).

    160

    • #
      Manfred

      Were the UK to exit the EU, I suspect it may start an social and economic avalanche that winds up leaving something resembling the original 6 (1951) of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg and The Netherlands. Perhaps a retreat to the looser conglomeration of an economic community results?
      Almost anything is considerably better than the totalitarian bureaucratic monster that is a proto-Global supra-national state.

      80

      • #
        ROM

        Re the EU and Brexit

        Let history be our tutor!

        The USA took over a century beginning in the mid 1700′s to the latter part of the 1800′s plus an ocean of blood from its sons, brothers and fathers, including a war against their British overlords plus the American Civil War, before it became a Nation, united in itself, its politics and and its peoples.

        The USSR, the Union of fifteen Soviet Socialist Republics ruled by the Communist Party of the USSR came into existence in 1917 and lasted until 1991 when it disintegrated into its constituent nations, all of whom are now ruled by a range of political entities ranging from a full on dictatorship to a democratic system and even an amalgamation with an adjoining state as in East Germany’s case.

        The forcible combining of these very different in culture, education, standards of living and etc former communist ruled nations cost over 30 million dead from NKVD executions, famine and political prisons in the Gulag.
        [ And thats without counting the estimated 26 million dead from the horrific NAZI invasion of WW2.]
        It all lasted just some 74 years.

        Czechoslovakia was created in 1918 by combining the Czechs and the Slovaks into one nation out of the ashes of the disintegrating Austrian Hapsburg Empire.
        In 1993 they separated peacefully back into the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic.
        As a nation Czechoslovakia lasted just some 75 years.

        Iraq;
        Quoted from wiki

        After the war [ WW1 ] the Ottoman Empire was divided up, and the British Mandate of Mesopotamia was established by League of Nations mandate. Britain imposed a Hāshimite monarchy on Iraq and defined the territorial limits of Iraq without taking into account the politics of the different ethnic and religious groups in the country, in particular those of the Kurds and the Christian Assyrians to the north. During the British occupation, the Shi’ites and Kurds fought for independence, and the British employed Assyrian Levies to help quell these insurrections. Iraq also became an oligarchy government at this time.

        Although the monarch Faisal I of Iraq was legitimized and proclaimed King by a plebiscite in 1921, independence was achieved in 1932, when the British Mandate officially ended.

        Establishment of Arab Sunni domination in Iraq was followed by Assyrian, Yazidi and Shi’a unrests, which were all brutally suppressed. In 1936, the first military coup took place in the Kingdom of Iraq, as Bakr Sidqi succeeded in replacing the acting Prime Minister with his associate. Multiple coups followed in a period of political instability, peaking in 1941.

        Iraq is now breaking up as a nation with the again oceans of blood as a consequence.
        As a nation It has lasted some 84 years.

        Syria;

        Modern Syria became an independent nation in 1946.
        Who knows what its future will be except as always there will be oceans of blood until its diverse and many cultural and religious groups either combine into a series of smaller nations or a strongman emerges who can hold Syria together for one more generation.

        Syria inside of a range of geographic boundaries has lasted as a nation for thousands of years but in its modern form it has lasted, so far, just 70 years.

        China, the world’s oldest continuing civilisation has broken up into a number of quite separate states and kingdoms and then amalgamated once again under a strong dynasty a number of times over the last 3000 years.
        There are at least 19 known Chinese dynasties and political periods over China’s written history covering some 3500 years.
        The Chinese Communist ruling era has lasted since 1949, some 67 years, a generation.

        We are now looking at a Chinese communist political system that appears to be becoming fixed, rigid and increasingly sclerotic and is slowly losing the ability to adapt as the rigidity of its political power structure prevents new ideas and flexibility to evolve as its economy begins to mature and its population begins to age overall.

        There are numerous other examples of supposedly well established nations breaking up and reforming I could quote just from the modern era let alone the immense amount of historical material available world wide that shows the idea of a “nation”  fixed forever within geographical boundaries and in political, ideological and cultural memes is an national entity which will never disintegrate or change in every one of its characteristics that make it a nation, a belief that is little more than a mirage and a chimera that each generation comes to believe in its political arrogance that it has fixed for all time.

        In just about every case one likes to explore it can be seen that a nation holds together for the time and space covering a few generations, sometimes only a couple of generations particularly when a combination of different cultural ideological, religion, education and standards of economic development and expectations are forced into a quasi national grouping and then designated as a “Nation” by more powerful national entities.

        And then it all begins to unravel as the various groupings that made up that nation fall to fighting or just going their own way.
        And there is much wailing and throwing of political sackcloth and ashes and bureaucratic gnashing of teeth over the terrible fate of that disintegrating but long ago, artificially created nation

        Britain joined the European Union in 1972.
        That just 44 years, the period of a working generation.

        History suggests it takes a couple of centuries of belonging to a geographical, cultural and economic grouping before a peoples begin to see themselves as a natural and defined national entity, a Nation with its recognised place in the long historical listings of the world’s Pantheon of Nations.

        Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Britain, The Netherlands, Sweden, [ Norway went its own independent way from Sweden in 1905 ] and many etc’s all have histories as nations and one peoples. one culture going back at least a couple of centuries and in most cases a lot longer than that.

        The British joining of the EU in 1972 might have one day led to Britain being recognised as an integral part of a greater European nation, an integral part of a United States of Europe.

        But as I read it, the rigid, hard line utterly unaccountable and completely inflexible Brussels based EU bureacracy and the EU’s ego driven political ladder climbers have tried to force the pace on the integration of all of the EU’s constituent nations without ever recognizing that there are a couple of centuries of nationalism deeply immersed in the psyche of each of those older well established and globally recognised Nations that has to be gently countered and massaged and a big depth of tolerance applied for alternative views due to the diverse culture and economics and expectations involved, all of which will take a two or three or four or more generations to turn around and to accept the idea of being citizens of an integrated USA type of European Nation hood.

        If Brexit occurs, the British have that one huge national advantage that every other nation within the EU’s pantheon of nations lacks.
        It has that final barrier to foreigners, one that has served the British nations so well down through the centuries.

        It is called The Channel.

        Without The Channel the Brexit would fail .

        Because of The Channel it will most likely succeed and Britain and the British will once again be the masters of their own destiny and no longer under the control of an unelected, unaccountable, inflexible, hard line, power grabbing out of touch and increasingly politically corrupted elitist Brussels based EU bureacracy that answers to no one.

        They will again be Britain and all it has stood for down through the last thousand years of history.

        140

        • #

          The EU was destined to fail from the very outset. It was ostensibly devised by a Leftist/Socialist ideology (no matter what anyone says) and that has never succeeded. And worse, it has attempted to strip history, cultures and individual national mores in order to try and create a blandness across Europe. It’s a social experiment that’s failed and should be buried.

          100

    • #
      clive

      If memory serves me correctly,it costs the British 53 Million dollars a day to stay in the EU.Thats a lot of dough for nothing.

      20

  • #
    diogenese2

    You might be on the verge of observing a “Black Swan” event in
    British Politics. For background this is the best site.

    http://www.eureferendum.com/

    What has been missed is that, for David Cameron, ANY result is better than the issue dragging on for the rest of his term (2020?). Since he signalled to the EU that even the frailest gesture of compromise was acceptable the EU Barons offered humiliating trivia without any idea of the consequences. I think a decision to EXIT is now likely. This is a straight Binary Choice – in or out. Despite opinion poll numbers, the core fact is that the Leavers care more than the Remainers and will turn out to vote. The last European Parliamentary elections are a good clue to the outcome. You only need one reason to leave but many to stay.
    For my part – my decision was made in 1975.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975

    My reasons has been confirmed over the subsequent 40 years. Then, I wondered why politicians were conceding their power to a higher authority, until I realised that they were not yielding power but responsibility, bringing to mind an old story.

    “What (they) are aiming at is ..power without responsibility – the prerogative of the harlot though the ages”

    But the same author (Stanley Baldwin) also said;

    “The greatest crime to our own people is to be afraid to tell the truth – the old frontiers are gone.” 30/07/1934.

    Basically, that is what will decide the issue.

    230

  • #
    Doubtingdave

    So the old ” in out in out shake it all about ” hokey cokey hustle increases in tempo , on one side of the dance floor a small group of powerful EU elitist bureaucrats , on the other side a small group of old school upper middle class little Englanders pining for the days when their class ruled British society , however the dance ends you just know ordinary folk like me will get screwed

    35

    • #

      You will get screwed most either by:

      i) Voting for a takeover of sovereignty by unelected incompetent foreigners who can give priority to their own needs at your expense

      or

      ii) Persistently voting for politicians who buy your votes with your own money.

      Nothing to do with class at all.

      220

      • #
        Bill

        Agree completely, witness the debacle that is happening in Canada now, with Trudeau as PM. On another note, finger problems caused a green thumb for dave whch should have been red. (A good argument against computerized voting being brought in to replace paper balloting!)

        60

      • #
        Doubtingdave

        What gets to me Stephen is these EU outies that Jo mentions above complain that EU bureaucrats have anti democratic privileges , whilst at the same time they themselves pass around undemocratic privileges between their piers , such as knighthoods and cushy jobs in the house of lords , how many of them would ever know what it’s like for ordinary folk who have to make the choice between heating and eating in winter ?

        61

        • #

          Well, Dave, although there are indeed unfortunates who have to choose between heating and eating I don’t think we can blame individual politicians for that given the amount of money used by the benefits system and the NHS.

          My concern is more about the wastefulness and inefficiency of top down big government. If you keep voting for politicians on the basis of what they take from taxpayers to spend on benefits and all the other things that they sell you then that is what ultimately holds back the entire economy and perpetuates poverty.

          Additionally, it is wickedly difficult to decide who is poor as a result of unavoidable misfortune and who is poor as a result of unwise lifestyle choices.

          240

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            This is probably redundant but…

            The only thing wrong with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money. — Margaret Thatcher

            She said that so well it’s hard to imagine anyone’s not understanding it. Yet more people than ever are falling for the free lunch.

            221

  • #
    Bill

    When the election down under comes, hope your electorate is better informaed and smarter acting than ours here in Canada. We ended up with PETs brat (Justin Trudeau) and he’s nothing but an unending DISASTER. The US will be facing a decision between clowns (Republican and democrat) so things don’t look too good for them either.

    Good luck to you all.

    120

    • #
      el gordo

      We had PM Julia Gillard who came to power through deceit, but we have a lot more skeptics and managed to give her the flick. Now we have PM Malcolm Turnbull who gained power through a bloodless coup.

      Democracy is on the skids.

      130

    • #
      Hasbeen

      I would vote for Brezhnev as Oz PM, before I would vote for Turnbull, or any party led by him.

      I really would prefer to be stabbed in the face than the back.

      Anyone who actually thinks Turnbull would ever do anything for anyone but Turnbull, is just too dumb to be really considered human.

      80

  • #
    Glen Michel

    If the EU implodes well and good I say.A distorted and corrupt entity that serves not the common people of Europe.If the whole concept goes west and even countries like Germany and France exit( unbelievable) economic activity will rearrange themselves.Get rid of that bureaucratic monster.

    140

  • #
    Margaret Smith

    As an inhabitant of the UK I voted OUT back when the lie we were being told was it was merely a common market (I didn’t trust the French and Germans). I was right. I can’t wait to vote OUT this time too.
    I wouldn’t put it past our political leaders to have been working on a method to secure an ‘in’ vote by hook or by crook.

    180

    • #
      Glen Michel

      Well a little bit of trust helps Margaret.Germans don’t trust the English or the French- and so on. Europeans,that includes the British ,share a heritage whilst remembering that they have national distinctions. Big worry now is Te rise of [Snip 18c*] in Europe.

      * We have no free speech in Aust. – Jo

      30

  • #
    Agnostic

    Britain leaving the UK would be a total disaster for myself and a lot of my friends working in the same industry. We already suffer enough from not being part of the Euro. The uncertainty is already a real problem. And I think leaving the EU would have no impact at all on climate change views and policy.

    We have benefited hugely from being part of what is an admittedly massively inefficient, cumbersome and democratically awkward institution that for all its faults is still net beneficial in countless, countless ways.

    The main opposition to the EU as I see it primarily nationalism and xenophobia.

    I also think that if the UK leave the EU, it could lead to the break up of the UK. The Scots have a much more social minded instinct for government, more aligned to Scandinavia than to England. One of the stumbling blocks of their pro-independence movement was the fear that they would have to renegotiate their membership with the EU.

    To me it’s a shame that a lot of climate change skeptics also hold such politically conservative views. Anthropogenic influence over the climate is a science question, not a political one and that seems to get mixed up by both sides of the erstwhile “debate”. What happens is that the “in group” “out group” bias just gets confirmed – it’s easy to dismiss, or human nature to dismiss a rational argument made from scientific evidence as being the bias of a political view.

    I have a lot of friends with partners who come from different EU countries and a lot of my colleagues (myself included) have business that extends throughout Europe. It’s already hard enough despite being part of that club to get various institutions, companies and bureaucracies to talk to each other for us to get paid for work transmitted in different member states or recover tax from different government bodies who have taken it by mistake. TBH we could do with a lot more integration not less. My wife is Swiss, and we married before Switzerland was part of the European Economic Area (a way of getting Switzerland in without saying they were in) and it was awkward – dealing with the different tax and pension systems and getting her to be resident in the UK (we had to get her the equivalent of a “green card”). I have a friend who lives in Berlin but a lot of his work is in the UK and who didn’t marry the mother of his children. No longer being part of the EU could cause enormous difficulties for him.

    I have another friend living in Holland and the fluctuating exchange rate between Sterling and the Euro causes him no end of headaches. A great portion of his income comes from the UK (that’s where the publishing companies are based) and it makes it very awkward to be able to secure mortgages or plan his finances. He would also be in difficulty if the UK left for similar reasons to my Berlin friend. Yet another friend bought a house in France because to buy the equivalent in the UK would be too expensive. He would also be in a difficult situation if the UK left.

    Or maybe he wouldn’t – we just don’t know. But in principle compared to the current situation, it makes things much more uncertain for all of us.

    We are just small stories in the fabric of a bigger one, but the same sorts of issues play out on ALL scales. You need to actually live here and be part of the EU picture to realise that the thing that makes it work, allows us the chance to follow the opportunities wherever they may be within Europe is entirely due to EU and the principle of freedom of movement and labour that membership provides. This whole notion of “sovereignty” is just xenophobia dressed in a nice frock. Of COURSE we have say in how things are done. Vis a vis the whole business of having a referendum and renegotiating the membership Cameron has been off doing.

    And while addressing the issue of the EU’s inefficiencies and potential for undemocratic decisions to be made, the reason is like that is because of the stumbling attempts made at its inception. The elected politicians KNOW about the problems and tried to address them with the Lisbon treaty. The irony is that the electorate, put off by the inefficiencies and problems, weren’t going to give the dastardly politicians the satisfaction of changing things so that they were less problematic and inefficient. They voted against proposals that would have fixed the problems their no vote was a protest against.

    Finally, it’s worth noting that the EU is a scaled up version of Switzerland. It has almost the identical political structure. And Switzerland is the longest lasting, most successful, and most democratic (eventually) country in history. It celebrated its 700th birthday a few decades ago. Did you know that any Swiss citizen can propose a law, and provided they get enough signatures on a petition it must be considered and implemented by the Swiss Parliament? Did you know the exact same right exists in the EU?

    417

    • #

      This is a lovely expression of the pro-EU point of view.
      Agnostic just forgot the /sarc at the end.
      To oppose the EU – an anti-democratic bureaucratic organisation – is to be xenophobic and anti-European. There are many rich and diverse cultures in Europe, with many good points. But the Anglo-Saxon notion of government of the people, by the people, for the people ain’t one of them.

      230

      • #
        Manfred

        There’s also the important distinction between Napoleonic and Roman Law.

        60

      • #
        Agnostic

        “There are many rich and diverse cultures in Europe, with many good points. But the Anglo-Saxon notion of government of the people, by the people, for the people ain’t one of them.”

        Well that’s a ridiculous comment. All of the EU countries have democracy and arguably more efficient ones that serve their people better than the UK version.

        22

    • #

      …what is an admittedly massively inefficient, cumbersome and democratically awkward institution …

      Imagine how things would be if the opposite were the case?

      100

    • #
      diogenese2

      Agnostic:
      “Britain leaving the UK would be a total disaster for myself and a lot of my friends”

      “We have benefited hugely from being part of what is an admittedly massively inefficient, cumbersome and democratically awkward institution that for all its faults is still net beneficial in countless, countless ways.”

      You do not state the nature of your business but in all enterprise at all time scales there are winners and losers.
      You are winners and so wish to preserve the “massively inefficient, cumbersome and democratically awkward institution” that has benefited you so greatly despite the ongoing problems you still encounter to enriching yourselves. One can easily find many whom the same institution has reduced to penury and bankruptcy. Are any of your acquaintances Greek or amongst the vast numbers of young unemployed Spaniards?

      “The irony is that the electorate, put off by the inefficiencies and problems, weren’t going to give the dastardly politicians the satisfaction of changing things so that they were less problematic and inefficient. They voted against proposals that would have fixed the problems their no vote was a protest against.”

      OH – so its all their own fault! Remind me of these “proposals” that the electorate voted against. The only voting I can recall was for which useless tosser would feed at the swill trough that is the European Parliament.

      “Did you know that any Swiss citizen can propose a law, and provided they get enough signatures on a petition it must be considered and implemented by the Swiss Parliament? Did you know the exact same right exists in the EU?”

      You do not say how many signatures you need, from how many nations and how many procedures carried out, just to get to the Parliament, which can implement nothing.

      The process was modelled on “The Giant Mole” by Franz Kakfa.

      Still I appreciate your acknowledging that we do have a say- through the referendum, although the choice is binary – get out or bend over.

      150

      • #
        Agnostic

        @diogenese2

        “You do not state the nature of your business but in all enterprise at all time scales there are winners and losers.”

        How is the EU relevant to that line of argument? Everyone who goes on holiday, works in an EU country, or simply follows what opportunities may lay over the border wins from the arrangement.

        “One can easily find many whom the same institution has reduced to penury and bankruptcy. Are any of your acquaintances Greek or amongst the vast numbers of young unemployed Spaniards?”

        Yes. And that conflates a bunch of issues. The situation for Greece or Spain has nothing to do with being part of the EU – it wasn’t CAUSED by it. Greece was desperate to join and fiddled the books. All EU countries have suffered as a result of the GFC – Spain isn’t alone. That wasn’t caused by the EU or the principles that lie behind it’s existence. To say that is like saying “Look at Spain because Europe”.

        All I was saying regarding Europe being inefficient is that DESPITE this we have benefitted.

        “OH – so its all their own fault! Remind me of these “proposals” that the electorate voted against.”

        Yes it WAS their fault. The Lisbon treaty was exactly supposed to deal with some of the undemocratic processes that exist in the EU infrastructure. Look it up. Most people voting were registering their disenchantment with the very problems the treaty was trying to address. Don’t forget, the EU is still made up of elected people whose purpose is to represent their constituencies and to make sure the EU decision making process is accountable.

        “You do not say how many signatures you need, from how many nations and how many procedures carried out, just to get to the Parliament, which can implement nothing.”

        You need a million signatures. In Switzerland you need 100,000. And it does happen. Since ECI’s came into effect with the Lisbon treaty there have been a good dozen or so. Unfortunately, and just like in Switzerland, some “bagatelles” and “zeitgeisty” ideas get put forward. There is no guarantee in either institution that the regulation will go through exactly as proposed. It has to be debated and made workable.

        Here is the process:

        Step 1: Prepare the initiative and set up a citizens’ committee: the members of this committee (at least 7 EU citizens, who must live in at least 7 different EU countries, old enough to vote in European Parliament elections) designate from among them a representative and a substitute to speak and act on its behalf vis-à-vis the Commission;[39]
        Step 2: Registration of the ECI in one of the 23 official EU languages on the Commission’s website (answer of the commission within two months);[40]
        Step 3: For the use of an online signature collection get your system certified (by national authorities, answer within 1 months);[41][42]
        Step 4: Collection of statements of support (max. 12 months): you need to have a minimum number of signatories in at least seven EU countries on the way to 1 million (see the thresholds for each country in the table below).[43]
        Step 5: Get statements of support in each EU country certified by the national authority (answer within 3 months);[44][45]
        Step 6: Submit the ECI to the Commission.[46]

        40

        • #
          tom0mason

          Agnostic

          “The situation for Greece or Spain has nothing to do with being part of the EU – it wasn’t CAUSED by it. Greece was desperate to join and fiddled the books.”

          May be true but also true is the fact (and records) that show that the EU knew Greece’s poor financial state and of the cooked books that allowed the Greeks to by-pass the entry restrictions. Basically the EU was negligent in letting Greece and Spain join.
          And don’t think that the EU would have been better off without Greece, or Spain, or whoever. No, the EU bureaucrats are to busy ruining lives spending other people’s money to pay proper attention to finance. Because another matter of fact is that the EU has never passed an audit, nor ever managed to balance its books. The EU has no will to do so.

          So ask yourself, why would the EU allow such a thing as letting Greece and Spain gain entry when they knew it all wrong? Wiki here recites the official reason but …
          But Greece Spain etc was allowed entry for the same reason that Croatia, Romania, and Bulgaria, etc., are allowed to join the EU. From 6 to 28 members why?

          It wouldn’t be tiny-minded bureaucrats hunger and greed for power and influence on the world stage, would it? Power that the EU negligently uses. Power accrued by operating a vast Ponzi scheme on its overtax citizens.

          80

          • #
            Agnostic

            No they did not know. They were naive not negligent. You could argue poor due diligence. Spain’s situation was very different. Spain was over exposed to the sale of mortgages that did not have sufficient security so when things went belly up they were horribly exposed. Up until the GFC, Spain ran a surplus.

            Spain has profited from being part of the EU by being stabilised by the Euro. They would be down the gurgler and things would be much much worse if they weren’t. If you want to understand how the GFC played out across Europe I can recommend a good book which provides an overview: “Fallout” – I can’t remember the name of the author of hand.

            Why don’t you ask the Spanish if they want to leave the EU? You’d get a pretty strong reply that they most definitely do not.

            The Spanish experience is being reflected in the Irish one. They had a similar exposure and in many ways the Irish was way worse. But both problems are down to the market, not the EU. It’s ironic to see criticisms against the EU as being over-regulating and over legislating, when the reason the GFC occurred was largely due to a lack of regulation and over sight.

            Governments are supposed to make sure the playing field is fair and everyone plays by the rules and doesn’t do silly things that could cause problems down the line. Yet as soon as it interferes it is criticised for creating red tape and over regulating.

            Bottom line, the EU has helped countries by and large dig themselves out the very deep hole they have found themselves in. Remember when everyone was so sure Greece would be declared bankrupt and be chucked out? Look how hard they have fought to stay in….

            12

    • #
      PeterS

      Agnostic your sentiments would be agreeable only if the EU was run by benevolent dictators. Unfortunately that’s just a dream and we live in the real world. Since there are anything but benevolent I have to disagree with you very strongly. The EU is clearly run by malevolent dictators and the people are slowly waking up to this fact.

      150

    • #
      Annie

      If that same right exists in the EU, Agnostic, how come it isn’t used? Why are there thousands upon thousands of initiative-destroying, business stifling, life-de-enhancing petty regulations that are loaded onto us. How come we have Michael Gove telling us that ministers and members of Parliament cannot help their constituents because of some petty-fogging EU regulation?

      140

      • #
        Agnostic

        If that same right exists in the EU, Agnostic, how come it isn’t used? Why are there thousands upon thousands of initiative-destroying, business stifling, life-de-enhancing petty regulations that are loaded onto us.

        It has been used.

        14

    • #
      Rollo

      Agnostic says

      Finally, it’s worth noting that the EU is a scaled up version of Switzerland. It has almost the identical political structure. And Switzerland is the longest lasting, most successful, and most democratic (eventually) country in history. It celebrated its 700th birthday a few decades ago. Did you know that any Swiss citizen can propose a law, and provided they get enough signatures on a petition it must be considered and implemented by the Swiss Parliament? Did you know the exact same right exists in the EU?

      Switzerland is a successful democracy because of it’s small size. With a population of 8 million the people have a voice. Being part of the EU puts ever increasing power in the hands of remote and unconcerned dictators and the voices of individuals, or even entire countries, will be lost.

      160

      • #
        Agnostic

        @Rollo

        That’s actually the strongest argument against the EU. One of the problems of the EU is that it DOES seem remote and distant, esp in terms of decision making. People are generally much more caught up in their own nations politics than spending much time thinking about European politics. As a result people are pretty ignorant and uninterested. If people aren’t following the issues they can’t then be said to be making democratic choices.

        It IS a problem and I don’t think any amount of EU reform will really change that. It’s a bigger problem in the UK than it is on the continent I hasted to add. They are much more aware of the EU and feel part of it, and there is a great deal more enthusiasm for it than in the UK. That is also the fault of the media which takes a great deal more interest in US politics than EU politics after it’s own home grown variety.

        I’ve got to say, spending time on the continent the Euro is a blessed thing. It’s a pain that the UK or CH, the 2 countries I am most involved with aren’t part of it. exchange fluctuations must have cost me 10s of thousands over the years, but it’s just the ability to pay for anything with cash in any country which is so great. It’s less of an issue these days with contactless card transactions though.

        13

    • #
      ianl8888

      A plea straight from your wallet … fair enough, but the Euro exchange rate with other currencies is tempered by the poverty of smaller Euro countries. You are trading happily on top of other people’s misery. Proud of that, are you ?

      And conflating sovereignty with xenophobia is just a straw man. But there you go

      I want to see diktatty socialism and judicial activism severely curtailed because I’m a democrat. I prefer the Swiss model but it is impractical for large populations over large geographical areas and has been demonstrated as without teeth in Brussels (just research an Irishman named Pat Sword). Brussels is inefficient and cumbersome, yes, but that description is deliberately “cuddly”. Brussels bureaucracy is untouchable, arrogant and offensive to common people. The threat, and hopefully the reality, of Brexit should curb this

      130

      • #
        Agnostic

        “You are trading happily on top of other people’s misery. Proud of that, are you ?”

        What? What on Earth are you talking about? How am I trading on other peoples misery? How is the Euro exchange rate “tempered” by the poverty in smaller EU countries? Those “small” EU countries were absolutely desperate to get into the EU. The whole bruhaha about Greece is because they were so desperate to get in they essentially fiddled the books.

        I’m talking about being able to visit relations in Europe easily. Being able to move money from one place Europe to another. Being able to be paid without being ripped off, or recovering tax from countries who have taxed me inappropriately. I’m able to buy or sell products in the EU with relative ease and I’m talking about myself, my colleagues in my industry whose situation I know best, and how that is a micro-story of the broader picture. Ordinary people living out their lives and the nature of how the EU is set up is beneficial to ALL of the member states and their economies. We could desperately do with more integration not less. I wish this were a vote to join the Euro, not stay in the club.

        How is a plea straight from my wallet supposed to be bad in the context of economics? And it’s NOT just a plea straight from my wallet – it is about life opportunities. I stand to lose a lot less than a lot of my friends who have taken advantage of the modern European experience.

        “And conflating sovereignty with xenophobia is just a straw man. But there you go”

        No I am NOT conflating sovereignty with xenophobia. The whole issue is predicated on a belief that somehow the UK is dictated to by Brussels as if they were some wholly unique unrelated disembodied power with no connection at all to the UK. Brussels is partly MADE UP of the UK.

        If you think that the UK should leave because of sovereignty, then by the same logic you should be in favour of Scotland leaving the UK. In fact Scotland have an even stronger case for leaving the UK than the UK has for leaving the EU. In fact why stop there? Western Australia should secede from the rest of Australia. I mean, look at all that dictat from Canberra!

        32

        • #
          tom0mason

          Agnostic,

          “The whole bruhaha about Greece is because they were so desperate to get in they essentially fiddled the books.”

          Again I spell out for you that the EU knew the situation Greece was in before they were allowed to join.
          The EU knew of Portugal and Spain’s situation — look it up!

          The EU wanted to expand and ensure Greece, Portugal, Spain and all the rest would pay for it…
          Pay for what? A lazy, corrupt administration that has never balanced the books.

          70

          • #
          • #
            Agnostic

            No they did not know. They should have known, in that if they had performed due diligence they might have been able to uncover it, but they did NOT know. Greece has turned into a basket case and they never would have wanted that.

            Look up Goldman Sachs involvement in getting Greece in.

            41

            • #
              tom0mason

              Sorry no you are wrong and have offered no evidence to the contrary.
              All you have offered is a proEuro uneducated opinion with no documentation.
              Some recorded history for you –

              The Greek Government and Constantinos Caramanlis in particular, aimed at integrating the country into the European Union as a full member. Indeed, the application for full accession was submitted on July 12, 1975, by means of a letter addressed to the President at that time of the European Union Ministerial Council and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ireland, G. Fitzgerald

              The reasons behind Greece’s choice for full accession to the Community can be summed up as follows:

              Greece considered the Community to be the institutional framework within which stability could be brought into its democratic political system and institutions.

              Greece sought to reinforce its independence and position within the regional and international system as well as its “power to negotiate”, particularly in relation to Turkey, which, after the invasion and occupation of Cyprus (July 1974), appeared as a major threat to Greece. Within this context, Greece also sought to loosen its strong post-war dependence upon the United States of America (US).

              Accession to the Community was regarded by Greece as a powerful factor that would contribute to the development and modernization of the Greek economy and society though access to ‘hard’ currency loans.

              Greece wanted, as a European country, to be present in, and have an impact on the process of European integration as well as the configuration of the European model.

              The European Community’s reaction to the Greek application was initially expressed by the European Commission, which, according to article 237 (at the time) of the Treaty of Rome, had to state its “opinion” on the country’s application for accession to the Community. The Commission published its “opinion” on January 28, 1976. Surprisingly, while it stressed that a “clearly positive response” should be given to Greece’s request for accession it proposed the institutionalization of a pre-accession transition period before full institutional integration, in order that the necessary economic reforms would be implemented

              Prime Minister Caramanlis appealed to the governments of the nine member states – France and Germany in particular – and the Commission’s proposal was rejected. Accession negotiations were initiated in July 1976 and brought to a conclusion in May 1979, with the signing of the Accession Deed in Athens (Zappeion Megaron). The Greek Parliament ratified the Accession Deed of Greece to the European Community on June 28, 1979. The Accession Treaty entered into force two years later, on January 1, 1981.

              So from that how exactly did the leading governments of Europe not know that Greece was in a poor financial state? It was on public record at the time!
              If EU did not know why did they offer (and gave) so many soft loans to Greece to help bale it out from 1981 to 1995? It is on public record at the time.
              If they did not know why were some accession rules changed prior to Greece joining? It is on public record at the time.
              Also look-up what the “Delors packet” is.

              60

              • #
                Agnostic

                Greece was told that as a condition of its membership it would have to clean up it’s act esp regards to government borrowing. The problem is, in Greece not paying your tax is a national past time. I have Greek friends…they say the same thing.

                It’s a kind of fraud that is endemic in the national psyche at all levels. It’s incredibly prevelant, and as such fairly rudimentary due diligence by the EU would have uncovered the fact that Greece had not balanced it’s books.

                The EU, particularly the Germans were naive, not thinking that this sort of dodginess could extend to government institutions in the way that it did. It’s a scatoma – the mind sees what it expects to see. They play by the rules – too rigidily at times and they expect others to as well. That’s how the EU got sucked in.

                There is nothing in the article you have quoted that the EU “knew”‘that Greece had fiddled it’s books. It merely suggested a transition period – something it made Turkey do more recently – and Bulgaria and Romania.

                You also miss the huge pressure and lobbying there is to get into the club. Have you stopped to wonder why it is that these countries are so desperate to get in? If the EU was so terrible they ought to be running a mile….

                11

        • #
          ianl8888

          Too many fuzzy misconceptions to deal with all of them

          The Euro exchange rate is calibrated as a “basket” of economic performances across the EU. German export industries love that, since by itself the deutschmark would be too high. This is the real reason the smaller, more desperate countries were allowed in. Your quote:
          ” … the fluctuating exchange rate between Sterling and the Euro causes him no end of headaches”
          Comprendez ?

          You did indeed conflate sovereignity and xenophobia. Your quote:
          ” …as I see it primarily nationalism and xenophobia”
          Comprendez ?

          Scotland, WA etc are your straw men. If these populations wish a referendum, I’m happy to accept the majority decision. You’re not happy about Brexit because you fear if LEAVE it will disrupt your economic activity – but what if the majority of the British actually vote to leave ? It’s called democracy; instead of flapping straw men around, you should do better to try and persuade your countrymen to vote STAY

          Pretending Brussels is responsive to any national voting is pathetic. A long list of countries can attest to that. The real solution is to find a mechanism with teeth to curb Brussels’ arrogant, persistent aggregation of power. Democracy is supposed to control that; collectivism is anathema to democracy, its’ antithesis. That’s why I hope Brexit happens

          80

          • #
            Agnostic

            Ian you not making any sense:

            “The Euro exchange rate is calibrated as a “basket” of economic performances across the EU. German export industries love that, since by itself the deutschmark would be too high. This is the real reason the smaller, more desperate countries were allowed in. Your quote:
            ” … the fluctuating exchange rate between Sterling and the Euro causes him no end of headaches”
            Comprendez ?”

            The “euro exchange rate”is not a thing by itself. It’s the exchange rate between different currencies. For example, I have to exchange sterling for Euro. I am exchanging one currency for another. These rates of exchange cause problems and uncertainties. For example, I might be able to buy 1.5 euros one day but only 1.3 the next. For my friend who has a mortgage in holland but his revenue is collected in the UK, it’s a problem.

            “You did indeed conflate sovereignity and xenophobia. Your quote:
            ” …as I see it primarily nationalism and xenophobia”
            Comprendez ?”

            No I am not conflating sovereignty with xenophobia. I asserting an opinion that claims of sovereign interest are merely a disguise for xenophobia and nationalism. Firstly, it’s the perception that the UK is being dictated to by “Johnny Foreigner” without recognising that the Uk has a say in the laws and legislation and is at least partly responsible for them. Secondly, it’s at it’s heart a fear of losing national identity and deploring the influx of immigrants “tekking r jahbs” and a general suspicion of otherness. “Britain for the British!” they xenophobly cry.

            Last night I was a t a pub chatting to a nice French chap who is in the UK teaching English. He is also a skilled musician and speaks fluent German, Spanish and some Czech. He decided he wanted a complete change in his life so he applied for a job, upped sticks and came to live in London. He is highly skilled and pays his taxes to the UK.

            Last year I went and visited my friend in the south of France who couldn’t afford a house in the Uk. So he bought a gorgeous house in the south of France and couldn’t be happier.

            This is modern Europe. The EU allows this sort of thing to occur easily. This exchange of skills and resources to allow people the freedom to make the best of their lives is the whole point of it. It doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be done without it, but it’s very much harder.

            When I met my wife, it was very very much harder. She wasn’t allowed to work, she had to leave to go back to switzerland in order to come again, and we had to jump through all kinds of hoops to prove we we’re married. We got married simply to allow us to stay together.

            If switzerland had the same arrangement then as it did now, none of that would have been necessary.

            Comprendez?

            00

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘I also think that if the UK leave the EU, it could lead to the break up of the UK. The Scots have a much more social minded instinct for government, more aligned to Scandinavia than to England. One of the stumbling blocks of their pro-independence movement was the fear that they would have to renegotiate their membership with the EU.’

      Its a cold climate thingy, nevertheless I don’t envisage a UK divorce because the new world order has provisions for greater diversity and material security. Small is beautiful.

      The Scots social instinct for government is not a good look, the people have been sold a lemon which blights the land with wind farms.

      https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/08/26/only-45-of-scottish-people-believe-climate-change-is-an-immediate-and-urgent-issue-home-news-uk-the-independent/

      60

      • #
        Agnostic

        I don’t disagree. But the Scots instinct for government is a lot more than just climate change. Climate Change is a tiny issue. It’s massive in our minds because we have been drawn into following it, discussing it, deploring the perversion of science etc etc. But for most people and politicians, it’s the sort of thing that occasionally bobs up and you just say the regular things to keep the PC crowd happy whilst actually just getting on with stuff.

        There is an irony too – the Scots case for independence centred around North Sea oil.

        21

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘Climate Change is a tiny issue.’

          Mass delusion is not a tiny issue, it divides nations.

          It may not rank highly in the average person’s mind because ‘you just say the regular things to keep the PC crowd happy’.

          Groupthinkers are pathetic, do you know CO2 doesn’t actually cause global warming and that we are at the mercy of nature?

          50

          • #
            Agnostic

            I agree it’s disturbing perversion of science and hubris. But I don’t think it is a mass delusion. Most people just don’t care about it, they don’t even think about it. The epistemology of belief is something I’ve thought a lot about. There those who are largely ignorant, and they take what the “experts” say with a pinch of salt. They instinctively and correctly think climate change is by and large natural. Then the are those who know a little more. They extend to be the educated ones who are genuinely concerned about mans impact on the world. Which is reasonable. Then there those who delve into it deeply, and part from those in the grasp of hubris most eventually become skeptical because that’s what the evidence tells them.

            It’s very hard to separate something we think about all the time (I spend hours a day reading cli sci lit) and the disturbing amount of money and shocking group think that is wasted on the issue with what really genuinely concerns people. Climate Change is just a non issue for most people.

            51

            • #
              el gordo

              ‘Most people just don’t care about it, they don’t even think about it.’

              Except when it effects the hip pocket nerve in the form of high power bills, but I accept its not a political issue at the moment. The science is apparently settled.

              The educated ones respect the authority of other disciplines, such as the Klimatariat, and sit on their hands while leaning to the left. Its all about the grandchildren don’t you know.

              The propaganda has been spectacularly successful in brainwashing school children into thinking the world will become uninhabitable and its all our fault. This nonsense has all the hallmarks of a Medieval cult and must be overturned.

              50

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      Agnostic says:

      for all its faults is still net beneficial in countless, countless ways.

      Countless you say?

      Just give us your best half a dozen then. Without the waffle.

      80

      • #
        Agnostic

        Well, I thought I had.

        My friend met his partner at the NFTS. She was German, he is Scottish. They set up in London initially were he established himself as a composer, but work opportunities were opening up for his Geoff in her native Berlin. So he moved there. When my then Geoff and I tried to do the same thing before Switzerland was part of the EEA I had to marry her. Then prove we were married – with money. Fortunately it all worked out – we are still happily married some 21 years later.

        Now my friend has work in Germany, Switzerland and the UK (primarily). Stuff he writes is broadcast in all the EU countries. The tax laws are different in each country. He has money domiciled in the UK, and in Germany, and when he is paid royalties in some countries they take tax at source. If the money is collected by the PRS – the UKs collection agency he looses a significant portion of that income to the tax, but he still has to pay tax on the remainder in the UK. This occurs on earning from countries outside the EU and it may be years before he sees the money he is really owed. But because the PRS can use the EU, it can force the government of the country taking the tax at source to cough up quickly. We often get distributions of this sort of recovered revenue shortly after our main distributions.

        Note, someone has to do the work to prize the money away from not just the Governments, but also the local collection agencies, and broadcasters. In the case of Overseas territories we have to pay about 15% of that to a publisher who does the work necessary. But for anything in the EU the PRS can manage because it can work within the mechanisms and infrastructure the EU provide. They could take the government of the country in question to court if necessary (it has never come to that). How would the UK be able to take an EU member state to court over an issue like that if it wasn’t part of the EU?

        Right so that’s one example. The others play out in much the same way though. We have an opportunity in an EU country, so we can just simply go. We start building a life and we are able to combine it with our previous life in our country of origin. We can’t easily be f–ked over by inscrutable regulations of one country or another because we have recourse. It plays out on all scales like that.

        There are roughly the same number (I think its 2 million) emmigrants from the UK as there are immigrants from the EU. We all benefit from this arrangement. We also take it for granted.

        30

      • #
        Agnostic

        A few more:

        - EU medicard. Get ill in any country with one of those puppies and get free treatment.
        - Not needing a visa to visit any EU country. People live over the border and can work and live in two different countries.
        - Buying property
        - Not filling in landing cards
        - The Euro (sorry but from just a practical day to day type stuff the Euro makes life so much easier – business or pleasure in multiple countries)
        - Transferring money
        - Stable prices

        Those are the small picture type stuff. There’s big picture type stuff too…do you want me to go on?

        21

        • #
          tom0mason

          Agnostic,

          Ask the good people of Ireland, Italy, Belgium, Spain, Greece, Portugal, and Cyprus how all these wonderful things work in practice. Ask them how stable prices have been now they are tied to the Euro.

          Ask the people of these countries how happy they feel about having unelected EU bureaucrats telling them how to run their country.
          Unelected EU technocrats and bureaucrats saying they are doing things wrong when the EU has never passed its mandated audit, never balanced the EU’s budget.

          80

          • #
            Agnostic

            I have! They are!

            I grumble about the EU too – actually generally about stuff it was set up to do and hasn’t rather than the stuff it shouldn’t. For example, the mobile phone roaming charges. They stopped us from being ripped off when we go abroad, but ther are still some providers getting away with it.

            21

            • #
              tom0mason

              Agnostic,
              Go tell the good people of Cyprus how call roaming charges were so bad, when the EU took (on dubious legal argument) most of their savings and pensions then killed their economy.
              Tell the Greeks, Spanish, Portuguese, and Irish how the ‘stability’ of the Euro currency has helped their young to futures of unemployment/under-employment, helped so many people gain early retirement on worthless pensions and a future of penury.

              Go on Agnostic sell them the Euro dream of stability and freedom. Stability and freedom within the EU is only for the few non-PIGS nations as past history shows.
              This history also shows what the EU bureaucrats will protect at all costs -
              1. The German economy must remain and be protected even if all else fails, as this is the dominant socioeconomic and political model all member countries will acquiesce to and probably be eventually subsumed by.
              2. French farmers and french auto industries must be protected because the French government(and therefore the EU) believe that they are too big to bust.
              Explain to the Greeks, Spanish, Portuguese, Irish, that their futures were mortgaged away on foolish dreams and political shenanigans of incompetent EU officialdom — I’m sure they are all relieved that call roaming charges have reduced even if they can not afford the phone.

              60

        • #
          Sceptical Sam

          Come on Agnostic, you’ll need to do better than that.

          I visit the EU every year as an Australian citizen.

          I don’t need a visa.

          I can buy property.

          I can transfer money.

          You will be able to use the Euro in exactly the same way you use it now. You don’t spend it in the UK currently, now do you? You need Pounds and New Pence in the UK, remember? That won’t change.

          When in Spain I drive on beautiful new freeways with hardly another vehicle on them; subsidized by the EU (mostly UK) taxpayer – certainly not paid for by the Greeks or Spaniards or Portuguese or the eastern block blow-ins.

          Remind me. How stable were the prices in Greece recently?

          I’m far from convinced by your points so far.

          But please do go on. The “big picture” issues. I’m interested in getting your perspective.

          60

          • #
            Agnostic

            Here is a pretty good round up of the issues:

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/11903509/Brexit-what-would-it-mean-for-your-EU-holiday-home.html

            Bottom line is, for every convenience we enjoy now, there is no guarantee that it will continue. It doesn’t mean that it definitely won’t but it creates IMO unnecessarily greater uncertainty.

            You do need a visa to enter certain countries if you are Australian and plan to stay longer than 90 days. As an EU citizen I could up sticks and go and live anywhere I wanted in europe no problem. That would most likely change post brexit.

            Big picture issues relate to cooperation between police forces, defense, negotiating trade on a national level. Because of the EU integration it makes attracting larger investment easier because you have easy access to the whole EU market. That doesn’t mean not being part of the EU means no access, but it could make it much harder….easily. That uncertainty is what is so bad for business. The uncertainty we already face with the difference between the pound and the Euro is already a problem for guys like myself…just ordinary citizens. It’s a problem on a much bigger scale for big business.

            It only needs for there to be a handful of things we currently take for granted to become unstuck for the whole thing to turn into a major headache. There aren’t many absolutes – but the EU is an entire package and it makes the whole business of being, working and living in Europe easier.

            12

  • #
    Global cooling

    Maybe UK will then create an union with Australia.

    91

    • #

      Whilst I would disagree with a complete union, bi-lateral trade agreements might be possible.
      The positive case for Braxit is put very well by Dan Hannan in this 30 minute talk in early January. His case is that Britain should be looking outward to other continents, not inward to Europe – the only continent not growing.
      My own view is that Britain out of the EU is a benefit to the rest of the world. Britain has some of best Universities in the world, with teaching foreign students being a major export. In the past Britain has produced some of the World’s greatest scientists and inventors. Connected with my own city of Manchester are John Dalton, James Joule, Messers Rolls & Royce, Alan Turing and, most recently, Andre Geim & Konstantin Novoselov for Graphene. More tellingly, Britain is very good at inventing sport, but not necessarily for playing it. :) For instance cricket, rugby, tennis, golf and football. An outward-looking and democratic Britain is to the benefit of the world. A Britain that is less than one seventh of a stagnant bureaucracy is to return it to the managed decline of the 1960s and 1970s.

      130

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        Kevin, that “managed decline” needs to be seen as an important structural adjustment that has strengthened the UK economy and allowed its industries to develop more efficiently in a rapidly changing world.

        Europe, on the other hand, is moribund. Hidebound in red and green tape; tied up in an unsustainably subsidized morass of inefficient small scale businesses and hollowed out hamlets, villages and towns as a result.

        The invasion of economic migrants from the Middle east and north Africa will end in tears. It will create problems that Ms Merkel will have nightmares about for the rest of her days; which – politically – may be shorter than she anticipates.

        What is it with the German psyche? Twice last century Germany visited death and disaster on Europe (and the rest of the world). Now, not 16 years into this new century, we’ve another ego-driven German determined to visit further disasters onto the poor benighted populace. Perhaps A Brexit might wake them up to the fact that they don’t seem to be able to think for themselves. And, their judgement on what constitutes an effective leadership is consistently poor. Is it something in the wasser? Or their education system?

        40

        • #

          The “managed decline” of the 1960s and 1970s was not about structural adjustment at all, but retaining levels of output through ever larger subsidies and more government ownership. This included the car industry, shipbuilding, steel, coal, rail and computer manufacturing. The subsidized industries have nearly all gone now, to be replaced by non-subsidized industries.

          40

    • #

      Before I make my comment, let me assure readers that I am an Australian and, despite what I am about to say, am really quite an Anglophile. Despite my admiration for things British, I do not see Britain through purely rose-coloured glasses.
      Firstly, the idea of a union between the two countries has been mooted before – back in the 1930′s, I think. I recall seeing an old book titled ‘Union with Britain Now’at a garage sale once. It was a fanciful idea then and is a fanciful idea now.
      Secondly, despite my Anglophile tendencies, the Brits have a lot to answer for when they went into the Common Market all those years ago. Their decision caused havoc in many of our rural industries – what was once a huge seaborne trade of our rural commodities into a market with virtually no tariffs changed into a restricted trade with all the agricultural barriers thrown up by the Common Market. Despite the disruption this caused our economy, we persevered and found new and bigger markets all over the world. We still have a huge seaborne trade in rural commodities but it is with other countries all over the world.
      If Britain comes out of the EU, there will certainly be new opportunities for us in rural exports. But the Brits will have to do a lot to re-build our trust. They have been an unreliable trade partner in the past. They will have to prove themselves again as a reliable trade partner in the future.
      It will be kind of like the story of the Prodigal Son, in reverse.

      180

      • #
        Annie

        I remember how angry and upset we were at the dreadful awareness of letting down our Commonwealth friends, especially Australia and New Zealand, when we were taken into the Common Market. This was long before we ever came to Austrralia. Years later we came here and then were privileged to become Australian citizens. With roots in both Britain and now also in our adopted country I am much concerned with the well-being of both nations.

        130

      • #

        You are right to be angry about long-standing trading partnerships that was Britain abandoned when joining the EU. In so doing Britain abandoned low-cost and subsidy-free food supplies for higher cost subsidized foods. Nor was it Australia or New Zealand who were most disadvantaged, but the poorer countries of the Caribbean who used to sell us bananas and sugar.
        What is more Britain was made worse off by the subsidies. We have always paid more to the EU than we have got out. Most of the time the UK has been the EUs largest net contributor.
        But the worst bit was back in the 1970s and 1980s the EU subsidies resulted in huge surpluses, which were then sold to the Soviet Union at a loss, or dumped on world markets, often destroying the livelihoods of some of the World’s poorest.

        30

    • #
      Dennis

      Commonwealth of Nations?

      70

      • #
        PeterS

        Empires rise and fall. Sometimes they rise again but it takes a very long time, typically centuries. I’m afraid the Commonwealth of Nations is not coming back any time soon if ever. Nice dream though. Unfortunately it’s someone else’s time now, and it doesn’t like good for us.

        40

  • #

    The arguments to stay in the EU have parallels to some of those in favor of global mitigation policies. Brexit would create uncertainties, and Britain would cease to be a player at the top table. A consensus of leading opinion says to remain, including most of the major UK political leaders, POTUS and the leaders of other EU countries.
    But like global mitigation policies, the benefits are ambiguous, but the harms are significant. Most particularly is the failure of the Euro project, with the countries of Greece, Cyprus, Spain, Ireland, Italy and Portugal especially hard hit. The reason was obvious from outset. A stipulation for a country joining the Euro was that its budget deficit should not break 3% of GDP. Italy managed to join by declaring some of the deficit as outside of the rules. France broke that limit and gave a gallic shrug to the commissars. Then Germany. Turns out Greece had some non-standard definition of a budget deficit, so was deluding itself to the real size of its’ problems. Just smoke and mirrors.
    As a former accountant, issues are with lack of audited accounts for two decades and a budget based on PR hype, but meaningless as a planning and control tool.

    70

  • #
    ianl8888

    The possibility of Brexit is about the most interesting development in years, overshadowed only by the invited Musl!m invasion of Europe

    Results from both events (yes, Brexit may NOT happen, although the invasion has) are unpredictable but will cause irrevesible change

    One only has to remember a year or so back to the panic in Brussels over the possible exit of tiny Greece by default. An exit by the UK is more explosive by several orders of magnitude

    I despise the impenetrable arrogance of unelected, and consequently cannot-be-elected-out, Brussels bureaucrats diktating endless macro/micro-regulations with complete contempt for elected sovereign Parliaments. The quite recent thugging of ordinary Cyprus people through outright overnight theft of their lifetime super savings absolutely appalled me. I hope Brussels’ comeuppance is savage and brutal – the Cyprus episode is of itself sufficient to justify this

    After saying that, I recognise that the Empire Will Strike Back before the actual UK referendum, and perhaps even after that with repeated attempts at re-putting the referendum (this happened in Ireland). And the Empire is well practised at thuggery, so I’m essentially holding my breath … I admit to surprise that Cameron is even trying to honour his pre-election promise, let alone the political firepower now supporting the proposed exit

    All in all, a very interesting develoment

    130

    • #
      Annie

      Hear hear! Our poor beloved Cyprus was appallingly treated.

      60

      • #
        tom0mason

        What happened in Greece and Cyprus was a classic case of the EU’s fiscal and financial negligent arrogance. It flags-up the basic corruption in operation at the heart of the EU.

        50

  • #
    Graham Richards

    The EU will come back with all sorts of wonderful compromises & promises.

    One must always read, sorry, scrutinise the small print for conditions, sunset clauses,expiry dates & general obfuscation intended to mislead & deceive. They are well practised in deviousness.

    They (EU) cannot afford the rest of the “Union” demanding similar treatment. When they refuse the equivalent treatment the great implosion of the Union will be sudden.

    Better they simply accept Brexit & see how more they can suck out of the remaining Union.
    Either way the union is dead. God/Allah knows how they will fund the ” invasion”.

    The Real British must realise that they will never ever get another opportunity to get FREE of this Socialist/Marxist monster again.

    170

  • #
    Doubtingdave

    I voted UKIP in both the general and European elections , not because of the EU or even climate change , but because in their manifesto they promised to curtail the power that the party whips and the lobbyists that infest the corridors of power have over our elected representatives , if that ever came to pass then I would be more comfortable with the out campaign because I can accept that the power is returning to the people and not to the old establishment where the left wing and the right wing are just two wings of the same establishment bird

    80

  • #
    PeterS

    Tony Abbott 96%, Malcolm Turnbull 4%

    Am I the only one who always thought the polls that showed Abbott in such poor light before Turnbull overthrew him as the leader were all a deliberate fake by the left in the media to scare the Liberals into deposing Abbott? Maybe not but one thing is for sure; I will be voting Liberal last while Turnbull the snake oil salesman is still the leader.

    190

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      Yep.

      Here’s the poll (unscientific as it is):

      http://www.2gb.com/poll/who-your-preferred-prime-minister

      For mine I’ll be voting Nationals in the Senate (and would do so in the Reps if they ran a candidate in my electorate – Curtin). For the Reps I’ll be voting against the disloyal backstabber Julie Bishop. I’m looking for an honest person. Any tips Diogenes?

      50

    • #

      PeterS, quite a few polls include all voters, not just conservatives, and Malcolm is naturally popular with those who wouldn’t vote for the Liberals.

      70

      • #
        PeterS

        Yes that’s true at least up to recently but the polls are starting to show that’s changing. At this stage my money is on the coalition being returned but with a greatly reduced majority. What really worries me is we will still have a hostile Senate. I shake my head that we vote for one side to lead the nation and effectively the opposite side for the Senate to block the major polices the winning governemtn was voted in to implement in the first place. If we are serious about the government implementing their promises we should have the Senate in sync with the government at least for a few years. Otherwise we are just spinning our wheels and we only have ourselves to blame for the Senate blocking major initiatives the government promised to implement on our behalf. How about we get rid of both houses of parliament and just draw out of a hat what policies to enact? With any luck we might actually get somewhere with much reduced cost. Of course a more realistic suggestion is the get rid of the Senate temporarily but that’s just a dream.

        10

    • #
      TdeF

      There was a reason Malcolm wanted to be Minister for Communications. There was no expectation that he was a new technology guru simply because as a banker he made a fortune from investing in Ozemail, $500K into $55Million when it was bought in the dot com craziness. It was not his idea anyway. He was the merchant banker. That is what they do. He couldn’t fix the NBN any more than Conroy.

      However Malcolm as Minister refused to control the ABC and force them to abide by their charter of impartiality, so the attacks on Abbott and his attempts to stop the boats bordered in illegality, especially the web site to assist people smugglers with information, the accusation that the navy had tortured and burned people they saved (only after the change of government prior to which they rescued 50,000 without complaint) and the abuse Ministers copped from ABC commentators. (Joker Hockey from Sales). No, it looks like Malcolm and Bishop were solidly behind the abuse, leaking cabinet meetings and undermining everywhere, even as ministers of state. It soon became obvious they all wanted to be PM and were prepared to do what it took. Even Morrison who is now floundering, betrayed like Abbott.

      The problem now is that barrister Malcolm has no one to pull down and is exposed as having absolutely no idea what to do next. His attempts to sweet talk Jaqui Lambie have failed, so he wants to help the Greens eliminate the competition from independents, so his Greens can control the Senate again. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a Liberal leader as PM again. Was Malcolm just too rich to join Labor?

      91

    • #
      AndyG55

      This an the 50/50 newspoll brought a grin to my face. :-)

      I deliberately sent a screen capture that Abbott 96% Turnbull 4% poll to Bishop and several other Liberal pollies.

      I hope it sticks in their craw !!!

      51

    • #
      philthegeek

      In Australia, meanwhile, Turnbull is down in the polls — since both parties look so similar, the similiar polling fits. So there is suddenly talk of an early election.

      Its been amazing this week to see Turnbull fall apart. Watching QT in parliament is painful and Turnbull looks a waffling fool.

      And now the designated heir Morrison is turning out to be a economic dud who cant push an agenda and allows himself to be held back by his frightened boss?

      No policy, no direction, leaking all over the place?? And now Turnbull seems to be trying to channel a Tony Abbott “the sky is falling and we’ll all be rooooooned” scare and making a complete hash of it?? Their only hope seems to be to bring the budget forward and have an election fast enough so that people dont actually realize just what a mob of screw ups are on the Treasury benches at the moment.

      30

    • #
      clive

      There is an old saying”Never conduct a poll unless you know what the result will be”

      10

  • #
    pat

    TOTAL COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN!!!

    CAGW-infested CBC is back-tracking furiously, but Yale’s Lachapelle’s insult stands even when the message is the opposite of what CBC first reported. LOL:

    22 Feb: CBC: Updated: Canadians divided over human role in climate change, study suggests
    Study involving University of Montreal researchers being submitted to scientific journal
    EDITOR’S NOTE: CBC has made changes to this story following clarification by the researchers. An earlier version said that a majority of Canadians surveyed didn’t believe that climate change was caused by humans. In fact, the study found that 61 per cent of respondents believed the earth is getting warmer partly or mostly because of human activities.
    A study co-authored by University of Montreal researchers suggests that while 79 per cent of Canadians do not doubt the reality of climate change, 39 per cent don’t believe it is caused by human activity…
    The researchers, also from four other universities, including Yale, surveyed a total of more than 5,000 Canadians over the last five years…
    ***”The skepticism was a bit surprising,” said Erick Lachapelle, who co-authored the study, which is being submitted to a scientific journal for publication and has not yet been peer reviewed.
    “I think it is partly because Canadians are less knowledgeable than one might think on the topic.”
    The study did not ask what people felt was causing climate change, if they did not believe it was caused by humans.
    Researchers did not note whether the proportion of Canadians who thought climate change was caused by humans had changed over the five years of the study…
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/climate-change-yale-project-montreal-study-1.3458142

    comment by WebChild 3 hours ago:
    The story changes, one minute its 56% now its 39% that believe humans are not the primary cause. Is it any wonder most people don’t believe GLO-BULL warming with the spin doctoring that goes into this narrative.

    22 Feb: JunkScience: Canadians divided over human role in climate change, study indicates
    “The skepticism was a bit surprising.”
    From the CBC:
    EXCERPT:
    CBC is reviewing the content of this aarticle and expects to update shortly.
    A new study co-authored by University of Montreal researchs indicates 56 percent of Canadians don’t beleve climate change is caused by human activity.
    The researchers, also from four US universities, including Yale, surveyed a total of more than 5,000 Canadians…
    ***”The skepticism was a bit surprising,” said Erick Lachapelle, who co-authored the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication study, which is being submitted to a scientific journal for publication and has not yet been peer reviewed…
    http://junkscience.com/2016/02/canadians-divided-over-human-role-in-climate-change-study-indicates/

    50

  • #
    pat

    was typing was junckscience screen capture excerpt, so please excuse my typos – should be “article”, “researchers” and “believe”.

    10

  • #
    el gordo

    Eggs are back in fashion, which is nice, but looking at the larger picture this is the future and I’m prepared to debate it.

    Skinny people listen to their inner cues and only eat when hungry, its also quite obvious that obese people are starved of nourishment. That’s the irony.

    ‘Instead of imposing restrictions on themselves, 92 per cent said they were simply conscious of what they ate and kept their weight in check by listening to their bodies’ inner cues and focussed on enjoying eating high-quality, non-processed foods and cooking at home.

    ‘Because of this lenient approach to eating, the ‘mindlessly slim’ group, as the researchers called them, did not feel guilty if they occasionally over-ate.’

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/the-surprising-secret-of-skinny-people-20160222-gn059g.html#ixzz40wW9M3uC
    Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

    50

  • #
    pat

    haha…CBC changed the article’s headline earlier from:

    Climate change not the fault of humans, indicates study of Canadians
    http://www.cbc.ca/…/climate-change-yale-project-montreal-study-1.…
    8 hours ago

    Financial Times Daily Read list: Climate change not the fault of humans, indicates study of Canadians
    CBC 6 hours ago

    to the one junkscience has, which was also noted here:

    socialanxietysupport forum: cletis: Gee, I thought it was only stupid backward Americans that thought this way…
    Poll: 56% of Canadians Don’t think Climate Change is caused by humans
    Canadians divided over human role in climate change, study indicates
    Yale Project on Climate Change Communication study being submitted to scientific journal
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre…tudy-1.3458142
    A new study co-authored by University of Montreal researchers indicates 56 per cent of Canadians don’t believe climate change is caused by human activity.
    http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/f32/poll-56-of-canadians-don-t-think-climate-change-is-1743978/

    Yale’s Project on Climate Change Communication mob must be tearing their hair out!

    30

  • #
    pat

    22 Feb: TheWeatherNetwork: Daniel Martins: Study: Canadians split on whether humans hurt the climate
    But when humanity’s impact is factored into the equation, things get much more split, especially when respondents were asked to consider whether humans were mostly to blame.
    On that score, fewer than half of Canadians, 44 per cent, agreed, compared to 56 per cent who were opposed…
    MAP CAPTION: Image: University of Montreal/Yale Project on Climate Change Communication/University of California Santa Barbara/Utah State University…
    However, that doesn’t mean most Canadians are die-hard climate skeptics. When asked whether humans were mostly OR partly to blame, 61 per cent of Canadians agreed, with 39 per cent opposed…
    And as for how Canada could combat climate change, Canadians were mixed on that as well.
    A sizeable majority, 66 per cent, were in favour of a cap-and-trade system, compared to 27 per cent opposed. But on the question of raising taxes on fossil fuels, those in favour barely edged out those opposed by 49 per cent to 44 per cent, with the difference being made up of undecideds…
    The researchers collated their data into a handy, interactive tool (LINK) that allows you not only to check your home province, but also your home riding…
    The researchers’ survey had a sample size of more than 5,000, based on four telephone surveys conducted over four years. It is considered accurate within six percentage points for provincial level estimates and seven percentage points for riding-level data, 19 times out of 20.
    http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/study-canadians-split-in-whether-humans-hurt-the-climate/

    30

  • #
    Bulldust

    Seeing as we are on things political – this came across my desk yesterday … Game of Thrones meets Trump:

    http://www.cnet.com/news/donald-trump-seems-at-home-in-game-of-thrones-mashup/

    30

  • #
    pat

    apologies but have to post these in case they disappear:

    Yale has two versions on their own website – links now to UPDATED/ADJUSTED CBC ARTICLE & A LONGER HUFFPO CANADA VERSION POSTED ONLINE 10 HOURS AGO:

    Yale Program on Climate Change Communication: In The News: Canadians divided over human role in climate change, study suggests
    LINK TO CBC…
    February 22nd, 2016 · Huffington Post
    LINK Rechauffement climatique cause par les humains: une majorite de Canadiens n’y croient pas
    http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/news-events/category/in-the-news/

    HuffPo Canada link which includes VIDEO WITH LACHAPELLE: http://quebec.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/02/22/rechauffement-climatique-cause-par-les-humains-une-majorite-de-canadiens-n-y-croient-pas_n_9289146.html

    LACHAPELLE VIDEO SEEMS TO HAVE DISAPPEARED…FOR ME AT LEAST, BUT SOME QUOTES CAN BE FOUND IN THESE GOOGLE TRANSLATION EXCERPTS:

    - The researchers also asked Canadians if they agreed with a proposal widely recognized by science, that global warming is mostly caused by human activities.
    Across the country, a minority of Canadians – 44% – are in agreement with that statement. Even in Quebec, the province that has the highest approval rating on the issue, only a small majority of Quebecers – 53% – supports this theory.
    “This skepticism was a little surprised! “Says one of the main authors of the study, Erick Lachapelle, assistant professor and expert opinion polls Department of Political Science of the University of Montreal.
    “I think it’s partly due to the fact that Canadians are less informed one might think on the issue. ”
    – Erick Lachapelle
    “We talk about the causes of global warming during major events such as the Paris Conference on climate, but outside of that, we talk very little,” adds the researcher.
    With these numbers, Canada is now comparable to the US, where 48% of Americans believe that global warming is caused by human activities.
    It is in the Alberta riding of Fort McMurray-Cold Lake, where also is the product bituminous oil, found the most reluctant people to the idea that humans are responsible for global warming. Just 17% of respondents are in agreement with this statement, while 63% of citizens of Laurier-Sainte-Marie (on Le Plateau-Mont-Royal) acceding to the highest rate in the country.
    “It’s called cognitive dissonance: it is quite normal for people who live in a region whose economy is based on the resource that is one of the causes of the problem see the problem worse”
    - Erick Lachapelle, assistant professor and expert opinion polls in the Political Science Department of the University of Montreal
    Mr. Lachapelle also explains these results by the silence of the former Conservative government on the climate issue. “When a government very little done to solve a problem or when a problem is not on the public agenda, it is easy for individuals to either deny that the problem exists, or is to deny that one has a responsibility in the problem. ”
    What policies to fight against climate change?
    The researchers also asked their opinion on the two main tools used by some governments to reduce emissions of greenhouse gas: a system of exchange of emission rights and cap, on one hand, and a carbon tax, on the other.
    On the issue of the exchange system, two-thirds of Canadians say it favorable. In fact, this solution collects the majority support of Canadians in all districts of the country. It is in Alberta that support for this option is the lowest.
    “I think people adhere to this kind of solution because the costs are not very visible to the common man. ”
    - Erick Lachapelle
    Currently, only Quebec is participating in a cap-and-trade system, with California, and it is in this province that the solution collects the most support.
    The federal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he was not in favor of such a system at the national level during the last election campaign. This new data could they do change your mind? Already, Ontario and Manitoba are preparing to join the Quebec California market in the coming months, creating a set of over 50 million people…
    Canadians do not see the issue of climate change in the same way as they live in town or region.
    The best example is probably that of Calgary and Edmonton, Alberta. Located in the heart of a reluctant province to climate issues, the two cities do not have the same opinion as their neighbors regions on the question of the existence of global warming. Their residents and closer to Torontonians and Vancouverites of Montrealers.
    “It’s normal, says researcher Erick Lachapelle. Canadians are more progressive in general, younger, better educated and have easier access to solutions or active transportation and public transit, which is less the case for people who live in the region. With that perspective, we may well see that urban areas in Alberta have much more in common with urban areas across Canada they have with their own neighbors in the regions in Alberta. ”
    Methodology of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication
    This is the “Yale Project on Climate Change Communication” who designed the model of a regional map of views on the issue of climate change -

    40

    • #
      Manfred

      “I think it’s partly due to the fact that Canadians are less informed one might think on the issue. ”

      Where’s the research to support this view? Or is it yet another masquerading opinion.

      40

  • #
    Bulldust

    O/Topic: When one talks of cold fusion (LENR – Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) one is expecting to be dismissed with withering contempt, or at best mild derision. Those old enough to remember the unfortunate Pons and Fleischmann understand why. Perhaps it would surprise many that they may have been onto something:

    https://aeon.co/essays/why-do-scientists-dismiss-the-possibility-of-cold-fusion?utm_source=digg&…

    There have been people producing excess energy (beyond that explicable by chemical reactions), and it has been replicated. The article is interesting because of discussion of the concept of the “reputational trap” if nothing else. I am sure readers will recognise the parallels with climate scepticism.

    30

    • #
      TdeF

      The emotional attraction of cold fusion is obvious. Massive energy for no cost on the kitchen table. Something for nothing. However it is a ridiculous concept at a nuclear level. You need extraordinary proximity of incredibly tiny nuclei for fusion and the electrical repulsion of positive cores is massive and increases as 1/r^2. Look at the gas giants like Jupiter which is 500x the weight of the earth where even hydrogen is so compressed it is metallic. Still no fusion or we would have a two sun system. Try that on a kitchen table. Who needs a laboratory? We have a very good handle on Nuclear Physics after a century as the rules are very simple and predictable, unlike climate with endless interacting systems.

      For example, to model the air without modelling the oceans and ice would make no sense. The coincidence of the melting point of ice with human existence makes everything very complex. Even to predict a Global Temperature is clearly beyond modern science but everyone prefers to pretend it is all known and understood, which is nonsense. Water vanishing now. Natural variation. El Nino. Jet streams. These are just rationalizations, not explanations. However nuclear reactions while complex mathematically are able to be modeled and very accurately predicted, something we have been thrashing for half a century with super computers and proven results. Cold fusion is not possible. It is not an even a remote possibility.

      As for things travelling faster than light speed, that is not excluded, simply not predicted or consistent but there may be more ways to get from one place to another than by travelling there. Here understanding what we do know is different to saying we know it all. For example, having agreed on the big bang theory, we know when it happened but no one knows why or how or what happens next. So you cannot rule out faster than light as easily as you can rule out cold fusion or the Philosopher’s stone.

      40

      • #
        TdeF

        Sorry, Jupiter is 317.8x the earth’s mass. The diameter is 11.2x that of earth and as volume varies as r^3
        you would expect a rocky solid Jupiter to be 1401x as heavy, so it is gas. However it is gas compressed to the something closer to a lighter aluminum and still no fusion. Do not attempt this at home.

        30

        • #
          toorightmate

          TdeF,
          I reckon tonyp could debunk this with assistance from
          Bev and Devil Woman.
          All it would take is a couple of “hate Abbot” tablets.

          40

      • #

        agree (we do sometimes).

        I would have said this

        There have been people producing excess energy (beyond that explicable by chemical reactions), and it has been replicated

        No and no.

        20

        • #
          Bulldust

          So I take it this experiment and paper have been debunked somewhere?

          http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

          Personally I am just curious.

          20

          • #
            Bulldust

            This is quite elaborate for a hoax:

            http://ecat.com/

            This is going to be fun to watch.

            30

            • #
              Gee Aye

              It was.

              On this blog of all blogs are you about to argue that the conviction of scientist to put in an effort and believe they are right is a reason to suspend doubt?

              Funny coming from you.

              00

            • #
              Greg Cavanagh

              Actually, the web page does look like a hoax. The paper is above my pay grade to interpret, but the abstract reads like an elaborate hoax. I wouldn’t be investing money into that just yet, personally.

              10

            • #
              TdeF

              What. A few pictures and words? No, it is an absurd hoax like Nigerian free money. As the police say, they cannot believe people are fooled, but there is no helping some victims.

              Global Warming is also a hoax because it is demonstrably not true let alone the connection to CO2 which is also absolutely disproven by the failure to warm. Climate Change is not even defined, so it can hardly be called a hoax, more wishful thinking by failed Global Warming profiteers. Almost no one involved, Al Gore, Tim Flannery etc. is a real scientist let alone a meteorologist. Again, the amazing thing is that anyone actually believes this nonsense.

              40

            • #
              Bulldust

              LOL Funny to see people jumping up and down as if I bought into this stuff. I am as sceptical as the next person. I remember the Irish perpetual motion “invention” not long ago. I remember the ultra-capacitor company which bragged energy densities no one believed (never saw them again after the initial splash). This one seems to have more legs than several previous ones and has the added.

              Yup the web site looks somewhat amateur.
              The mysterious company testing the device… a bit Nigerian in nature.
              The paper, the patent (which are ridiculously easy to get I guess).

              Like I said … fun to watch. It would really, really help your credibility Gee Aye if you stopped assuming you know what people are thinking when they post stuff, rather than running off to your own conclusions and looking exceptionally silly.

              20

              • #
                Bulldust

                For the record: I think this will fizzle out to nothing. My curiosity was piqued because there seems to be a stir in the last few months. Typically there is a bit of a stir and then these things quietly go away and are never heard of again… well for a couple decades or so.

                If they get a lot of pre-orders and it is a hoax, we may hear of court cases. I am thinking along the lines of Firepower, or whatever they were called.

                20

          • #
            Gee Aye

            Paper has an interesting sub,is soon history without acceptance. It has not been elevated to the status of paper. I assume you read the background of this before putting your neck on the block?

            00

      • #
        jorgekafkazar

        Jupiter, IIRR, emits more energy than it receives from the Sun. Where is the extra heat coming from?

        20

        • #
          Bulldust

          I would be inclined to say there are a lot of things we don’t know. How many would have thought cyanide could be used to make gold water-soluble before it was discovered? Chemistry is quirky, to say the least. Sure, we can adequately explain things after the discovery, but who’da thunk it beforehand?

          40

          • #
            Gee Aye

            The antivaxer wtc moon landing na scar lines, ghosts etc argument…

            I would be inclined to say there are a lot of things we don’t know

            Is not an argument

            10

            • #
              el gordo

              Down on the ground there is some heat generated by radioactive decay, but the crux of the matter is the fast spin of both gas giants. This produces a large magnetic field which attracts solar ions and traps them in the upper atmosphere in the form of wide radioactive belts.

              This can be tested by looking at other solar systems with large fast spinning planets.

              00

            • #
              Bulldust

              Where did I say it was an argument? Again straw man. Give it a rest noob.

              00

        • #
          Analitik

          Gravitational collapse

          10

        • #
          Analitik

          Gravitational collapse

          00

  • #
    pat

    University of Montreal: Maps
    Public Opinion Estimates
    Earth is getting warmer partly or mostly because of human activities:
    Yes: 44% No: 56%
    http://umontreal.ca/climat/engl/index.html

    the data:

    Social Science Electronic Publishing: The Distribution of Climate Change Public Opinion in Canada
    Matto Mildenberger
    University of California, Santa Barbara – Department of Political Science
    Peter D Howe
    Utah State University – College of Natural Resources
    Erick Lachapelle
    University of Montreal
    Leah C Stokes
    University of California, Santa Barbara – Department of Political Science
    Jennifer R. Marlon
    Yale University – School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
    Timothy B. Gravelle
    University of Essex – Department of Government
    February 15, 2016
    ***DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER/OPEN PDF IN BROWSER
    Number of Pages in PDF File: 33
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2732935

    40

    • #
      pat

      I’ve typed the wrong question for the Yes: 44% No: 56% result.
      it should be:

      “Earth is getting warmer MOSTLY because of human activities”

      20

  • #
    pat

    on topic finally:

    22 Feb: CarbonBrief: EU referendum opinion tracker: energy and climate change
    If the UK does vote to leave the EU, the process of leaving could take years…
    Between now and the referendum, Carbon Brief will track the opinions of key players in the world of energy and climate change, as well as any other influential views that reference these topics in relation to the 23 June vote.
    Hover over the grid below to see full quotes and links to the source articles…READ ON
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/eu-referendum-opinion-tracker-energy-and-climate-change?utm_content=buffer9f180&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

    What happens if we vote for Brexit?
    Posted on January 19, 2016 by The Constitution Unit
    Anyone who suggests that unsure voters can vote to ‘leave’ at the initial referendum safe in the knowledge that they can later change their minds is either playing with fire or manipulating voters disingenuously.
    In fact, the only second referendum whose effect would be clear is one where the options are to leave on the terms that have been negotiated or to reject those terms and hope we can get something better before being forced, under the terms of Article 50, to leave without having negotiated any terms at all…
    All in all then, Article 50 makes life very difficult for any country wishing to withdraw from EU membership. We might think this deliberate and take it as yet another symptom of perfidious Brussels. But we should remember that our own government and parliament signed up to it. We should recognise also that it is the reality that we will find ourselves in in the event of a vote for Brexit.
    https://constitution-unit.com/2016/01/19/what-happens-if-we-vote-for-brexit/

    40

  • #
    John of Cloverdale WA Australia

    And when people tell you of the power of consensus, just say “eggs”.
    Eggs and stomach ulcers:
    Dr Barry Marshall.

    It didn’t really faze me too much that everybody thought I was wrong, but it annoyed me that I was having trouble getting research grants and so forth. And at times I’d get internally angry, especially when I was junior and people in senior roles and positions of power could block my plans and go ahead and order for someone to have surgery or continue on with some treatment which was useless.

    80

  • #
    pat

    22 Feb: UK Sun: Harry Cole: Zac Goldsmith becomes the latest high profile figure to abandon the PM
    Tories split down the middle as nearly half sign up to leave the European Union
    The Tory London mayoral hopeful (Goldsmith) will campaign for Brexit, despite London being the most pro-EU region of the country…
    Writing in City AM, the life-long Eurosceptic said: “I recognise that opinion in London is at best divided on this issue, and it would be easier for me to quietly U-turn.”
    He added: “It makes no sense for us to bind ourselves to a political bloc that is in decline; we should be free to trade with the fastest growing markets and to attract talent from around the world.”…
    Another hammer blow came last night as after the founders of the highly respected “Fresh Start Group” of 2010 intake Tory MPs declared they would be voting out, saying: “To trade freely and to set our own laws, we have concluded that it is in the UK’s long term interests to leave.”
    Current Sun Tally:
    21 ministers, out of 107 will campaign for OUT
    141 Tory MPs out of 331 back Brexit — 56 have still not declared
    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6946625/Zac-Goldsmith-becomes-the-latest-high-profile-figure-to-abandon-the-PM.html

    not the first time CAGW darling Zac opposed Cameron:

    18 Jan: UK Express: Pippa Crerar: Zac Goldsmith promises ‘solar revolution’ with panels on schools and flats
    The Tory mayoral candidate said he would do all he could to support clean energy in the capital if elected mayor.
    “Solar is becoming more efficient by the day, and for reasons we all now know well — from climate change to energy security, from clean air to supporting new businesses, I will do everything in my power to support London’s clean energy revolution,” Mr Goldsmith said.
    “This will mean lower energy bills for individuals and businesses…
    His proposals come after the Government announced plans to cut solar panel subsidies — which critics claim will cause irreparable damage to London’s renewable sector…
    However, less than one per cent of London’s energy is from solar panels — one of the lowest rates in the country. Many people are put off by the set-up costs…
    Mr Goldsmith said he would continue the Zero Carbon Homes programme, which has been scrapped nationally, and work with developers to encourage solar on new flats and houses. All developments on public land would need to install them…
    And Transport for London would have a plan to ensure it used locally generated clean energy where possible…etc
    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/zac-goldsmith-promises-solar-revolution-with-panels-on-schools-and-flats-a3159036.html

    30

  • #
    pat

    faith in technocracy:

    20 Feb: UK Telegraph: Steve Holliday: Power of technology will transform the way that we deliver and use energy
    (Steve Holliday is chief executive of the National Grid)
    The boom in wind and solar power means 240 generating stations feed into the grid
    After 15 years at National Grid, including nearly 10 as chief executive, I am stepping down next month from a job I have loved and that has given me an opportunity to play a part in the huge changes in the UK energy sector.
    When I joined, 80pc of UK electricity was supplied by fossil fuels and just 3pc came from renewables. Fewer than 50 power plants were pretty much all that Britain needed to allow National Grid to run a reliable electricity system.
    Today, that could not be more different. Last year, those same fossil fuels supplied just 55pc of our electricity, while renewables have surged to 24pc. Thanks to the boom in wind, solar and, to a lesser degree, biomass we now have more than 240 individual generating stations feeding into our transmission grid, and thousands more businesses and households generating power into their local networks…
    Let’s start with the concept of “smart”. This catch-all term is popping up everywhere and energy is no exception. We have smart grids, smart meters, smart appliances, smart homes, smart anything really…
    British Gas, for example, is pushing hard into thermostats that can be controlled from a smartphone. ***One new supplier, Tempus Energy, is trialling technology to take remote control of customers’ appliances to help manage periods of high demand.
    ???These developments are very positive for customers…
    The rise of micro-generators – the “big 60,000 rather than the Big Six”, as former energy minister Lord Barker once put it – makes the energy system more complex, not less. In this world, we will need our energy networks more than ever to take excess energy when self-generating consumers don’t need it and to deliver a reliable and economic energy supply when the sun isn’t shining. That is why National Grid has earmarked up to £20bn for investment through to 2021 to ensure our energy system is fit and flexible for a low-carbon future…
    For those of a certain age, the lowering of energy demand to match energy supply invokes the energy crises of the early 1970s and the three-day week.
    But the reality today is completely different. Companies have large power loads – air conditioning and refrigeration, for example – that can easily be powered down for short periods without any impact on their business.
    At National Grid, we have recently begun developing a market that allows companies to voluntarily offer a temporary reduction in the load of these large power consumption sources in order to help us balance the system at times of high stress.
    We deploy this very rarely but it is very much a part of the modern system and, frankly, it is good for the companies involved as they receive payments for supporting the energy balance…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/12166464/Power-of-technology-will-transform-the-way-that-we-deliver-and-use-energy.html

    20

    • #

      In pat’s text, it mentions this: (my bolding here)

      But the reality today is completely different. Companies have large power loads – air conditioning and refrigeration, for example – that can easily be powered down for short periods without any impact on their business.

      Yeah, right!

      Coles and Woolies would love that. Their cold storage temperatures are regulated, and if the temperature rises above the Minimum, around Minus 5C (and they are all recorded for checking purposes) then they are bound by law to trash everything in that cold storage.

      Same with all butchers. Toss the lot if that temp is exceeded, and that can happen in a very short time.

      Don’t tell me that has no impact on their business.

      Look at every high rise over three levels. It may be termed as air conditioning, but it is the actual air supply for the inside of those buildings every one of them. You cannot turn them off either.

      Tony.

      90

      • #
        Bulldust

        When I hear of demand-side management I always instinctively think the following: I have a social contract with the power generator. They supply it for my use when I chose, and I will pay their bills at the end of the billing cycle. They don’t need to know what I use it for, but they certainly should never have the right to interfere with my consumption. Same goes for water consumption.

        Only eco-totalitarians think every aspect of our life should be micro-managed by some faceless central bureaucracy. Eff that!

        60

      • #

        And something very few people realise is that turning them on and off is way way less efficient than leaving them running all the time.

        The compressor is the large consumer of power in any aircon or refrigeration unit. The compressor cycles around the low and high temp settings, and is on for short periods of time.

        Turn it off, and the compressor then has to work continuously and flat out to reach the low temperature setting (for refrigeration) running for considerably longer than just the normal cycling.

        So, this plan to power down aircon and refrigeration would only succeed in consuming more electricity.

        Usually happens when a bean counter has control over something he knows ….. just enough about.

        Tony.

        90

        • #
          Analitik

          But with the new battery/solar home mini power stations, the grid can be stabilized through distributed generation via the smart micro grids….

          01

    • #
  • #
    toorightmate

    The EU is pathetic, BUT it is like a Swiss clock compared with the UN and IPCC.

    61

  • #
    pat

    11 Feb: ClimateChangeNews: Alex Pashley: Met Office fears Brexit would damage its climate models
    UK weather agency’s chief scientist warns funding cuts on leaving EU would affect the quality of its long-term forecasts
    Brexit would deprive one of the world’s leading forecasters of important research grants and undermine collaboration with the continent, Dame Julia Slingo said on Thursday.
    “We… benefit enormously from being in the EU in terms of research funding that we can bring in to actually accelerate the quality of the models and quality of advice that we give,” she told an event at the UK’s national academy of science in London…
    The 155-year-old Met Office works closely with partner agencies in Europe, the United States and Australia to crunch the probabilities of extreme weather in a warming world.
    Around 200 staff work on climate research, contributing to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports and the UK government’s influential Stern Review in 2006…
    Brexit casts doubt on those jobs just as Australia is cutting climate research jobs at its national science agency.
    The Met Office received £2.3 million in EU funding in 2014, a spokesperson told Climate Home. Its revenue for the same period was £220.8m, it said.
    The Exeter-based agency’s £120 million (US$170m) budget for 2014/15 is almost entirely provided by UK government funding and receipts from the aviation sector…
    The UK’s top climate change envoy Sir David King described the Met Office as the country’s “jewel in the crown”, and whose modelling of future climate impacts was “the best in the world”…
    British science was “extraordinarily strong” in part due to the money it received from EU grants and attracted “top rate research academics” due to free mobility through the 28-member bloc. “If we lose out on that’s a real disbenefit,” he said…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/02/11/met-office-fears-brexit-would-hit-world-best-climate-models/

    50

    • #
      tom0mason

      With any luck the British government will realize that they really do not need to own the Met Office and will sell it off.

      Maybe if they sell it off they could finally make a profit from the prophets.

      61

    • #
      Raven

      The UK’s top climate change envoy Sir David King described the Met Office as the country’s “jewel in the crown”, and whose modelling of future climate impacts was “the best in the world”…

      Funny . . our CSIRO boffins claimed the very same thing.

      40

  • #
    pat

    2 Feb: Bloomberg: Jessica Shankleman: Brexit may lose UK Billions in Funding for Climate, Renewables
    Britain is the biggest recipient of the (European Investment Bank) EIB’s Climate Awareness Bond Project, taking 24 percent of the 7.2 billion euros ($7.9 billion) invested by the Luxembourg-based development bank in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects around the world since 2007, according to the EIB…
    It is unclear if the U.K. would still get EIB funding if it left the EU, said Peter Munro, head of investor relations for the bank. Countries outside the EU have received just 12 percent of the total Climate Awareness Bond proceeds since 2007. It’s a “devilishly complicated” issue and would depend on whether the U.K. wanted to remain a stakeholder and whether other member states would allow that, he said…
    The EIB is the world’s largest issuer of green bonds, and has pledged to lend 100 billion euros for climate action over the next five years to a wide range of projects including sustainable transport, energy efficiency and helping countries adapt to the impacts of warming temperatures…
    The EIB has no plans to change the contracts or call back existing loans to the U.K. in the event of a British vote to leave the EU, or Brexit.
    Dong Energy A/S the world’s biggest offshore wind developer, said last month that the Brexit threat would not derail its plan to invest 6 billion pounds in wind farms off the coast of the U.K. by the end of the decade.
    David Powell, economics campaigner for environmental group Friends of the Earth, which is campaigning for the U.K. to remain in the EU, said the U.K. risks becoming “the dirty man of Europe” by leaving…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-02/brexit-may-lose-u-k-billions-in-funding-for-climate-renewables

    40

  • #
    pat

    20 Feb: UK Telegraph: Emily Gosden: Onshore wind farm subsidies could continue on islands
    Ministers face fresh accusations of breaking their manifesto commitment to end onshore wind subsidies
    Dozens of new onshore wind turbines could be built on picturesque Scottish islands at bill-payer expense, after ministers confirmed the islands may be excluded from their manifesto pledge to end subsidies for the technology.
    Controversial projects on Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles could yet qualify for even higher subsidies than those that have been offered to projects elsewhere in the UK, under the plan…
    If EU clearance is granted, DECC could then opt to offer subsidy contracts to support the construction of new wind farms that critics say will blight the landscapes of the remote islands.
    Among the projects hoping to secure a subsidy contract is the 103-turbine Viking development on Shetland. Campaign group Sustainable Shetland claims the wind farm would see “a generation grow up knowing nothing better than hilltops covered with wind turbines”. A legal challenge against planning consent for the project was thrown out last year…
    Ministers have said they intend to continue subsidising offshore turbines, despite the fact they are even more expensive than onshore.
    Conservative MP Peter Lilley, a vocal critic of wind farm costs, said the plan sounded “inconsistent with the manifesto commitment”.
    He added: “The whole idea that we don’t subsidise the cheaper form of wind energy but do subsidise the more expensive is slightly bizarre and this is a further twist to the bizarreness – that is it is sufficiently expensive on land we will subsidise it as well.”…
    DECC spokesman: “Our actions have shown that we will be tough on subsidies, in order to keep bills down for our families and businesses and ensure value for money.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/12165896/Onshore-wind-farm-subsidies-could-continue-on-islands.html

    10

  • #
    pat

    15 Feb: Plymouth Herald: WMNK Rossiter: ‘Hot air’ over wind turbines could end with power blackouts, MEP claims
    Britain faces power blackouts while politicians argue about wind turbines, a Green Party MEP has warned…
    Under the plan, households would still be forced to pay millions of pounds on their energy bills to fund new wind farms – but the payments would no longer be defined as subsidies, the paper claimed.
    But Molly Scott Cato, Green Party MEP for the South West, said: “It seems to me to boil down to a semantic discussion between politicians which is generating more heat than light.
    “The bottom line is: if we don’t provide subsidies for new-build electricity generation we will have blackouts.
    “Nobody will install new power-generating plant without some form of subsidy.”…
    Conservative MP and former Environment Secretary Owen Paterson said: “There is no place for subsidising wind – a failed medieval technology which during the coldest day of the year so far produced only 0.75 per cent of the electricity load.”…
    http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Hot-air-wind-turbines-end-power-blackouts-MEP/story-28738336-detail/story.html

    40

  • #
    pat

    23 Feb: GWPF: Statistical Forecasting: How Fast Will Future Warming Be?
    A new paper published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation explains how statistical forecasting methods can provide an important contrast to climate model-based predictions of future global warming…
    In this new paper, Dr Terence Mills, Professor of Applied Statistics and Econometrics at Loughborough University, explains how statistical time-series forecasting methods are being applied to climatic processes. His conclusion that statistical forecasting methods do not corroborate the upward trends seen in climate model projections is highly important and needs to be taken into consideration…
    LINK Full paper (pdf)
    http://www.thegwpf.org/statistical-forecasting-how-fast-will-future-warming-be/

    30

  • #
  • #
    Paul Biggs

    The EU have decided that all diesel cars will be banned from urban areas from 2020 (60% of cars are diesel in the EU) followed by petrol cars in 2030. Bear in mind that vehicles are manufactured to meet EU emissions standards by law. Just one example of the crazy dictat that the UK’s 8% of the total MEPs can’t stop.

    90

    • #
      ianl8888

      So presumably all villages and towns will have by-passes … as if ! I’ve driven all over Europe and the highways are ok but if you drive through the villages and towns it’s just a quaint car park (I call it the European Curse, along with never-ending statues of some man belligerently waving a sword while astride a rearing horse)

      The Brussels solution to this heritage issue (that’s why the urban areas are preserved) is to have you piggy-back your vehicle through the congested area so you can continue using the highway on the other side

      One can only hope Brexit, or even the threat of it, curtails this arrogant madness

      60

  • #
    stan stendera

    Thanks to all who participated in this fascinating discussion. I have been sorry to have been absent from JoNova for too long a while. This discussion makes me realize more clearly why. Jo’s site is a jewel in human interaction! Thanks particularly to Agnostic, who despite being outnumbered, made cogent arguments.

    00