Coffee House


14 November 2012

What’s wrong with supporting James Delingpole? Ask the Guardian: it has had a tremendous amount of fun exposing the Tories’ campaign manager for the Corby by-election, Chris Heaton Harris MP, appearing to support The Spectator’s very own James Delingpole. The paper has obtained video recorded by what it describes as an ‘undercover Greenpeace reporter’ of Heaton-Harris telling an audience at the Tory conference that he encouraged James Delingpole to stand as the anti-wind farm candidate in Corby. He says that he has made ‘a handful of people’ available to Delingpole, including the deputy chairman of his constituency. Finally, he adds, more in jest than complete seriousness it seems to me: ‘Please don’t tell anyone ever’.

There is no doubt that this is embarrassing for the Tories, coming as it does on the eve of an election which they are expected to lose heavily. It suggests a lack of discipline that bodes badly for 2015.


However, there is one slight problem with the Guardian’s position: James Delingpole was never a candidate in the by-election because he never paid a deposit. He appears to have flirted for a time with the idea of standing, but announced on 31st October that he would not be doing so when John Hayes MP, the Conservative energy minister, told the Daily Mail that the development of onshore wind farms had to be reined in. It also has to be noted that support for Delingpole in Corby was threadbare.

This story doesn’t primarily concern Delingpole and the by-election; it’s really about a split within the coalition on wind farms and the Tories’ long-term electoral tactics. Heaton-Harris, who’s no friend of wind farms himself, said of John Hayes:

‘He’s a man in a department which absolutely hates him [but] there’s enough support in Cabinet to keep him there and at the moment it’s quite active on the issue.’

The department in question is led by Ed Davey, a Liberal Democrat. He and Hayes have clashed over wind farms again this week, with Hayes saying that it is ‘job done’ on onshore wind. Hayes’ supporters in Cabinet include the Chancellor, who is reported (by the well-connected Ben Brogan writing in mid-June of this year) to believe that halting onshore wind farm construction is a vote winner in marginal rural and semi-suburban constituencies like Corby. And James Forsyth revealed soon after the reshuffle that David Cameron apparently told Hayes to ‘deliver a win for our people on windfarms.’

It is, therefore, not wholly surprising to discover that the Tories were courting independent campaigners like Delingpole (who UKIP were also after to mount an attack on the Tories from the right) at a time when they were refashioning their posture on the issue. It is slightly surprising to find them getting caught doing so; but then again, perhaps it isn’t.

More Spectator for less. Subscribe and receive 12 issues delivered for just £12, with full web and app access. Join us now.

  • Daniel Maris

    Something to cheer up the Don Quixotes here…

    Wind energy start up and maintenance costs are falling dramatically…

    • itdoesntaddup

      Good. Then we can remove the subsidies.

  • etonmess

    Erm. Delingpole WAS a candidate. He just had a woeful set of polls – a quite unique statistical 0% in a Lord Ashcroft-sponsored YouGov poll, and then quit. End of.

  • HooksLaw

    Guido seems to be exposing the Guardian article as a a load of dross. Amd the Guardian does not seem to be sticking by it to much.

  • truthmonster

    The problem with asserting that he was ‘never a candidate’ is that the website describes his “first public meeting as independent anti wind farm candidate for the Corby & East Northamptonshire constituency.” He saw himself as a candidate, whether or not he’d paid the deposit.

    And the story assuredly concerns Delingpole, who was happy to exploit the good will of the constituents of Corby for the purposes of self-publicity. He withdrew a few hours before his deposit was due. Cynical behaviour, for which he deserves censure.

    • eeore


      • truthmonster

        Really? What aspect of the above do you dispute?

        • eeore

          The paranoid conspiracy aspects.

          • truthmonster

            But I wasn’t positing a conspiracy. I was pointing out that the article is flat wrong in statements like these: “He appears to have flirted for a time with the idea of standing”

            He didn’t ‘flirt’ with the idea of standing. He had an election agent, commissioned a website (which is still up) and held public meetings. There are photographs of the meetings. His website solicited support and volunteers and described him as a ‘candidate’. It’s absurd to suggest that this conduct is possible to reconcile with ‘flirting with’ the idea of standing.

            • eeore

              Indeed, so he thought about/flirted with/ considered/whatever standing for an election – which is any persons right (within specified legal constraints) – he set the process in action – again any persons right – and then didn’t – again any persons right..

              But then you go on to call for censure. What should his punishment be?

              On a side issue, what do you think of the charity status of Greenpeace? And do you think it is the right that charity workers should be spying?

              • the viceroy’s gin

                Ohhhhh, careful there… we mustn’t question the angelic nature of such a group as Greenpeace. They deserve our cash, not our approbation, don’t they?

                I mean, unless you’re going to get all tight and crunchy, and make them be a pure charity solely, absent all the advocacy surveillance.

  • Hannah Scott

    Interesting debate on offshore/onshore windfarms, 76% believe we should continue building on land:

  • Mike Waller

    I can give three reasons for not supporting Delingpole: (a), to my taste, he is poor writer, certainly the worst of the Spectator regulars; (b) he is another attention seeking global warming denier; (c) even were he right about global warming, along with so many others he has completely failed to appreciate the strategic significance of the almost total dependency on the national grid that has been created in the post war era.

    In the run up to WW2 most power engineers were convinced that the war would be won within weeks by whichever side was the first to destroy the opposition’s electrical infrastructure. In the event there were too many power stations and bombing was hopelessly inaccurate. Since then we have concentrated much of our generation within a comparatively few very large power stations (Drax alone provides 7% of our national capacity) and built guided missiles that could take out a public toilet. Nor is war the only threat. Natural disasters in the form of solar storms, terrorist action hitting critical points on the grid, pandemics taking out large numbers of key workers are among other possibilities.

    As things stand, if we lost the grid the effects would be catastrophic. For example, fresh water supplies and foul water removal both depend on vast numbers of electrically powered pumps. It is, of course, impossible to produce a back-up grid; but by encouraging all forms of local generation, we could create the possibility of providing households and crucial infrastructure with the minimum levels of power essential to making life just about tolerable. If and when that day comes, I would not like to one of the clowns who had inveighed against building up this kind of local capability.

    • HooksLaw

      Local generation is nothing to do with arguments for or against wind farms.
      Wind farms are mostly in remote places (not least off shore), where the wind is, and require expensive links to the grid.

      Your arguments including ‘war’ scenarios are archaic. Its also clearly self serving to your own brand of paranoia.

    • itdoesntaddup

      The grid is highly vulnerable to the shift to windfarms because power flows in accordance with Kirchoff’s Laws. The result is that individual grid links can easily end up trying to carry more power than they can handle, depending on which windfarms are working. If one link fails, the resulting power surge on other links can cause them to fail too, blowing out transformers and cables. That’s how much of Europe ended up in blackout in 2006.

    • Baron

      when you penned this you woke up, right?

      One can make a similar argument about food distribution, better still about a piece of gear called the stepper manufactured by just a handful of companies, but absolutely essential for making integrated circuits that today sit in every box that matters (or just wastes one’s time) in virtually every walk of life, So what?

      The bloody propellor towers cannot be relied upon, that’s THE point, a doctor cuts your whatever, the wind subsides, the power cuts off, what then, ha?

      And you crown the whole thing by saying James is a bad writer? Arghhhh. Baron is just re-reading his Watermelons, not because of the argument, because of the language. Light, yet expressing thoughts you wouldn’t be capable of if someone plugged your empty cranium into the most powerful computer containing the wisdom of the world. you tosser.

  • Kevin

    Why the heck is “an undercover Greenpeace reporter” secretly filming someone having what looks like a private legal conversation in an eating place (not addressing “an audience”)?

    Someone should be hauled over the coals for that.

    • Colonel Mustard

      Er, stitch up?

  • Daniel Maris

    Er – when you undress this article you find beneath the finery a rather nasty looking tale of underhand playing of the democratic system designed to derail Cabinet government.

    We can’t have jumped up ministers like Hayes trying to make policy by themselves.

    And it’s bad form for rogue columnists to use the electoral system in this way.

    Wind is wonderful. The sooner we realise that the better. Sadly, we are going to have to be taught a lesson in this as in so much else by the industrious Germans.

    • the viceroy’s gin

      Fair enough. Stop littering the countryside with these government paid contraptions, so the People can be taught their lesson. Once taught, I’m sure everybody will take the lesson to heart.

      • Daniel Maris

        I think people in the countryside should get some payback from the turbines, in the way German rural communities do. At the moment, they only get the downside – some loss of visual amenity (although that is much exaggerated in my view).

        • the viceroy’s gin

          Yes, the government should pay for the windmills and then pay the country folk, too.

          Wait though, I thought we were trying to teach these plebs a lesson?

          Let’s make up our mind.

    • Curnonsky

      Yes, leave policy-making where it belongs, in the capable hands of the Liberal Democrats.

      Actually, wind isn’t wonderful, it’s as practical as relying on powdered unicorn hooves. What is wonderful is fracking. Invented by the industrious Americans.

      • Daniel Maris

        The industrious Americans – whose ramshackle grid has actually collapsed on several occasions and how have the largest installation of wind power on the planet. .

    • FrenchNews

      That’ll be the industrious Germans who are now building large new coal-fired capacity would it? (and Mr Maris we’ve had this discussion before on other threads).

  • perdix

    Whatever the pros and cons of windfarms, Delingpole is a fruitcake.

    • Colonel Mustard

      Probably no more a fruitcake than most of the cabinet and all the shadow cabinet. Depends on your point of view. But I’m deeply suspicious of people who label those whose views they disagree with as “fruitcakes”, “nutjobs”, etc., especially lefties who are supposed to embrace and celebrate diversity.

  • RodCl

    “What’s wrong with supporting James Delingpole?” Because he’s a barking, certifiable monomaniac. As an overseas regular Spectator purchaser I would prefer that his contributions be left out to lighten the load for airmail purposes. When I did read anything that he wrote, I inevitably waded about half way through the cess before going “WTF!?” and turning to the next contributor. Same with the useless load of BS rubbish from “Taki”.

    • Colonel Mustard

      Not very believable.

  • William Blakes Ghost

    Actually whilst it might give Dopey Dave and the rest of his Quad dummies another headache, I doubt anyone on the right is losing sleep over the revelation that a (real?) Conservative is doing his best to undermine the Libdem equivalent of a phallic substitute (only the Libdems could be so strange as to pick one with a propellor on the business end!). I also doubt if Dopey Dave and his Quad dummies will lose much sleep over it either given that there are about ten of these incidents every week and in any case the Libdem trolls (Cable, Oakeshott, Hughes, Ashdown, WIlliams, Hughes etc) go on patrol just about every weekend. This incident pales into insignificance to the Libdems concerted efforts to divorce themselves from the deal they signed up to. If you ask Its about time the Tories responded in kind.

    So the bottom line seems to be “Cavernous split in goverment between coalition partners”. Ya think?

  • itdoesntaddup
    • gubulgaria

      Funny that Guido never mentions the fact that Heaton-Harris describes the timing as ‘contrived’.

      He seems to be basing his entire piece on the timing not being contrived, and yet misses out this rather damning quote.

      Why do you think Heaton-Harris said the timing was contrived?

  • gubulgaria

    So, on all the occasions where Delingpole claimed to be a candidate – not that he was considering it, but that he actually was a candidate – he was lying? When he was out in Corby literally kissing babies, he wasn’t really a candidate? When he issued his first manifesto and then his second, when he employed an election agent, when he launched his ‘DelingpoleforCorby’ website?

    Do we need a new word for someone who has all the qualities of a candidate apart from having paid the deposit?

    May I suggest ‘candidand’?

    Or perhaps ‘not-altogether-candid-ate’?

    • Daniel Maris

      We already have the word: prospective as in “prospective parliamentary candidate”. That’s what he was – a prospective candidate – unless of course he was lying. Surely not, though! He must have meant to stand.

  • Hexhamgeezer

    It’s always lovely flying over the north of England seeing the bird scramblers dotted all over the landscape. If you are really fortunate you sometimes see them turning round.

    No such luck last week

  • JMckechnie

    An MPs first loyalty is to his/her constituents surely? Is it really that bad to support a rival candidate?: in this particular case I dare say Chris Heaton has more in common with Delingpole, than most of those he sits with on the same benches. It would be a great thing if this was to start a trend; taking the party hold over an MP away.

  • Troika21

    Well done to Greenpeace (can’t believe I’ve said that) for exposing Chris Harris’ election shenanigans.

    Does not mean they’re right though. I wonder how many hours of footage they had to go through too to get that gem.

    • JMckechnie

      Rather than viewing Chris Harris’ actions as ‘shenanigans’, I would rather applaud him for having less “loyalty” to his party, and for having more concern for constituents; whether they be of his own constituency, or not. Maybe he can campaign against the use of the Three Line Whip in Parliament whilst he is at it!

  • Ben G

    Come on, you don’t really believe this ‘he was never a candidate’ line do you?

    I’m not sure which is worse – Heaton-Harris being caught engaging in sixth-form politics, or the fact that he was juvenile enough to brag about, it to a lobbyist.

  • HooksLaw

    If Hayes is not liked in his department then he is doing something right. Dept of Energy has been a joke for years. Its very title, Dept of Energy and Climate Change is a joke of Les Dawson proportions.

  • Vulture

    Tories are the Stupid Party and therefore don’t know any better. They are going to get hammered in Corby and deservedly so.,

    But its notable that while the Guardian are wetting their rubber knickers over this storm on a windfarm, there is nary a word over the far more outrageous scandal:

    Viz. that the BBC invited 28 prominent Global warmists ( and ONLY them) to a conference in 2006 to formulate the correct ‘line’ Corp’s warmist propaganda offensive. in every department from News to Comedy. So much for our ‘impartial national broadcaster’. They make Orwell’s 1984 liars look like rank amateurs.

    • telemachus

      Is Corby a happy place and do they like the Coalition?

      115 factory workers in Corby were told 19 April that they had lost their jobs—with
      immediate effect.

      The workers toiled at the multinational clothing manufacture Aquascutum which has manufactured in Corby for more than 100 years. It went into administration on 17 April

      Not only were they were told they were being made redundant but they were also told that they wouldnt get their last week’s wages.

      A typical reaction was

      “They’ve hung us out to dry. We’ve been stung—by the bankers and by the government. I find it unbelievable.”

      This is the human face of the double dip recession engineered by Osborne

      Wind farms matter not- the Tories are done

      • Vulture

        Of course Corby was never a happy place: its full of migrant Scots who wouldn’t be happy even if they were translated to heaven with 74 virgins to choose from. As PG Wodehouse opined, its never difficult to distinguish a Scotsman with a grievance from a ray of sunshine – and your hero Gordon was a walking, grunting demonstration of the truth of this observation.
        So most of them will vote Labour who will replace Aquascutum’s wages with Benefits that can’t be afforded and will merely drive this country closer to Greece.
        The country folk in the villages around Corby aren’t happy either. Many of them will vote for UKIp. But you are wrong about windfarms: they do matter.
        They are ugly, ineffective and subsidised with our money. It’s another piece of modish Green idiocy backed by Dave ‘n George.

        • David Lindsay

          There are no windfarms in the Corby constituency. That was why Delingpole pulled out.

      • Fergus Pickering

        I wandered as lonely as a cloud, That floats on high o’er vales and hills, When all at once I saw a crowd, A host of golden daffodils, Besides the lake, beneath the trees, Fluttering and dancing in the breeze. Where’s Nick ?

        • telemachus

          We all miss Nico

    • dalai guevara

      They employ your (and my) much-praised Andrew Neil, don’t they? How is that not ‘balanced’?

      If you want to express your preference of having joined the ranks of global warming deniers, I will not hold you back. All it does is it weakens your position.

      • Vulture

        They also employ: Mason, Wark, Humphreys, Naughtie, Roger Horrible, Mark Easton, Mark Mardell, Eddie Mair and Robert Peston…is that enough Lefties for you? Not too much balance there, I fancy.

        Climate change is a complex subject. (I suspect that you are not a scientist). But some things I am absolutely sure of: Climate change proponents like Roger Horrible lie to defame their opponents; its not all man made; Britain alone can do bugger all about it; and windfarms are totally useless.
        If you don’t believe Delingpole, read Nigel Lawson’s eminently sensible views on the subject.

        • dalai guevara

          Robert Peston, hahaha. The chap doesn’t even know what he wants to say when he’s on air. He should retrain as a waffle maker.

          I have seen worlds were windfarm tech was ridiculed thirty (!) years ago, Growian is the search phrase here. I have also witnessed the emergence of Green Banking shortly thereafter, leading to a technology that -especially for Britain- is a key factor to move from fossil dependence to gradual energy independence. Note the phrase gradual. Of course it depends on funding, of course it depends on affordability. On some days, we already produce much more than 5% of our total elec req by turbines. I cannot see why it cannot be 30% like in North Germany, which has a much more resticted coastline.

          How do we pay for it? Well, you plugged it yourself: Nigel Lawson is on record (oh good heavens, it was Newsnight) reassuring us that he also receives the Winter Fuel Allowance. Cut the fat tissue. Cut it now.

          • Kingstonian

            “On some days, we already produce much more than 5% of our total elec req by turbines.” Perhaps. But on the days when the wind isn’t blowing, or is blowing too strongly, we fall back onto the gas-fired power stations that are running in standby mode just waiting for such days.
            So if we achieved 30% (in your dreams!), we will have to build even more gas or coal fired power stations to run on standby. The economics of the mad-house!

            • dalai guevara

              You don’t – all you do is upgrade, modern fossil fuel back up plant (no one disputes they are required) fire up much more quickly than the old 50s tat I see everywhere. Go travel a bit, not far, and have a look what a modern power station looks like nowadays.

              Incinerators? We still dig holes for our rubbish – what a ridiculous thing to do.

              • the viceroy’s gin

                And what might be your qualifications to opine upon power production engineering and economics in such detail, bucko?

                • dalai guevara

                  I am a multi-trained cosmopolitan with two eyes in my head.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  So no qualifications to opine upon the topic in such detail, then.

                  Which was obvious, but best to have it confirmed from the horse’s… mouth.

                • dalai guevara

                  Read the Siemens pamphlet or I will get my Karcher out…it’s all there for you. In plain English.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, sorry, old swayback horse’s… mouth.

                  But stray links plastered up after a blowhard soliloquy aren’t quite going to be sufficient to cover up matters here.

                  Suggest you stick to what you know… which is… well I’m not quite sure there is anything.

                • dalai guevara

                  Are you drunk? Who is stray? I suggest you demonstrate that you have something to contribute and then…contribute.

                  CCGT reduces fire up time. qed

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  It’s a bummer to be exposed as an internet charlatan, isn’t it?

                • dalai guevara

                  Mirror mirror on the wall…when will I get some content from a gin drinker?

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Actually, you’re the charlatan that’s promised content.

                  But sadly, it appears it’s just the same ol’ horse’s… mouth.

                • dalai guevara

                  …and delivered. qed

                  What else can I do for you today?

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Well, you’ve delivered what generally comes out of a horse’s… mouth. Best stick to delivering that alone, son.

                • Daniel Maris

                  Viceroy’s Gin,

                  You are making yourself look ridiculous by not debating the facts.

                  No one is talking about developing 100% wind energy generation of electricity. If, let’s say, it was 30% with current technology there are various ways you can deal with that on a (very rare) no wind day. Pumped storage, storage as artificial methane, increased generation from energy from waste/biomass/biofuel, pricing mechanisms (so big electricity users pay less on other days when wind is plentiful). Low wind days are normally sunny days, so it works pretty well with solar.

                  Don’t forget that nuclear, coal and gas have all been subject to serious interruption.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Another technical illiterate heard from. Perhaps you 2 horse’s… mouths, can get together and brief us on power engineering, then.

                • Baron

                  the viceroy, sir, give up, no rational argument will do, they know, they are the anointed, the enlightened elite, the bambinos of messianic brain power, the progressives strata of the society, you wasting your time, have a gin and …

                  human activity accounts for just 4% of the aggregate discharge of the useful gas compound, short of all the 7bn people who plod the planet committing suicide nothing we can do will dent the aggregate. Baron has said it before, our pissing into the ocean would have better chance of stopping a tsunami than any propellor turning towers, bulb switching and stuff can have on the discharge of CO2.

                  We’ve firmly entered the age of imbecility, pity it cannot be harvested because if it could be, the world’s famine would be over at a stroke.

                • Daniel Maris

                  This is equally absurd Baron. I am not claiming I “know” this is better. I am putting forward a German-style energy policy as being better on rational grounds: clean air, no terrorist or major accident risk, none of the “secret state” stuff that goes with nuclear, none of the dodgy geopolitics of oil, stable prices, domestic economic stimulus, energy independence and over time reasonably cheap energy. For me personally, the reduction in carbon emissions is a fairly minor factor.

                  One could have the same sort of arguments about motorways. These days most people accept motorways are something which should have been developed, even though there was some damage to the countryside. It’s not a question of messianic zeal, it’s a question of rational analysis.

                • Daniel Maris

                  I am not sure what your point is. Is it that only working power engineers are allowed to refer to these matters? Presumably that counts you out. With the internet today much of this information is freely available e.g. the details of Germany’s energy plans. You speak as though people are proposing we lurch from our present energy arrangements to 100% wind power generation, which is of course nonsense.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  I speak as though technically illiterate muppets like you and the other horse’s… mouth… shouldn’t be posing as knowledgeable of power engineering or any other matters technical.

                  And the information required to become something other than a technically illiterate muppet isn’t to be grasped in front of an internet monitor, fyi.

                • dalai guevara

                  You have inadvertently declared yourself either a nuclear door salesman, or even worse (better), a war for oil ‘watch that drive’ Dubya groupie.

                  Which one is it?

                • Baron

                  the viceroy’s gin, sir, that’s the way to deal with the know-it-all crowd, you keep hitting them. The idiocy of the turbine solution is so palpable, they’ve been getting away with it for years. The time will come nobody will want to buy the monstrosities for their crap, oops, scrap value.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  I’m particularly interested in the how and detail as to the way modern power plants “power up much more quickly”.

                  Be specific and precise. I can hang with you on any process flow diagram for whichever production means you (fantasize?) have in mind. Don’t be shy.

                  Or are you just blowing off?

                • dalai guevara
                • the viceroy’s gin

                  So you were just blowing off.

                  Question asked and answered.

                • dalai guevara

                  What planet are you on? Fire up time in CCGT is greatly reduced.

                  quod erat demonstrandum

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Please define the terms you’re attempting to discuss here, horse’s… mouth.

                  And where do they fit into the comprehensive process flow diagram you’ve engineered? What are the economics in every operating mode, since it appears you’ve accounted for any of several?

                  Or were you just blowing off?

                • dalai guevara

                  Lord almighty. Go visit the plant. Do you want me to arrange that for you?

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Why visit? We’ve got an expert horse’s… mouth, to explain it all to us, right here in the Speccie site. Have at it, swayback.

                  Or were you just blowing off?

                • dalai guevara

                  The facts are cruel for some.

                  The fire up time of my Karcher is also next to nothing, wanna have a go?

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  A large audience here at Speccie, and I’m sure they’d all appreciate an expert’s discourse on power engineering.

                  Or were you just blowing off?

                • dalai guevara

                  You are clearly not only a connoisseur of the gin in the early hours, but also a masochist.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Wait, a horse’s… mouth, talking liquor, perversion AND power engineering?

                  This I gotta hear. Proceed!

                  Or were you just blowing off?

                • dalai guevara

                  You know I am a down to earth bloke – just me and my Karcher – I might be persuaded to purchase another power tool, though…wowzers, bro.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Down to earth bloke? A minute ago you were a cosmopolitan horse’s… mouth.

                  You must be a shape shifting power engineering expert, then. We better hurry and start selling tickets for this expo. Please proceed!

                  Or were you just blowing off?

                • dalai guevara

                  watch and learn – the speccie won’t publish any more of your tripe, so I will let you go now.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, don’t go, we eagerly await the latest installment of “How the windmill turns”, or “A cosmopolitan horse delivers from either end”.

                  Or were you just blowing off?

                • dalai guevara

                  I am delivering a key note at a local event tonight – I do apologise, tara chuck.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Like I say, a cosmopolitan horse delivers from either end.

                  Even when they’re just blowing off.

                • HooksLaw

                  All you are saying is that massive investment in wind power only works if we make massive investment in new convedntional equipment.
                  Which is where we came in.

                • dalai guevara

                  No, all I am saying is that we need an energy mix, with an increase in renewables to reduce levels of dependency, with runs better with better back up technology, which is what you can go see abroad, if you had the time to get out of your armchair.

                  Remember this: I am not making an ‘Al Gore’ argument here (good heavens no), or even a ‘Bjorn Lomborg’ argument – I am expanding on it, having noted the ‘end of peak oil’ which will turn into a simple question of affordability. Once the tech is up and running -like in any other R&D business- you can go and tell Stalin and the sheiks to drink their fossil lubricants. It’s the key business in the western world.

              • HooksLaw

                ‘all you do..’ you know nothing!

        • trevor21

          I have read Nigel Lawson’s book on the subject and it is,as you say,eminently sensible,but one must always remember that in the climate change lobby there are mega bucks to be earned and some very shady ‘scientists’ sucking up as much filthy lucre as they can. In short,its a very profitable business being a global warming scare-monger. On a wider perspective it also illuminates just how utterly gullible a great many people are.

    • gubulgaria

      If you selected 28 eminent scientists at random, they would all be ‘Global warmists’.

      If you want a ‘balanced’ group, then you need at least 40 in order to get one denier. If you have more than 2.6% deniers on the panel, then it’s not representative of the real world.

      Of course, the BBC panel wasn’t all scientists, as they were interested in both science and its communication, but there aren’t that many anti-science loons at the top of any field.

      • doggywoggy

        “If you selected 28 eminent scientists at random, they would all be ‘Global warmists’.”

        Wrong, It appears that you are harbouring under the misaken belief that 97% of all scientists believe in the scientific consensus of man-made climate change.

        for a comprehensive and complete and extensive, indisputable destruction of that statistic from the Doran EoS paper which merely cites a MSc thesis for the actual source of this 97% figure and the actual survey, see the following:

        There is NO WHERE NEAR 97% of the world’s scientists in a consensus of the rate or extent or major cause and drivers of climate change.

        Every month there are more and more eminent scientists look at the non-scientifically measured and manipulated and cherry-picked evidence for the “cAGW” hypothesis and find it completely lacking and come out against AGW.

        As for this meeting, what was falsely described as the leading climate experts presenting independent and fair evidence that man-made global warming (as it was still known in 2006) was real and happening with such a degree of certainty (even MORE certainty than the IPCC itself was claiming) that the BBC should abandon its lawful duty to its charter and present only a one sided and uncritical support for one side of the debate, was nothing of the kind.

        We know who was there and what their motives where.

        The BBC and various activists and financially interested parties from the “renewable energy industry” all met, in secret, to agree to have the BBC lend its PRICELESS credibility and reputation for impartiality, honesty and truth, to what was certainly then, and still is 6 years later today) a contentious, and strongly disputed and debunked scientific hypothesis which also happened to underpin the financial market and industry that the BBC and those present were making large financial investments in.

        Far from being a neutral scientific exercise, this appears to be insider dealing, fraud, with these climate crooks and the BBC using their unique and overwhelmingly dominant role in the media to brainwash the nation so that they could all benefit financially from eco-lunacy industries, taxes, and the collections of environmental fines/penalties/fees, all based on the most disingenuous of scientific hypothesis.

        • FrenchNews

          …. fraud and insider dealing for which they should be held accountable, this is public money we are talking about.

      • HooksLaw

        Total ignorance of facts.

  • In2minds

    No, not just Corby, all over the UK!

Can't find your Web ID? Click here