Airbrushing and biofuels

In an a wonderfully brass-necked piece on the always lamentable Comment is Free, an enviro-loon called Mark Lynas claims, astoundingly, that environmentalists were right all along. Biofuels are a disaster!

Yes, you read that correctly. The environmentalists are going to start claiming that they've always been against biofuels.

When you've stopped killing yourselves laughing here's the "proof". Lynas says:

When the prospect of large-scale use of biofuels as a response to climate change was first mooted, many green campaigners and writers - including Greenpeace and the Guardian's George Monbiot - raised concerns about the impacts on land-use, food supply and biodiversity.

To his credit, Moonbat has written against biofuels in the past. But as one commenter on the CiF thread points out, Friends of the Earth have been welcoming pretty much every move towards biofuel for years: 

Here's what Friends of the Earth had to say in 2004:

Climate Change and the Budget, Nov 2004, page 19
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/pre_budget_nov_2004.pdf

"The Government should introduce a Biofuels Obligation, to stimulate a UK biofuels industry - as a lower carbon alternative to conventional transport fuels. The obligation would require that a proportion of all road transport fuels in the UK should be sourced from accredited renewable sources."

and here's what Friends of the Earth had to say in 2005:

Cautious welcome for biofuels obligation, Nov 10, 2005
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/cautious_welcome_for_biofu_10112005.html

"Friends of the Earth welcomed the Government's promise today (Thursday 10th November) that biofuels will form five per cent of transport fuel sales by 2010, helping to tackle transport's contribution to climate change."

Friends of the Earth eventually reversed their position in 2007:

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/oecd_warning_over_biofuels_11092007.html

"Friends of the Earth called on the EU to scrap its ten per cent target for using plant-based bio-fuels for transport, after a leaked paper revealed that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD's has grave concerns about their social and environmental effects."

Friends of the Earth spent several years campaigning in support of biofuels with total vigour and certainty. They're now campaigning against them with equal vigour and certainty.

And what about Greenpeace, who Lynas claims have been in the forefront of the green perspicacity on biofuels. In fact they've been screaming in favour of them for simply years - this from 1993. They were still welcoming biofuels targets in 2005.

Airbrushing history is just so much more difficult when your opponents have got Google.

More on MPs' expenses

The inimitable Guido Fawkes has pointed out that of the three MPs appointed by Gordon Broon to investigate MPs' expenses

• David MacLean (Con) was the architect of the recent attempt to exempt aforementioned MPs' expenses from the Freedom of Information Act
• Stuart Bell (Lab) employed his son as a researcher (and the little brat used his access to the palace of Westminster to do some thieving to supplement his income)
• Nick Harvey (LibDem) is a part-time lobbyist

For the record it's also worth noting that Stuart Bell was one of those who voted in favour of David MacLean's bill making MPs' expenses secret. Nick Harvey didn't vote.

So, of the three people appointed, two are against any sort of transparency, and all three are compromised.

Eminently predicatable. 

Is oil a fossil fuel

I've been dimly aware of an argument that oil is not in fact made by a biological process for a couple of years now, but I've never really given it much thought - it all seemed a bit hare-brained to me.

But now, via the Englishman, comes an article in Science which seems to support the theory.

Our findings illustrate that the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water, and moderate amounts of heat.

If this is right, then oil is not a fossil fuel at all, and another prop has been kicked out from under the global warmers' feet. Interesting times. 

More on Climate Feedback

The greenies at Nature Climate Feedback are still at it. A little while back a warm snap in the Chinese City of Harbin elicited a breathless article entitled

Ice festival wilts in global warming heat.[We're all doomed!!!!]

Today the news carries reports of major snowfalls in China, large enough to damage crops and affect the food supply. 

And Nature Climate Feedback has a report entitled....

"Largest teach-in ever" focuses US on climate change

Ho hum. 

 

How many Labour MPs are on the fiddle?

The latest development in the "Cash for Conways" scandal is the pathetic sight of the party leaders trying to outdo each other in making minor concessions to the idea of transparency.

We've had Cameron telling us that 70 of his MPs employ family members and that he's going to tell which frontbenchers do April.

Why April? Why not now? He knows who they are. Why can't he tell us? And why only the frontbenchers?

Someone of a more cynical frame of mind than me might conclude that rather more than 70 had family members "on the payroll" but that only these 70 were actually making them do any work in return. The others have a couple of months to exorcise these ghost workers so that the boy Dave can present a clean bill of health for the new financial year.

Apart from the departure of Conway, one good thing to come out of this has been the reaction of the Tory grassroots. The deluge of invective from ordinary Conservatives suggest that the party rank and file are of a rather better character than their representatives in Westminster. It's also instructive to compare this reaction to that of the Labour grassroots over the Hain revelations. The red corner was virtually silent on the issue. Only one Labour Home article actually covered the issue directly and started thusly:

Poor Peter Hain, he is being hounded for failing to declare donations to his DL election campaign. Its something that can be easily overlooked in the heat of an election campaign. Its wasn't his fault unless he was made directly aware of it himself.

A couple of commenters said he should go, but the rest were more concerned about the embarrassment to the party. It rather smacks of a bunch of people whose attitude to wrongdoing is "my party, right or wrong". Which may be how we got into this mess in the first place.

Then again, one can wonder just what Labour MPs are hiding themselves. These figures show how MPs voted on the third reading of the bill to exclude MPs expenses from the Freedom of Information Act.

 

So it looks very much to me like a very large number of Labour MPs were very keen to support a Conservative private member's bill. Far more than would have been needed to win the vote.

I wonder why? 

Either way, I think we should keep a very close eye on the expenses issue, because I think the folks in Westminster are hoping we're going to forget about it. 

Social exclusivity

I was listening to Andrew Dilnot the head of St Hugh's College, Oxbridge on the radio this afternoon. Most of the time the BBC interviewer wanted to know what the colleges were going to do to get more people from state schools in. I did wonder why Dilnot didn't tell them that it's more a case of the state needing to try a bit harder to educate its charges, but perhaps he's too polite.

Now I see that a report commissioned by the government has concluded that grammar and religious schools should be scrapped, again because they are socially exclusive.

And then the thought struck me. How many public school ponces are there at the Football Association's centres of excellence? I mean they are both selective and socially exclusive.

I think we should probably be scrapping them too shouldn't we?  

Sounding the retreat

Labour Home has put out a signal to all on the left to steer clear of story about Nigel Waterson having been arrested for allegedly assaulting his children. Says Alex Hilton:

Comrades, I have just heard the details of why Tory MP Nigel Waterson was involved with the police recently. I'm afraid it's not my place to divulge these details but I'd be grateful if you took my word for it that this is not a matter we should be writing about. I will be deleting all posts about this issue. Please do email me if this causes you any concern.

It looks a bit late to me though. This particular horse seems already to have bolted:

THE CROOK, THE WIFEBEATER and THE VIOLENT BULLY…….TODAY’S TORIES.. says Ian bone

Nigel Waterson thrashes kids said Recess Monkey (Now deleted) 

Tory MP arrested in child abuse scandal said Bob Piper 

Tory Shadow minister arrested for assaulting children said Labour Home 

It's been said before that you post in haste and repent at leisure. It's particularly funny to see Recess Monkey getting this basic tenet of blogging wrong again. Remember the Thatcher obituary? Some people never learn. 

Labour Home on habeas corpus

Labour Home has a poll up at the moment on the subject of how many days the police should be able to lock people up without charge. This presumably follows on from Mike Ion's piece there in which he wondered if it should be 28 or 42 days.

Unfortunately for the Labour leadership and for their attendant Brown-nosers like Mr Ion, even among Labour supporters, the favoured option is 2 days.

Perhaps you might like to go over and lend your support. 

The Royal Society - cloth-eared numpties

Nature Climate Feedback reports on the Royal Society's pronouncements on the looming biofuels disaster.

When it comes to lowering greenhouse gas emissions, the report points out, there are biofuels and biofuels. That is, while some plant fuel sources promise as much as 80% greenhouse gas savings over fossil fuels, it's also possible to keep trashing the planet by using unsustainable methods to produce and supply renewable fuels. Unless the UK sets emissions targets per se in its fuel policy, warns the report, the new UK rules and the EU Biofuels Directive that they reflect "will do more for economic development and energy security than combating climate change".

Splendid. So what are the eminences grises at Britain's premier scientific society proposing we do about it?

[T]o ensure that biofuels are sustainable, says the report, you have to monitor carbon absorption and emission - along with other environmental and socioeconomic impacts - along the entire supply chain, starting in the crop field and ending at the tailpipe.

Now the total of the "environmental and socioeconomic impacts" is big-important-scientist-speak for a concept which you and I know as the PRICE. Regular readers here will have picked up on this remarkable tool before, but for the uninitiated-but-still-jolly-clever denizens of the RS, I'll give you a clue. You can find out the PRICE by telephoning someone called a SALESMAN. He will give you the number you are after. (But remember to ask for the PRICE rather than the "total of the environmental and socioeconomic impacts along the whole supply chain". Firstly it's quicker, and secondly he's less likely to call you a "cloth-eared numpty". Or worse.)

So, having put the cloth-eared numpties right, it's worth pointing out that, no matter how daft a bureaucratic scheme our scientists can come up with...the EU can get there first:

In the runup to the Royal Society report, EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas told the BBC that the EU recognized the problem and intended to introduce just such a monitoring scheme.

The whole world's gone mad. 

Tonight is an unusual night...

....because I think I'm going to sit down and watch television, something I've managed not to do for weeks now. I'm going to be watching this:

 

If you've never heard of it, Summerhill is a school in Sussex which is famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) for not making its pupils attend lessons. In fact they don't make the kids do anything. This would have been fine but for the fact that their exam results were rather above the national averages. One can imagine the horror with which this was greeted by the bureaucracy. The result of all this was that the schools inspectorate tried to have them closed down, a battle from which the school has only recently emerged the victor.

Worth a look, I would have thought. 

Update:

Well, that was rather fun. It came across to me as one of the most subversive pieces of television I've seen in a long time. (This may not be saying much, I suppose, given how little time I spend in front of the goggle-box, but you get my drift). I might even go so far as to call it libertarian in outlook.

I wonder if the Beeb knew what they were getting when they bought it? 

Because of the unique way it is funded....

...the BBC will mot bother to check its facts.

Auntie Beeb has excelled herself today, with a rather unsubtle attempt to libel the entire home education community as child molestors. They've done a stealth edit to cover their tracks, but via the Google cache, here is the original piece.

 

 The key section is this:

Judith Gillespie, of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, was worried that there was not register of youngsters withdrawn from school.

She cited a case involving five-year-old Danielle Reid, who was murdered by her mother's partner in Inverness in 2002.

A report into the case found the authorities had lost track of the youngster when her mother withdrew her from school.

As far as this goes these statements are true, but there is no connection with home education whatsoever. According to the independent report into Danielle's death, her mother claimed that the family were moving to Manchester. This is why Danielle was taken out of school. Quite how Judith Gillespie can attempt to make make a link with HE is beyond me. It looks like a rather transparent attempt to smear a lot of innocent people.

Dangerous ideas

Donald Clark points out to a short video at the TED site which is well worth a look. Donald summarises the ideas behind the lecture from Gever Tulley entitled "Five dangerous things you should let your kids do":

1. Play with fire – basic and necessary – intake, combustion and exhaust – a laboratory.
2. Own a pocket knife – powerful and empowering tool – extended sense of self – keep it sharp, cut away from body, never force it.
3. Throw a spear – our brains are wired to throw things – visual acuity, 3D understanding – analytical and physical skills.
4. Deconstruct appliances – don’t throw out the dishwasher – take it apart first. Figure out what the parts do and how it works.
5. Drive a car. Let them drive with you in control. Find a big empty space. Fun for the whole family!

Here's the video in full.

Quote of the day

Dr Crippen, the mastermind behind the best medical blog there is, has emerged from hibernation and is straight back into his stride, with a comment from a Professor of Paediatrics of his acquaintance:

“You know, if I were suddenly taken ill, I would be terrified to be admitted to a British NHS Hospital.”

Very amusing

If you need cheering up after the last posting, see this at Guido's.

Whither multiculturalism?

Bishop Nazir-Ali has set the cat among the pigeons today, by mentioning the I-word in less than flattering terms. He says that moslems are trying to set up no-go areas for non-believers. This claim has brought on the usual spluttering outrage from the political classes and the commentariat.

The BBC has rolled out its standard crisis management technique of packing interviews with people who oppose the prevailing views. The new, fluffier-than-thou Tories have been falling over themselves in their eagerness to be seen to say the correct thing, with the Willy Hague declaring that he knows of no such no-go areas.

Over at Pickled Politics, guest poster Rumbold says that the Bishop is just stirring up trouble. "Scaremongering" Rumbold says, and condemns the Bishop for not identifying these no-go areas.

Helpfully though, the Pub Philosopher has pointed us to a report that seems to back the Bishop's claim. Written by the former race relations adviser in Bradford, it documents how sharia areas have been set up in that city. The Philosopher also relates a couple of other horror stories along the same lines.

Throughout all this opinionating, I get the overriding sense that very few people actually want to address this issue - it does seem that there is genuinely a problem. Certainly those doing the criticising are very keen to condemn the Bishop and rather less keen to look into his claims first. Meanwhile those who are standing behind his Grace are not exactly bursting to tell us their proposed solutions to the problem.

I'm sure the denial on the one hand and the reticence on the other is a symptom of exactly the same thing. Which is a belief that if the Bishop is right then the only solution will involve ethnic cleansing and/or civil war. (And for the avoidance of doubt, I'm accusing nobody of actually supporting such a policy - I'm saying that there are some people who think we better do nothing for fear of starting a civil war, and there are others who think we'd better do something because if we don't we could end up with one anyway).

There. I said it.

We are almost certainly at a fork in the multicultural road we've been driving down these last fifty years, and one of those forks is signposted "Strife and Disaster", without doubt. To go down this road we can adopt policies of repatriating moslems or closing down mosques, and some of us would undoubtedly come out of the ensuing maelstrom in one piece, but very few people actually want this.

Of course we can just do nothing - continue to deny the existence of the problem and to condemn anyone who tries to talk about it. But that is just another road to the same destination. Let's not go there.

There is another way we might try though. A way that is impeccably liberal, although it would be hard for those on the left to swallow.

Stop subsidising multiculturalism. Stop supporting it. Put and end to the succour that the state gives to those who want to divide society rather than to unite it. We must create economic incentives for people to integrate into mainstream society. Standing squarely in the way of doing this is the whole ghastly panoply of "liberal-left" nannying legislation. This all has to go: scrap the race relations acts, tear up the hate speech acts, stop funding translators for immigrants and give them English lessons instead. Etcetera.

If someone doesn't want to employ a moslem, that's his business. But a moslem who finds his requirement to pray at inconvenient times is affecting his employability might just be willing to compromise with mainstream culture, and compromise is the start of integration. He's not forced to compromise, of course, but neither should he be able to force mainstream culture to compromise with him.

Mutual agreement. Liberalism.

We should remind ourselves too that this is just the policy proposed by Trevor Phillips of the CRE who has called for multiculturalism to be scrapped. It is striking how silent everyone has been on this subject since it was proposed in the wake of the 7/7 bombings in 2004. Shall we dust the ideas off and look at them again.

It might not work, of course. It may be that there is now a sufficiently large body of unintegrated moslems in this country that they can operate without the mainstream culture. We would in fact have brought about the balkanisation of this country.

But, for all the reasons above, let's hope not.