On 25/12/2021 09:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> On 24/12/2021 17:52, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 24/12/2021 08:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>> I have a first class honours degree in electrical engineering
>>> I have been researching the subject over 10 years.
>>> You? Ah. you read it in  the NY times I guess.
>>> In an article written by an Art Student
>>
>> I have a 1st Class Honours Degree in Mathematics & Computing,
>
> So you know fuck all about engineering then.

I seem to know enough about it to debunk your endless lies.

> Or computer modelling in the earth sciences

Ditto.

>> and I've
>> been debunking for over 10 years your continuous lies about climate
>> change, the EU, nuclear power, and various others of your endless
>> bigotries as when they are endlessly recycled.
>
> I think it was your claim back around 2010 that 'by 2020 the country
> will be running entirely on renewable energy' that got me started into
> wondering whether that was a realistic statement

Link to where I made that claim! I have no recollection of saying any
such thing, and don't believe I ever said it.

> From being a complete believer in climate change in the 1990s I moved
> to being utterly sceptical the more I learnt about the details of the so
> called science.

Probably coincided with about the time you started to read right-wing
propaganda trash such as B r e i t b a r t, certainly, as shown
above, your output reads like a vacuous regurgitation of such
unscientific crap.

> Unlike you, I kept an open mind and let the data, not the Guardian and
> the BBC, form my worldview.

No-one here has more of a closed mind than you, as evidenced that you
keep repeating the same lies that have been debunked already countless
times before.

When are you going to stop lying?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 25/12/2021 09:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> On 24/12/2021 17:54, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 24/12/2021 08:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>> On 23/12/2021 23:35, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 23/12/2021 19:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The people who will kill millions are the people who mandated
>>>>> renewable energy.
>>>>
>>>> Again, where is your *EVIDENCE* in support of this claim?
>>>
>>> Its all there in the data and what is happening to Western grids and
>>> in the spiralling electricity prices
>>
>> Still no *EVIDENCE* given, c'mon, where is it?
>>
> Not on today as its christmas
>
> https://www.energylive.cloud/

There is no evidence there for the claim: "The people who will kill
millions are the people who mandated renewable energy."

>>> I am not interested in convincing bigots. Time will show whether or
>>> not what I claim has merit.
>>
>> Time is already showing that your bigoted claims above have no merit
>> whatsoever.
>
> so much hatred and ad hominems. Your renewable/climate denialism is strong

I merely pitch my level according to whom I'm addressing.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 2021-12-25, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 25/12/2021 09:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> On 24/12/2021 17:48, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm the one who has been linking to facts here, you're the one
>>> repeating baseless bigotry.
>>
>> No.
>> I think I will leave it for others to judge that
>
> Fine, others have already given their opinions, mostly seemingly against
> you.
>

+1

He never enters into a dialogue - it's always a rant. And as you have
discovered it is beneath him to actually quote real figures, or point to
real research. Of course there are schills out there actually paid to
spread FUD over climate change - like there were people paid to do the
same to discredit the link of smoking to cancer. I suspect he's not
bright or savvy enough to be recruited to do that. He's not very
convincing is he?

In message <slrnssf3ld.3cg.jj@iridium.wf32df>
Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> wrote:

> He's not very convincing is he?

Not at all convincing. He states so much that is completely at odds
with the observable facts.

David

On 25/12/2021 21:35, Jim Jackson wrote:
>
> Of course there are schills out there actually paid to
> spread FUD over climate change - like there were people paid to do the
> same to discredit the link of smoking to cancer.

Yes, there are clear links between smoking denialism, climate change
denialism, vaccine denialism, and the various forms of covid denialism,
be it the extreme that virus doesn't even exist, through the
recommendation and pushing of ineffective medications, to that masks
and/or lockdowns don't work.

Partly it's simply that if you're the sort of person who believes in one
conspiracy theory, by definition you're the sort of person who will
believe in another apparently unrelated one, because typically they
appeal to people with certain psychological weaknesses.

But it's also more insidious than that, the one conspiracy theory that
has some truth is that there is a conspiracy to propagate conspiracy
theories. Once the techniques of misinformation were learnt to
discredit the links between smoking and lung-cancer, it was but a small
step for the same techniques to be used to discredit global warming, and
then vaccines, covid-19, lockdowns, etc. Further the process works both
ways, there is now evidence that the same people who a few months ago at
the height of the pandemic were propagandising covid and lockdown
disinformation have now turned their attention back to climate change
denial, and are targetting the same groups of people that they
previously targetted with pandemic denialism with climate change denialism.

The BBC has a pretty good fact checking website, and have also produced
series of radio and some TV programmes debunking some of this weaponised
disinformation. Here are some BBC and other links for those who are
interested enough to explore further (I'm not sure how many of the BBC
links will be listenable outside of the UK; they are nearly all radio
links, which don't require a TV licence to hear in the UK, and usually
don't expire after a timeout period on their website, but these
attributes may be irrelevant to availability outside of the UK):

General conspiracy theory:

https://www.desmog.com/2020/08/10/how-uk-climate-science-deniers-turned-their-attention-coronavirus-covid-19/

The Misinformation Virus
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000c9sm

CrowdScience - Why do conspiracy theories exist?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3cszv5z

This excellent series explores the links between smoking denialism and
climate change denialism, even down to a level of detail of being able
to reveal the seating plan for a secret tobacco industry meeting
convened to weaponise denial of the links between smoking and lung cancer:

How They Made Us Doubt Everything
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000l7q1/episodes/player

The following Wikipedia page really needs to be read in its entirety,
and highlights the absurdity of the vast majority of the misinformation
claims about covid-19. As you do so, note how the claims vary from
country to country, being adapted to stoke the flames of each country's
public fears and paranoias ...

- A very great many locking in to pre-existing distrusts and hates
towards ethnic minorities, neighbouring countries with whom there is a
history of disputes, etc - for example, just two of many, some Indians
have used it to fuel anti-Muslim hate, some Arabic countries anti-Israel
hate, etc, etc.

- Certain governments have used it to blame or wage 'cold' war on
other governments they see as 'hostile', the most obvious example being
Trump's railing against China, but there is also China's railings
against Trump, and everywhere there is the shadow of Russia's attempts
to influence the populace and politics of other nations. An early quote
reads: "It has also been reportedly spread by covert operations backed
by states such as Saudi Arabia,[16] Russia and China to generate panic
and sow distrust in other countries." another "On 22 February, US
officials alleged that Russia is behind an ongoing disinformation
campaign, using thousands of social media accounts on Twitter, Facebook
and Instagram to deliberately promote unfounded conspiracy theories,
claiming the virus is a biological weapon manufactured by the CIA and
the US is waging economic war on China using the virus.", and links
given above to BBC investigations which have found that up to half of
all the bots found on some social media sites can be linked to Russia.

Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation_related_to_the_2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic

More recent work:

The Anti-Vax Files:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01kdgrn/episodes/player?page=3

The Denial Files (more links between covid and climate disinformation):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01kdgrn/episodes/player

These are links to old TV programmes, so availability is dependent on
when last shown on BBC TV and currently neither are available, but
they're worth watching, so worth adding to your 'favourites' in however
you choose programmes to watch or download.

Climate Change by Numbers
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02jsdrk

Climategate: Science of a Scandal
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000b8p2

Lastly, for completeness' sake, the 'tsunami' of lies coming from Donald
Trump during the last election:

More Or Less - US election: facts or fiction
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct0py0

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 26/12/2021 12:37, Java Jive wrote:
> On 25/12/2021 21:35, Jim Jackson wrote:
>>
>> Of course there are schills out there actually paid to
>> spread FUD over climate change - like there were people paid to do the
>> same to discredit the link of smoking to cancer.

What a fabulous conspiracy theory.

Qu s'excuse, s'accuse.

(snip conspiracy theory: followups to alt.foklore)
Oh and a plonk.

--
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

On 26/12/2021 14:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> On 26/12/2021 12:37, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 25/12/2021 21:35, Jim Jackson wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course there are schills out there actually paid to
>>> spread FUD over climate change - like there were people paid to do the
>>> same to discredit the link of smoking to cancer.
>
> What a fabulous conspiracy theory.

We notice that you deliberately snipped all the evidence, proving yet
again that there's none so blind as *WILL* not see!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In message <sqa2hb$8so$1@dont-email.me>
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> On 26/12/2021 14:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> >
> > On 26/12/2021 12:37, Java Jive wrote:
> > >
> > > On 25/12/2021 21:35, Jim Jackson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Of course there are schills out there actually paid to spread FUD
> > > > over climate change - like there were people paid to do the same to
> > > > discredit the link of smoking to cancer.
> >
> > What a fabulous conspiracy theory.
>
> We notice that you deliberately snipped all the evidence, proving yet
> again that there's none so blind as *WILL* not see!

I couldn't even understand what he meant.

David

On 23 Dec 2021 at 19:00:10 GMT, David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:

> ant-vax lies. The anti-renewable-energy lot (it's difficult to
> accept that people really can be so stupid as to claim that renewable
> energy doesn't/can't work, given the huge numbers of examples of it
> working, now, in the real world) ...

Sure it works, for some value of "works". Here in the UK we just had a week
when our 11,000 wind turbines could only produce 3% of our electricity
requirement, and solar produced zero. Why? Because of a blocking high pressure
area - this happens a couple of times each winter, giving a period when the
gas powered power stations plus nuclear have to pretty much produce all the
rest. And no one has a credible plan as to how to replace the gas component.

--
Tim

On 23 Dec 2021 at 23:38:40 GMT, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> On 23/12/2021 22:27, David Higton wrote:
>>
>> I now see that you are nothing but a troll,
>
> ... most decidedly ...
>
>> and without the understanding
>> of engineering that you claim.
>
> He is reputed to have had some at one time, but I've never seen the
> slightest evidence of it in any of his posts, which are clearly from a
> bigoted fool who's senility is becoming all too obvious to ignore.
~~~~~~~

whose.

Do try to write correct English.

--
Tim

On 24 Dec 2021 at 17:52:30 GMT, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> On 24/12/2021 08:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> I have a first class honours degree in electrical engineering
>> I have been researching the subject over 10 years.
>> You? Ah. you read it in the NY times I guess.
>> In an article written by an Art Student
>
> I have a 1st Class Honours Degree in Mathematics & Computing, and ...

Mathematics and Computing doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. See my sig below. You're
just a bean-counter.

--
All of science is either physics or stamp-collecting.

Ernest Rutherford

On 23 Dec 2021 at 19:00:10 GMT, David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:

> The latter have caused the deaths of countless people by spreading
> ant-vax lies. The anti-renewable-energy lot (it's difficult to
> accept that people really can be so stupid as to claim that renewable
> energy doesn't/can't work, given the huge numbers of examples of it
> working, now, in the real world) will continue to cause countless
> deaths from pollution. So their victims have, in effect, been led
> over the edge of the cliff.

You could always look at gridwatch.org.uk to see what is actually happening
minute to minute with UK electricity - or French for that matter.

--
Tim

On 26/12/2021 22:38, TimS wrote:
> On 23 Dec 2021 at 19:00:10 GMT, David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> ant-vax lies. The anti-renewable-energy lot (it's difficult to
>> accept that people really can be so stupid as to claim that renewable
>> energy doesn't/can't work, given the huge numbers of examples of it
>> working, now, in the real world) ...
>
> Sure it works, for some value of "works". Here in the UK we just had a week
> when our 11,000 wind turbines could only produce 3% of our electricity
> requirement, and solar produced zero. Why? Because of a blocking high pressure
> area - this happens a couple of times each winter, giving a period when the
> gas powered power stations plus nuclear have to pretty much produce all the
> rest. And no one has a credible plan as to how to replace the gas component.
>
That is not the only problem, There are more.

1/. Wind is a diffuse energy source. The environmental impact of
thousands of wind turbines needed to even deliver the *average* of one
thermal power station occupies hundreds of sq km of land or sea.

2/. The effect of intermittency is to mandate in the UK use of fossil
fuel plant to co generate with wind, because we have no possibility of
sufficient storage to guarantee grid resilience by any other means. The
effect of wind turbines is to drive that fossil plant into modes of
operation that are both high maintenance and low thermal efficiency, due
largely to the slew rates imposed on it. Whilst drivoing it into a low
profit duty cycle (capacity factor). That in turn leads to the
deployment of lower efficiency gas plant to cover peak demands plant of
such low efficiency (but low capital cost) that together with the poor
operational envelope imposed by dealing with intermittency on good
(efficient) plant, negates all the carbon gains the renewable sources
might have made. This is about net zero with gas, and its almost
certainly carbon positive when using coal, as Germany does. In short in
Germany windmills produce no carbon gains at all.

3/. Wind turbines, solar panels and HVDC interconnectors do not feature
phase synchronised rotating mass, they synchronise to the mains using
electronic inverters, which have no inherent energy storage. This means
that under short term fault conditions, these sources have no ability
to provide sub ten second extra power if e.g. a line gets a lightning
strike or a power station trips. Worse, if such a fault condition lowers
the grid frequency below preset operating parameters, renewable
generation itself will start to disconnect itself from an 'out of
frequency' grid. leading to a cascade of trips and grid blackout. This
already happened in the UK in a sunny and windy summer day when there
was insufficient thermal power on the grid to prevent it. Several
electric trains also shut down and did not reboot cleanly. It is the
reason why so called 'grid scale' batteries are being deployed. Not to
actually store significant amounts of electricity - that is impossible
with batteries - to cover say a day of no wind, but to cover a sub 5
minute overload that would normally have been covered by generator
rotational inertia., This problem has becomes so severe on continental
grids that manufacturers are now installing rotary converters or their
own inverters so that their expensive synchronous motors in the
factories and the loads they drive do not get damaged by sudden shifts
in grid frequency.

4/. Wind turbines are always sited away from populations centres,
because that way people who are fans of them do not have to suffer the
constant flicker and subsonic thumping and ground shake associated with
them or the dead birds and bats lying under them. Unlike conventional
power stations that are placed strategically around the grid near where
the demand is, wind turbines are far away off the east coast of England
, and Scotland. whereas the demand is in the centre of the country. This
necessitates that the grid ceases to be a simple low power balancing
arrangement between regions, with no large transnational flows, and
instead becomes a massive connector capable of transferring gigawatts
from e.g. Scotland to London when the wind blows, and lying idle and
wasting its capacity when the wind dies not. The cost of this in cash
and in carbon emissions is not covered by wind companies nor is it added
in to their externally imposed emissions. (what is?). The cost however
is reflected in the cost the National Grid passes on to its retail
customers in terms of tranmsission charges, and it is responsible for up
to 50% of the bill.

Where this leaves is, is that in the UK, because we have insufficient
hydro we must balance wind with fossil. There is no way to build the
storage required as anyone who does the basic sums can see when
comparing what is needed to what it is physically possible to build. In
addition the intermittency imposes emissions costs on the co generating
plant and imposes an economic burden on it that discourages investment.
Likewise all the other ancillary plant - high capacity long distance
transmissions lines and batteries that are both mostly idle most of the
time, but are needed to cover short duration conditions, represent yet
more wasted resources, with the associated carbon and cash costs.

All this simply drives up the cost of electricity to well above even the
most expensive nuclear plant ever built and still leaves us vulnerable
to the vagaries of the weather, and the spot price of world gas, whilst
not actually reducing carbon emissions at all, overall.

I call that 'not working'.

I wouldn't build a car with square wheels and a complex suspensin
designed to make it run smoothly, even if it was 'diverse'.

I wouldn't build a grid with substandard antiquated technology coupled
to an unreliable power source beyond my control featuring vast tracts of
the remote environment destroyed by its construction, needing massive
maintenance (by dint of it all being outside in the rain and the wind
and the salt spray) by fuel powered transports of one sort or another.at
a price 3-5 times higher than the alternative. That didnt even meet the
specification for its primary raison d'être, that of reducing overall
carbon emissions.

Except of course that is not its primary raison d'être is it?
No one has done the obvious thing to reduce carbon fuel use - raise its
price via taxation until people find something cheaper.

All the legislation is carefully couched in terms not of carbon
reduction, but of 'renewable obligations'. Why? Because that satisfies
the two |*real* reasons for deploying renewables

- they are easy to deploy fast and they convince the hard of thinking
that 'ssomething is being ione' to prevent 'global warming'.

They are massively profitable when subsidised by governments, so
profitable that there is plenty left to go into brown envelopes to the
commissioners in the corridors of power who frame the legislation
mandating their use.

And what Exxon knew of course, that not only was climate change a
proposition standing on extremely shaky foundations, but that windmills
and solar panels would not - for the reasons described above - result in
wholesale replacement of fossil fuels. In fact, the way the greens were
directed to oppose nuclear and coal - the real competitors - was a
stroke of genius. Who funds the eco movements, and why?

Big oil has every reason to.

Everyone knows that the real answer to all this heath robinson grid
rubbish, the museum piece windmills, the massive grid extensions and
international links, the batteries, the energy insecurity is to simply
throw in nuclear power to replace all the fossil power stations.

There are no problems with nuclear that cannot be and have not been
solved at one third the cost of the *overall* renewable solution - which
doesn't even effectively work as it was supposed to anyway.

Nations with high takeup of nuclear power, especially with hydro
electricity as well, have demonstrably te lowest emissions of any
nations at all. France, Switzerland, Sweden,... low priced low carbon
electricity and energy security for months.

Crony capitalism has taken over the west, governments are bought, one
way or another - and put to use as legislation engines mandating the use
of products that would otherwise not survive in a free market.

Look at Covid. And whose not for profit vaccine got 'cancelled' by scare
stories while an inferior, but better connected vaccine prospered at
huge cost to governments and populations, after bureaucrats 'approved'
it. On it now appears in some cases, fudged clinical trials run by the
manufacturer..

Look what happens when you turn up anywhere to actually lay out the
issues. What happens? Massive ad hominem attacks and attempts to
'cancel' the message.

When I first wrote on this subject a decade ago, and linked to the text
anonymously, I was amazed to discover that I was already a 'well known
climate denier, who had been debunked completely by skeptical science'

On 26/12/2021 22:52, TimS wrote:
> On 23 Dec 2021 at 19:00:10 GMT, David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> The latter have caused the deaths of countless people by spreading
>> ant-vax lies. The anti-renewable-energy lot (it's difficult to
>> accept that people really can be so stupid as to claim that renewable
>> energy doesn't/can't work, given the huge numbers of examples of it
>> working, now, in the real world) will continue to cause countless
>> deaths from pollution. So their victims have, in effect, been led
>> over the edge of the cliff.
>
> You could always look at gridwatch.org.uk to see what is actually happening
> minute to minute with UK electricity - or French for that matter.
>

Experience shows that even presented with te facts people like him will
pick a windy summer day and say 'look how well renewable energy is
doing, we are almost there!'

And fail to look at 6pm on a cold winters night with a blocking high
across the whole of NW Europe, with every mothballed coal plant , OCGT,
diesel STOR plant, wood burners, nuclear and gas plant as well as all
the hydro we can muster, exporting electricity to France to keep their
lights on, despite that nice Mr Macron saying that we were 'dependent'
on French electricity to function.
No Mr Macron, arbitrage is not a measure of necessity., If it's cheap
over there, we buy from you, its expensive, we sell...

And how any problems are simply showing the need for *more* windmills.

--
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to
rule.
– H. L. Mencken, American journalist, 1880-1956

On 26/12/2021 22:42, TimS wrote:
> On 24 Dec 2021 at 17:52:30 GMT, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 24/12/2021 08:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>> I have a first class honours degree in electrical engineering
>>> I have been researching the subject over 10 years.
>>> You? Ah. you read it in the NY times I guess.
>>> In an article written by an Art Student
>>
>> I have a 1st Class Honours Degree in Mathematics & Computing, and ...
>
> Mathematics and Computing doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. See my sig below. You're
> just a bean-counter.
>
And engineering isn't really science at all. Its a collection of ways to
work out what may in fact work to meet a given specification (and more
significantly, what will not, like extracting usable energy from traffic
moving over a road surface, and other 'green' perpetual motion
machines), and then 'doing for 5 bob what any damned fool can do for a
quid'. As Neville Shute remarked.

Mathematicians have computer models, trying to solve Napier Stokes
equations by piecewise integration.

Engineers use wind tunnels, because the physics of turbulent flow is
simply too difficult to model accurately in a computer.

50% of the heat loss from this planets surface, where we, the plants
and animals, and the oceans live, is via turbulent convection. No
climate models do more than put in a vague 'parameter' which is
adjusted...to give any result you want.

Likewise the figures for 'positive feedback' which is presumed to exist
*because the models of climate change dominated by the physics of CO2
didn't fit the data*.

Now at that point they had two choices - admit that a lot of other stuff
was dominating climate, or invent something to make CO2 sufficiently
important to match the data of the short 3 decade period when the world
did get slightly warmer. Along with CO2 levels rising.

They invented 'positive feedback' and have been looking unsuccessfully
for it ever since.

Without it, if you match the long term warming to the long term data, as
e.g. the well 'cancelled' climate scientist, Judith Curry, does, what
emerges is a range of completely non scary climate change due to CO2 and
some far greater effects from *something else*. Which *could* be no more
than quasi periodic behaviour of what even the IPCC in the small print
accepts is a fully chaotic climate system, probably with more than one
attractor. One of which is a full blown ice age.

Being a mathematician and computer scientist is no real help in
understanding the assumptions that underly the climate models. Even
physics doesn't help because the non linear partial differentials of
the Navier Stokes equations for the so important turbulent convection,
are effectively insoluble.

And let's not go near clouds. An emergent property of the earths
atmospheric hydrodynamics.

If CO2 can change the incoming radiation to the surface by 1-2%,
clouds can change it by 400%.

And more.

Clouds are not modelled, simply 'parametrised' in 'climate models'

It doesn't matter a tuppeny fuck how smart the maths is and the computer
models are if they are not capable of modelling stuff due to incorrect,
inaccurate or simplistic assumptions where actual precision really matters.

The people best placed to understand and analyse complex systems with
multiple feedback paths and where the equations that cover behaviour are
broadly insoluble, are engineers, although mostly they would look at
climate and say 'I wouldn't build a system like that if I wanted
predictable behaviour'

We can't even forecast the weather with computer models with any degree
of accuracy beyond a few days.

In fact a skilled and experienced meterologist with access to satellite
data and a general view of the jet stream can usually do as well if not
better, simply by saying 'Ive seen a pattern like that before...' - the
Piers Corbyn approach.

In reality the fragility and paucity of 'climate models' is hidden
behind a great morass of hand wavey 'complexity' ("Trust us, because its
too hard for you to understand, and we are Experts") and the faux
principle of Bandar Log-ic ("we all say it, so it must be true") coupled
with carefully orchestrated market research and advertising techniques
("97% of people agree .... "), and a smear and cancel and sack approach
to any 'expert' who isn't 'on message' and has the temerity to point ou
e.g. t that (mainly due to a hunting ban) polar bears are now so
numerous they are a bloody nuisance, and that coral bleaching is a local
effect, nothing to do with ocean acidity and in fact regenerates rather
quickly...that recent weather events are absolutely precedented, nothing
unusual and are in fact not arf as bad as they have been in previous
centuries. Compare e.g. central European floods of 1342

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Mary_Magdalene%27s_flood)

with this years floods. No comparison.

But the Greta-esque emotional narrative of 'climate change' and
renewable energy Thunbergs on..."why aren't you doing anything about it?"

Shh child! Because nothing needs doing, it's just an excuse to raise
prices and transfer money from the plebs pockets to ours, and if you
play nice like the Greens we will get you lots of funding...

We are however running out of abundant cheap fossil fuel , and something
will need to plug the gap, and renewables cannot do it, so it will be
nuclear.

It's all we have, that actually works...

Climate change it will be admitted is 'not as bad as we thought' because
'we managed to reduce emissions with nuclear power'.

In short the experts will claim they had it right all along.

You couldn't make it up. But they are.

--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

You forgot the part that wind turbines take energy from the wind, thus
leaving sail boats dead in the water near costal wind farms.
Outrageous, I say.

On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 01:12:55 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Everyone knows that the real answer to all this heath robinson grid
> rubbish, the museum piece windmills, the massive grid extensions and
> international links, the batteries, the energy insecurity is to simply
> throw in nuclear power to replace all the fossil power stations.

It is an obvious and probably effective solution from a purely
engineering perspective to the problem of "How do we get from depending on
coal and oil for our energy to something else before the coal and oil
become too expensive to use".

The trouble is of course that the engineering aspects of the
problem are the smallest aspects. The real problems are social and
political.

> There are no problems with nuclear that cannot be and have not been
> solved at one third the cost of the *overall* renewable solution - which

There is one problem with nuclear that you ignore, and for which
nobody has yet found a solution - it has become increasingly difficult to
site and fund a nuclear power plant ever since the Three Mile Island plant
had troubles.

Nuclear plants are extremely expensive to build at the best of times
but when each and every one requires a decades long campaign to find a site
there's no way we can ever get enough of the things built. Also CND did far
too good a job of hammering home the relationship between nuclear power and
nuclear weapons as it was then. As for siting a reprocessing plant - good
luck with that!

Toshiba tried really hard with their 4S design to create a market
for a commodity fit-and-forget nuclear power plant and failed.

If some bright spark invents a table-top fusion reactor with no
output other than electricity and heat that costs like a microwave oven to
build and produces a gigawatt hour out of a teaspoon of water ... they'd
better not use the word "nuclear" when describing it.

> doesn't even effectively work as it was supposed to anyway.

Back in 1973 when the idea that there wasn't an infinite supply of
cheap oil first started to rattle in people's heads there was a claim made
that the UK did not have to worry unduly because there was enough coal
under Wales to keep the UK in energy for the next three centuries - I
somehow doubt it but it may in fact be true, and more to the point it may
have been believed.

Starting from the rejection of nuclear power as the major player,
at least in the short term, where do you go ? One obvious option would have
been to build more and more coal power stations fuelled by a revitalised
mining industry. I'll take the wind turbines, solar panels, gas generators
and batteries in preference to that!

One day somebody may come up with a marketable version of nuclear
power or a way to overcome the massive popular resistance to the idea.
Perhaps one way is to first get rid of all the coal and oil generators
aided by a huge wave of public opinion and build up a flaky concoction of
wind, solar, hydro, battery and gas when needed that just about hangs
together but clearly needs a little extra - and *then* bring in the new
model safe and reliable nuclear plants - unless something better comes
along in time to save us needing them.

Yes it looks just like your version - except that it takes in the
"how do we get there from here" which you completely ignore because of
course as soon as the engineering is clearly explained and the lies are
revealed everyone will do the right thing. Do the sums, work out how many
nuclear power plants need to be built in the UK to carry the base load and
ask yourself how long a government would last after stating the intention
to build that many plants.

Have you met any human beings ? In groups ? In *large* groups ?
They're not an engineering problem - unless you mean social engineering
which is a very different thing.

I seriously doubt that there's any grand plan or big conspiracy
though - I think it's all just people winging it with whatever they can get
to work today.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On 27/12/2021 06:08, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 01:12:55 +0000
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Everyone knows that the real answer to all this heath robinson grid
>> rubbish, the museum piece windmills, the massive grid extensions and
>> international links, the batteries, the energy insecurity is to simply
>> throw in nuclear power to replace all the fossil power stations.
>
> It is an obvious and probably effective solution from a purely
> engineering perspective to the problem of "How do we get from depending on
> coal and oil for our energy to something else before the coal and oil
> become too expensive to use".
>
> The trouble is of course that the engineering aspects of the
> problem are the smallest aspects. The real problems are social and
> political.
>
>> There are no problems with nuclear that cannot be and have not been
>> solved at one third the cost of the *overall* renewable solution - which
>
> There is one problem with nuclear that you ignore, and for which
> nobody has yet found a solution - it has become increasingly difficult to
> site and fund a nuclear power plant ever since the Three Mile Island plant
> had troubles.
>

Not an issue really. plenty of stations have been built since. Ah you
eman in te USA?>

> Nuclear plants are extremely expensive to build at the best of times

Actually they are not., they are comparable with coal in terms of raw
material and construction labour.

What costs is meeting yet more stringent regulations that do nothing for
sfatey,

> but when each and every one requires a decades long campaign to find a site
> there's no way we can ever get enough of the things built. Also CND did far
> too good a job of hammering home the relationship between nuclear power and
> nuclear weapons as it was then. As for siting a reprocessing plant - good
> luck with that!
>
The greens have with massive assistance form the various fossil cule
interest managed to make windmills acceptable. And demonise nuclear,
It wouldn't take much of a reversal to turn propaganda against windmills
and pro nuclear - in fact its already happening

Oh, and we already have an internationally famous reprocessing plant. In
full operation

> Toshiba tried really hard with their 4S design to create a market
> for a commodity fit-and-forget nuclear power plant and failed.
>
> If some bright spark invents a table-top fusion reactor with no
> output other than electricity and heat that costs like a microwave oven to
> build and produces a gigawatt hour out of a teaspoon of water ... they'd
> better not use the word "nuclear" when describing it.
>

Well everyone is chasing the same basic design spec these days, small
modular.
Circumvent the site specific approval by going for factory assembled
modules with type approval. And circumvent huge amounts of regulatory
belt and braces by making the things small enough not to need coolant
pumps when SCRAMMED.

So they cant do a 3MI or a Fuku.

>> doesn't even effectively work as it was supposed to anyway.
>
> Back in 1973 when the idea that there wasn't an infinite supply of
> cheap oil first started to rattle in people's heads there was a claim made
> that the UK did not have to worry unduly because there was enough coal
> under Wales to keep the UK in energy for the next three centuries - I
> somehow doubt it but it may in fact be true, and more to the point it may
> have been believed.
>
There may well be, but getting it out may be so energy intensive as to
make it not worth while.

> Starting from the rejection of nuclear power as the major player,
> at least in the short term, where do you go ? One obvious option would have
> been to build more and more coal power stations fuelled by a revitalised
> mining industry. I'll take the wind turbines, solar panels, gas generators
> and batteries in preference to that!
>
The obvious answer to Maggie was gas, we had lots, with interest rates
as high as they were an gas as cheap as it was, it was a no brainer. At
that time gas was the obvious choice if you wanted to avoid a heavily
unionised nationalised industry electing communists who ended up running
the country.

> One day somebody may come up with a marketable version of nuclear
> power or a way to overcome the massive popular resistance to the idea.

They have oddly,
It's called 'renewable energy'.

I was walking on the beach near Sizewell B when a family stopped me and
asked me if I knew what it was 'UKs biggest and newest nuclear power
station' They were almost interested, but soon went back to talking
about Coronation Street.
The anti nuclear faction is really very small. Justr very vociferous.
Well one susopects they are paid to be,

Opinion polls being done across Europe are showing instead of 'lets
ditch nuclear' a small majority support for it and the rest mostly
'dunnos' . Only Germany seems to be still rabidly against it,

> Perhaps one way is to first get rid of all the coal and oil generators
> aided by a huge wave of public opinion and build up a flaky concoction of
> wind, solar, hydro, battery and gas when needed that just about hangs
> together but clearly needs a little extra - and *then* bring in the new
> model safe and reliable nuclear plants - unless something better comes
> along in time to save us needing them.

We have already done precisely that in Britain. No oil has been burnt in
a UK power station for 20 years & there are only I think three coalers
left,
we are utterly dependent on gas and nuclear for baseload, and nuclear
will reach end of life in the next few tears.

>
> Yes it looks just like your version - except that it takes in the
> "how do we get there from here" which you completely ignore because of
> course as soon as the engineering is clearly explained and the lies are
> revealed everyone will do the right thing. Do the sums, work out how many
> nuclear power plants need to be built in the UK to carry the base load and
> ask yourself how long a government would last after stating the intention
> to build that many plants.

It is as you say a question of political propaganda, not engineering.
The short answer is that my wet finger shows that a government that
does not *trumpet* its nuclear plans will in a couple of years become
unelectable.

>
> Have you met any human beings ? In groups ? In *large* groups ?
> They're not an engineering problem - unless you mean social engineering
> which is a very different thing.
>
Actually they *are* an engineering problem, a complex system that needs
the feedback paths carefully designed or developed to achieve stability.
One of the mechanisms we have there is called 'democracy'.

> I seriously doubt that there's any grand plan or big conspiracy
> though - I think it's all just people winging it with whatever they can get
> to work today.
>
No, its not even that. Perhaps the best way of looking at it is
commercially and politically.

Climate change the way its currently being promoted is (almost)
unprovable one way or the other,. It has become a metaphysical principle.
As a commercial operator you realise that concerning climate change,
your engineers and pointy heads that *you* employ say that in reality
*no one knows, but probably not an issue*.

Why fight it? climb on the band wagon and get paid to install windmills
and solar panels that you know wont work, but it doesn't matter. people
are prepared to pay for them anyway.

All consumer products are 'designed to sell, but not necessarily to
work' Here we are - some of us - using Linux,which is mostly a pretty
decent operating system that works, while the vast majority of people
are sold the 'chrome and tailfins on a truck suspension', that is
Windows. Nobody got sacked for buying IBM , nobody got sacked for buying
MSDOS and then windows., We know that MS employed an army of online
astroturfers to puff up its products and 'cancel' anybody who said it
was crap.

Its just commercial marketing carried to immoral depths.,

And nobody cared, as long as they were personally making money out of
it, and it didn't natter that much, because overall, it wasn't
destroying society civilisation or the planet.

Big business doesn't have a social conscience. And if it can make money
tossing cash to green movements, paying lip service to ClimateChange™
virtue signalling like mad to appease the dim bulbs in the eco box, why not?

The dim bulbs believe what they are told, Currently they are told that
nuclear is a threat to civilisation and the planet and windmills are
good. Once they are told that nuclear will save them and windmills are a
big mistake, they will change positions in days. (claiming they had
always thought that, all along).

On 27 Dec 2021 at 06:08:34 GMT, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

> There is one problem with nuclear that you ignore, and for which
> nobody has yet found a solution - it has become increasingly difficult to
> site and fund a nuclear power plant ever since the Three Mile Island plant
> had troubles.

Only because of lies told by Greenpeace etc, aided and abetted by the media.
Some media are starting to change and are remembering that no one died or was
even injured at TMI or Fukushima, and that thousands *didn't* die at
Chernobyl.

> One day somebody may come up with a marketable version of nuclear
> power or a way to overcome the massive popular resistance to the idea.
> Perhaps one way is to first get rid of all the coal and oil generators
> aided by a huge wave of public opinion and build up a flaky concoction of
> wind, solar, hydro, battery and gas when needed that just about hangs
> together but clearly needs a little extra - and *then* bring in the new
> model safe and reliable nuclear plants - unless something better comes
> along in time to save us needing them.

Is this the "it's got to get worse before it can get better" approach? Sadly
there may be something in that. Plenty of us remember how it was well known in
the 50s and 60s that the Unions needed a big-time kick in the nuts, but no one
thought it was possible, until we had the Winter of Discontent, which Maggie
was able to capitalise on.

--
Tim

On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 10:10:48 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> > One day somebody may come up with a marketable version of
> > nuclear power or a way to overcome the massive popular resistance to
> > the idea.
>
> They have oddly,
> It's called 'renewable energy'.

Ah you spotted the point, well done. We couldn't have gone straight
from coal to nuclear - there was too much opposition. Renewable energy OTOH
was an easy sell and it might just be made workable (all it takes is a
Shipstone grade battery to be invented and all the problems vanish - don't
tell me how unlikely that is, I know) but if not there's always nuclear to
fall back on and it will be a much easier sell with coal and oil firmly on
the reject pile and gas in the "'ow mmmuccchh gggrraannnvvvillle" pile.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On 27/12/2021 02:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> On 26/12/2021 22:42, TimS wrote:
>>
>> On 24 Dec 2021 at 17:52:30 GMT, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/12/2021 08:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have a first class honours degree in electrical engineering
>>>> I have been researching the subject over 10 years.
>>>> You? Ah. you read it in  the NY times I guess.
>>>> In an article written by an Art Student
>>>
>>> I have a 1st Class Honours Degree in Mathematics & Computing, and ...
>>
>> Mathematics and Computing doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. See my sig
>> below. You're just a bean-counter.

You're sig doesn't cut it, I'm afraid, your qualifications are more
important than your sig.

> And engineering isn't really science at all. Its a collection of ways to
> work out what may in fact work to meet a given specification (and more
> significantly, what will not, like extracting usable energy from traffic
> moving over a road surface, and other 'green' perpetual motion
> machines), and then 'doing for 5 bob what any damned fool can do for a
> quid'. As Neville Shute remarked.
>
> Mathematicians have computer models, trying to solve Napier Stokes
> equations by piecewise integration.
>
> Engineers use wind tunnels, because the physics of turbulent flow is
> simply too difficult to model accurately in a computer.

You can't model the whole earth's system in a wind tunnel, which leaves
only computerised mathematical modelling.

> 50% of the heat loss from this planets surface, where we,   the plants
> and animals,  and the oceans live, is via turbulent convection. No
> climate models do more than put in a vague 'parameter' which is
> adjusted...to give any result you want.
>
> Likewise the figures for 'positive feedback' which is presumed to exist
> *because the models of climate change dominated by the physics of CO2
> didn't fit the data*.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?

[Snip a load of the usual wild claims because they aren't bolstered by
any links to *EVIDENCE*, except this one:]

> Compare e.g. central European floods of 1342
>
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Mary_Magdalene%27s_flood)
>
> with this years floods. No comparison.

At any time there is always the possibility of extreme rare weather
events. Stay in after school and write out 1,000 times:
"Weather is not climate!"

> We are however running out of abundant cheap fossil fuel , and something
> will need to plug the gap, and renewables  cannot do it, so it will be
> nuclear.
>
> It's all we have, that actually works...

PROVEN LIE REPEATED! Once again, let me remind you that:

- The world as a whole doesn't have enough fissile fuel (bottom graph:
without 'Prospective mines' which is undefined but presumably means
something like 'believed from preliminary surveys to exist' but which
must therefore be subject to significant uncertainty, total current
world supplies don't cover the 2019 Reference Scenario, which is their
term for 2019, the most recently compiled, predictions of demand) ...

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/uranium-markets.aspx

- The UK has bugger all of the above!

- That currently nuclear is by far the most expensive means of
generation by source in the UK, about double the cost of the next most
expensive, offshore wind.

And far from "It's all we have, that actually works", nearly all the
important nuclear generating plants currently under construction are
years behind schedule and/or massively exceeding budget, for example:

Hinckley C, UK

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-58724732

"When Hinkley was approved in 2016, EDF estimated the cost at £18bn.
Today, the company puts the bill at nearer £23bn."

So half-way through the build it's £5bn, just under a third of its
initial projected cost, over budget, can we assume that means it will be
£10bn over budget by completion? I don't know, but I won't be surprised
if it is.

Flamanville, France

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant

"A third reactor at the site, an EPR unit, began construction in 2007
with its commercial introduction scheduled for 2012. As of 2020 the
project is more than five times over budget and years behind schedule.
Various safety problems have been raised, including weakness in the
steel used in the reactor.[1] In July 2019, further delays were
announced, pushing back the commercial date to the end 2022.[2][3]"

Olkiluoto, Finland

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/finlands-olkiluoto-3-nuclear-reactor-faces-another-delay-2021-08-23/

"OSLO, Aug 23 (Reuters) - The start of Finland's much-delayed Olkiluoto
3 nuclear reactor has been pushed back by a further three months, with
full power production now scheduled for June 2022, operator TVO said in
a statement late on Friday.

"Teollisuuden Voima Oyj (TVO) has received additional information from
the plant supplier Areva-Siemens consortium that the regular electricity
production of the OL3 EPR plant unit will be further postponed for three
months due to extended turbine overhaul and inspection works," TVO said.

First electricity production from the reactor, which has a capacity of
1.6 gigawatts (GW), is now scheduled for February, with regular
electricity production to start in June next year.

Olkiluoto 3 was meant to be finished in 2009 but the project has been
beset by a series of setbacks.

The Finnish Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) in March this year gave a
permit to start loading fuel, supporting a plan to begin electricity
production in October.

But TVO in late July pushed back the date to November to allow for extra
work on overhauling and inspecting turbines, and now points to February
as the expected startup."

<Imagine an unusually honest toast at the WNA AGM dinner>So, chaps,
let's raise our glasses to: "Nuclear white elephants all round, and a
stunning success for the nuclear industry in duping the world into
paying for its continued incompetence!"</Imagine ...>

But doubtless you'll be lying about all this again tomorrow, or the next
day, next week, next month, or next year, because that is your modus
operandi, regurgitate the same old lies no matter how often they are
debunked and proven to be lies.

> [Snip more claims unsubstantiated by any *EVIDENCE*]

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 27 Dec 2021 at 12:47:03 GMT, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> On 27/12/2021 02:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>> Mathematicians have computer models, trying to solve Napier Stokes
>> equations by piecewise integration.
>>
>> Engineers use wind tunnels, because the physics of turbulent flow is
>> simply too difficult to model accurately in a computer.
>
> You can't model the whole earth's system in a wind tunnel, which leaves
> only computerised mathematical modelling.

Just because that's all it leaves, doesn't mean that it's going to work. And
remember that models don't TELL you anything; they make predictions.

--
Tim

On 27/12/2021 06:08, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 01:12:55 +0000
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Everyone knows that the real answer to all this heath robinson grid
>> rubbish, the museum piece windmills, the massive grid extensions and
>> international links, the batteries, the energy insecurity is to simply
>> throw in nuclear power to replace all the fossil power stations.

Except that so far, as already linked in another reply today, there
isn't enough global fissile fuel to meet global projected demand for it
and effectively we have none of that supply in the UK, the current round
of new nuclear builds are all white elephants which are years behind
schedule and/or massively over budget, and in the last big-freeze in
Texas, both nuclear and, mainly, fossil-fuel stations were taken out as
well as wind-turbines.

> The trouble is of course that the engineering aspects of the
> problem are the smallest aspects. The real problems are social and
> political.

No, the real problems for the UK are that we don't have indigenous
supplies of the fuel, nature has given us other sources of energy
instead, and we have lost the know-how that previous generations had,
and are having to important that from foreign firms at massive cost for
a seemingly-not-very-good result.

>> There are no problems with nuclear that cannot be and have not been
>> solved at one third the cost of the *overall* renewable solution - which

AGAIN A PROVEN LIE REPEATED! How many times must you be told that
nuclear generation in the UK has double the feed-in tariff of the next
most expensive option, offshore wind?

>> doesn't even effectively work as it was supposed to anyway.
>
> Back in 1973 when the idea that there wasn't an infinite supply of
> cheap oil first started to rattle in people's heads there was a claim made
> that the UK did not have to worry unduly because there was enough coal
> under Wales to keep the UK in energy for the next three centuries - I
> somehow doubt it but it may in fact be true, and more to the point it may
> have been believed.

We have approximately 200+ years of fossil-fuels in the country, along
with lots of wind, that is what nature has given us, therefore that is
what we must use, and must capture the carbon while doing so.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 27/12/2021 13:01, TimS wrote:
> On 27 Dec 2021 at 12:47:03 GMT, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 27/12/2021 02:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>> Mathematicians have computer models, trying to solve Napier Stokes
>>> equations by piecewise integration.
>>>
>>> Engineers use wind tunnels, because the physics of turbulent flow is
>>> simply too difficult to model accurately in a computer.
>>
>> You can't model the whole earth's system in a wind tunnel, which leaves
>> only computerised mathematical modelling.
>
> Just because that's all it leaves, doesn't mean that it's going to work. And
> remember that models don't TELL you anything; they make predictions.
>
Well it's usual Jive illogic.

The point being that it *is* all you have left and it *isn't* good
enough to decide whether to take Wellies on Wednesday, let alone spend
a trillion dollars of taxpayer money on 'solutions' that don't actually
solve a problem that may very well not exist.

On the other hand you can make a shitload of money doing just that if
you have no social conscience whatsoever.

Windmill vendors are like anti-vaxxers, selfish and without any conscience.

--
“it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalin’s Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.”

Vaclav Klaus

On 27/12/2021 11:09, TimS wrote:
> On 27 Dec 2021 at 06:08:34 GMT, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> There is one problem with nuclear that you ignore, and for which
>> nobody has yet found a solution - it has become increasingly difficult to
>> site and fund a nuclear power plant ever since the Three Mile Island plant
>> had troubles.
>
> Only because of lies told by Greenpeace etc, aided and abetted by the media.
> Some media are starting to change and are remembering that no one died or was
> even injured at TMI or Fukushima, and that thousands *didn't* die at
> Chernobyl.
>
>> One day somebody may come up with a marketable version of nuclear
>> power or a way to overcome the massive popular resistance to the idea.
>> Perhaps one way is to first get rid of all the coal and oil generators
>> aided by a huge wave of public opinion and build up a flaky concoction of
>> wind, solar, hydro, battery and gas when needed that just about hangs
>> together but clearly needs a little extra - and *then* bring in the new
>> model safe and reliable nuclear plants - unless something better comes
>> along in time to save us needing them.
>
> Is this the "it's got to get worse before it can get better" approach? Sadly
> there may be something in that. Plenty of us remember how it was well known in
> the 50s and 60s that the Unions needed a big-time kick in the nuts, but no one
> thought it was possible, until we had the Winter of Discontent, which Maggie
> was able to capitalise on.
>
Its very analogous. people let stuff happen because its too hard to fix
and probably doesn't matter that much, then it all gets out of control,
people realise it matters rather a lot and is serious, and suddenly,
there is a sea change on public opinion and the the politicians are
dragged kicking and screaming...

....and out of the musical chair comes a voice as some chancer says 'I
can make the music stop' and people say 'well you have one chance.'

Once Maggie had fucked the coal unions her party couldn't wait to fuck
her - job done, now let the establishment chaps run things...sign
Maastricht...fill their boots leading to another outpouring of public
sentiment that propelled the biggest see you next Tuesday ever to hold
office. Tony B Liar, the Teflon coated lawyer who spent the next ten
years destroying the country. Whilst racking up an impressive portfolio
of properties that he then doubled the value of by slashing interest rates.

Its called insider trading.

Its a criminal offence. So is misleading parliament and lying to them
about dodgy Iraq dossiers. And getting the whistle-blower killed.

Finally we voted him out in an outburst of common sense, but never again
will be sign up for Glorious Leaders who *cant* be voted out. So bye bye EU.

No, democracy in the end comes through, but only after the vox populi
threatens the politicians with the outer darkness.

Our job is to not to tell the plebs *wha*t to think - leave that to the
moralising corporate owned Left - its to tell then *why* they need to
think, and hope that they have common sense.

So that the truth outs a bit quicker than otherwise.

--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."