The Eco-loons are on the march in Kent on the first day of a week-long protest against plans to build a new coal-fired power station. Hundreds of activists are camping in a field outside the Kingsnorth plant. Green Party MEP Caroline Lucas told the rally new coal-fired power stations were a “crime against humanity” To understand the gravitas of the event just reflect on the BBC news that “Campaigners, some dressed in animal costumes, carried banners and placards and blew whistles and played tambourines as they marched.” Quite. There is no attempt made here to actually consider the science of the issue nor to ask if these ranting eco-loons are representative of the views held by the people of Kent. However we can be certain that Ms Lucas and her “war-crimes” hysteria resonates with the views held by the State Broadcaster.
ON THE MARCH
Bookmark the permalink.
and meanwhile, china builds about 15 coal fired stations PER WEEK…
pathetic isnt it?
i wonder if these idiots will ever realise that CO2 is PLANT FOOD… without CO2, theres no plants.
and without plants, there’s no O2 – and therefore, we die…
The crime is the BBC giving uncritical credibility to these dangerous ClimateCamp loons. If they have their way, Britain will be back to a Stone Age hell by 2030.
They are as fascist as the Nazis, as the fascinating site Environmentalism as Fascism so lucidly points out:
http://www.ecofascism.com/review11.html
Amidst all the ‘Green’-BBC propaganda, it’s hard to find one article which is pro-Kingsnorth; but here’s one, to counter the BBC’s one-sided misinformation:
“We need Kingsnorth – but we need nuclear power more”
http://www.moneyweek.com/file/40191/we-need-kingsnorth—but-we-need-nuclear-power-more.html
“Robin | 03.08.08 – 6:40 pm |”
damn fine link Robin…
“SS farmers understood “the superiority of organic farming methods as opposed to artificial fertilisers”. Himmler’s land-planning officer called for the criminalization of chemical fertilizers. Produce from SS-run farms and market-gardens was usually organic.”
is it any wonder that Prince Charley boy is into all this organic nonsense?
They discussed this on R4’s Today yesterday. Later on in the programme Evan Davis gave the following public service announcement:
“We were talking about Kingsnorth earlier and I got the wrong Kingsnorth. I google mapped Kingsnorth in Kent and picked one out near Ashford but actually if you’re going to protest at Kingsnorth it’s the one near Medway – you don’t need the one near Ashford at all. I’m told quite a few demonstrators have made the same mistake.”
But China is a commie country. The leftie loons like commies.
You’ll be pleased to know it’s been pissing down in Kent since last night & no sign of it stopping. (Must be the Gerbil Worming causing it)
There is justice.
Isn’t it really great that
“Hundreds of activists are camping in a field outside the Kingsnorth plant. ”
A hundred eco-loons can get major publicity from their friends at the BBC – and their aim is to deprive our country of energy.
And I always thought having nuclear missiles during the cold war was a “crime against humanity” – as far as Western missiles were concerned.
Good news everyone
the weather forecast from Al Beebs web site says, with the exception of tuesday, its going to piss down all week
outstanding :+:
Can any intelligent one among us work out how much energy the BBC uses to run itself ? The whole lot;lights, computers,tea urns, cameras, sound equipment, everything.
Then work out how much energy is used by the nation to watch TV. Would it be more or less if the BBC didn`t exist.
Also we must not forget the taxis, helicopters, outside crews use of fuel.
Then try to put those figures into the Global Warming scare, and get the BBC to shutup.
British Power Generation: The outlook is grim
(from EURef)
Not content with its anti-power station propaganda, the BBC now manages to couple it with some anti-police propaganda!:
“Climate camp policing criticised”
(by Tanya Gupta).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7534215.stm
Can someone redefine the term “activist” for me? What does it mean in 2008???
Most of these eco loons are white middle class arts liberals who spent all their time on the piss, shagging and taking drugs.
These brainless fuckwits seem to think that not having electricity will save the planet.
If they want to ‘save the planet’ (who for by the way) wouldn’t they be better off telling humanity to kill itself in one go?
They totally ignore the biggest danger, which is over population.
They don’t like the idea of population control (less of them to spout their shite) so it’s breed away.
i wonder if tomorow morning on Al Beebs Breakfast propaganda show they’ll have lots of footage of polar bears clinging onto melting ice cubes and live footage from camp moonbat
I keep wondering… what would the results be if we allowed a bunch of polar bears to roam freely in “Camp Moonbat”?
I’m not a real sadist but I’d love to see the results.
I do like ‘Camp Moonbat’!
The BBc interviwed one Ms Mel Evans on the web page – here are her friends.
http://www.ameliasmagazine.com/amelias_blog/earth/
And I bet not one of them knows what a greenhouse gas is.
Original Robin,
Don’t forget transport costs,all those outside broadcasts,staff who commute from leafier suburbs.
What is most ironic is that the BBC is intensely electronic technology based.
You are right,what is the carbon footprint of the BBC?
Jon,
When the lights go out and the human predators eke out sustenance,that lot will be supper.
Thanks to George R for the “MoneyWeek” link. I was there, substituting on Medway ouncil’s planning (development control) committee that evening, asi t happened.
I have also written my own article on this matter HERE, which might be worth reading…
There’s a studiously balanced request for comments at the bottom of the BBC story too.
Are you taking part in the rally? What are your thoughts about the plans for a coal-fired power station?
Help, please !
Someone recently posted a link to an opinion poll about trust in the media – broken down by political views of the respondents.
It showed lab / lib supporters very trusting of MSM – but conservative / right wingers much less trusting.
Where is the origianl post / survey / site ?
What do these people do? If i said to my boss that i wanted a week off to try and shut down a power station in Kent, i know what his rection would be!! These are the usual moon worshipping anti capitalism tree huggers who are quite happy to live on benefits. Why do we treat them as if they are some sort of tribe of warriors who should be admired?
I can just see Caroline Lucas and her speech-writer:
Speechwriter: How about “Just 100 months to save the world” – nice and catchy ?
Lucas: No – its good, but it doesn’t explain our policy.
Speechwriter: OK, “Just 100 months to get back to the stone age” – that the policy, right ?
Lucas: It’s specific – but maybe too negative.
Spechwriter: OK, why not “Just 100 months in which to effect a massive transition away from a fossil fuel economy”.
Lucas: Wow – let’s go with that. Yeah.
Steve.
All the hippies I have met have been middle class types. They will have rich parents with big houses that they csn retire to in the winter, that will have contacts to get them jobs if they grow up.
I love this statement:
“The Government’s addiction to fossil fuels is not only destroying the environment, but also people’s lives now.”
Actually fossil fuels and the technologies which have been made possible by them are responsible for more than doubling our average life expectancies in less than 250 years – perhaps the single greatest achievement of mankind in history. The smokestacks which these environmentalist nutjobs hate so much are actually the lungs of humanity. Nothing, aside from sex, has brought more life into this world than dirty, heavy industry.
But OK, OK…let’s decrease our reliance on fossil fuels. Let’s go nuclear instead. OK asswipes?
“Campaigners, some dressed in animal costumes, carried banners and placards and blew whistles and played tambourines as they marched.”
Of course they did. Lefties and hippies love these get-togethers. They imagine they’re at a medieval carnival. Leftist types love fancy dress, juggling, tarot-cards, I-Ching, riding on unicycles, painting their faces and walking on stilts.
You have to go back two years to find something like this on the BBC site:
“Clean coal can plug UK’s energy gap”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4781257.stm
Currently, the BBC has taken up an embedded political position amongst the undemocratic ‘green’ threateners.
Original Robin..
Quite agree. I reckon that cameron should abolish the BBC as an environmental measure:
Gets rid of one the UKs largest energy users
Gives every family £140 a year to help out during these tight times
Flogs off all of the BBc assets to fill “Brown” holes in the economy.
There are more licence payers than Beeboids, so it is win, win, win.
he would be frigging mad NOT to do it. labour cannot as they need any cheerleader to try and win the next election.
The Beeb cannot complain – after all MMCC/AGW etc etc is a “real” problem, so any action taken has to be a good thing!
Its always the same rent a mob rabble of middleclass bored kids trying to copy their 60s/80s rent a mob parents/plastic revolutionaries with plenty of money and the promise of a well fed parasitic future lifestyle courtesy of the taxslave proles!
But hey, who needs the modern physical sciences eh? Who needs all that technology eh? I mean, whats technology and industry ever done fer us eh? Yeah, we dont need no boring science or maths or engineering or nuclear physics or biology or chemistry or indusrial engineering do we? All we need is a media degree and a political science degree! Yeah thatll work!
Jack Hughes | 04.08.08 – 12:43 am |
Jack, here you go:
http://www.politicshome.com/#2069
Scroll down to the bottom of the page and you’ll find it dated as 24/07/2008
Good grief:
“i wonder if these idiots will ever realise that CO2 is PLANT FOOD… without CO2, theres no plants.
and without plants, there’s no O2 – and therefore, we die…”
And since plantlife is currently being eroded by human greed, what’s going to soak up the CO2?
I love comments like this one: “Most of these eco loons are white middle class arts liberals who spent all their time on the piss, shagging and taking drugs.” — it just highlights the idea that there are as many nutters on here as sane, slightly miffed people. Statements like this are impossible to prove and just show a real dislike of an ISSUE, not people.
And then another, somewhat different to this poster: “are the usual moon worshipping anti capitalism tree huggers who are quite happy to live on benefits.”
Not trying to make a point here other than the amount of drivvel spouted by the anti climate-change briggade. Whatever that means. How can you be “anti-” anything that is a fact verified by the vast majority of scientists in this field. A bit like being anti- cancer or anti- BSE.
Look, I’m not having a go at anyone in my quotes, but just consider: what if these scientists are right? What if the other “experts” empoyed by oil companies et-al who warp and/or ignore evidence of climate change are wrong? Think about it. How can even them most ardent climate change denier be 100% certain?
I know the point of this is balanced reporting, but since CC is a near-certainty within the scientific community I don’t think the BBC is obliged to include a naysayer for every article and interview. Otherwise they’ll need an Elvis nutter commenting every time they mention the King’s “death” and a creationist to counter every mention of fossils or whenever a guest hints that maybe the Earth is a bit older than 30,000 years.
I am starting a pledge for true Greens.
A True Green must swear to forgo any product,service and means of transport derived from fossil fuels.
This means.
No electricity generated by other than green technology.
No gas for cooking or central heating,except gases from natural sources.
No vehicular transport (see above)
No machine made products made on machines driven by fossil fuels,electricity or gas
No machines made by the above technology,this includes wind turbines and wave technology.
Food must be organic, seasonal and local.
Tools restricted to those which can be made by hand from naturally found materials.
No pharmacological products other than those grown naturally.
No plastics or chemically derived products.
All greens must vacate their homes and accommodation and move into teepees,yurts,lean tos and other kinds of natural shelter.
Those who fulfill the pledge may call themselves truly green and will earn our respect for the rest of their short miserable diseased ridden lives.
A Moonbat writes: “I know the point of this is balanced reporting, but since CC is a near-certainty within the scientific community ”
Did you miss the two occasions where the following was posted, or can you not read?
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/consensus_what_consensus_among_climate_scientists_the_debate_is_not_over.html
There is no consensus (even if it mattered). You’ve been conned. Now please change the record.
!Look, I’m not having a go at anyone in my quotes, but just consider: what if these scientists are right? ”
What if they are wrong? We are embarking on a ruinously costly project to build thousands of wind turbines which,
1)Can not be be built in the timescale,because the jack-up barges to position the turbines out at sea simply don’t exist in sufficient numbers.
2)Do not have sufficient available funding.Nuclear would be cheaper but still time a decade.
3)Are only some 30% efficient,produce electricity only when the wind blow and not at peak times.
4)The Grid would have to be restructured since it cannot take large and random surges of power.
Amidst all this chaos come the EU carbon trading scheme whereby those who emit CO2 have to buy permits from the government.This of course simply results in companies relocating or outsourcing.
On the top of this lunacy come the Large Combustion Plant Directive which will close down our largest coal fired power stations.This coincides nicely with the decommissioning of our remaining nuclear power stations.
The net effect is that,sometime in the next five years,being generous,the lights will go out.Our computerised economy will come to a sudden stop like a blown light bulb.
Schools and hospitals will close,refrigerators in shops and homes will stop working.
Shortly after that the riots will start.
Oh I forgot,we are probably entering a thirty year cooling period.
Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “Eat your greens”.
“since CC is a near-certainty within the scientific community ”
This another logical fallacy,a call to authority.It is used to cover the fact that the user has no arguments.
Let`s look at the BBC type Eco again.
He thinks that combatting climate change will be a bit of fun.He will cycle instead of taking a car, and because everyone else will have to, the journey will be more pleasant than if there was an increase in motor vehicle traffic.He will turn his central heating down 2 centigrade, install a wind turbine and solar panel,and watch where he buys his food from.No unnecesary lights and eco bulbs in, a water butt in the garden,recycling all the rubbish and other fun to do things.
Then at the extreme end there is the one who wants no cars, electrity from anything but a windmill, sustainable agriculture, local buying of everything and a middle ages,village economy.Because that will also be fun.
What though, if they have to have the middle way, as foisted on us ?So far they haven`t thought about it, but what if they were made to?
IE:They cannot have the computers on ready all the time, all excesses like the canteen changed, their job changed to something they dont like (like no travelling to report on events) or even lose their job, because we dont need them to do it. (Do we need marketing managers, personnel and 24 hour television in the Green world ?).
In other words the world goes on, but they would not the supreme beings they are now.Most will be on the dole or stacking shelves at Tesco.
What we need is for other medias to highlight the waste of power the BBC is, so that every time this climate change scare is brought up by them, most people will think they are part of the problem, not just reporting it.
Then they might look at two sides to every story.
Well, they’ve reported on the rally now which I think is perfectly justifiable given that it exists.
I’d also expect a brief debate between any ‘leaders’ and a suitably senior representative of the British energy industry, neutrally facilitated.
After that, they presumably don’t have to report on it again unless illegal activity happens in which the state broadcaster would resolutely uphold the public’s disgust at a transgression of British laws, right? Certainly we don’t need any blanket media coverage if these dudes are just sitting in a field playing tambourines whilst dressed as animals, surely??
Cockney writes: “Certainly we don’t need any blanket media coverage if these dudes are just sitting in a field playing tambourines whilst dressed as animals, surely??”
No. But I imagine that’s what we’ll be getting, don’t you?
How to report it.
The Eco freindly way;
A newsreader describes the incident.No pictures,no footage.
The Non eco freindly BBC way,
A reporter is “sent down” to the place, complete with hangers on, outside film crew etc. A helicopter gives an overhead view.
The point is ,the BBC doesn’t report on every event,the BBC is selective,it decides what the news should be,it doesn’t reflect public interest,it decides what the public interest should be.
devils advocate? what evidence?? all i can find is the i.p.c.c govermental report backed by some climate experts and a lot of er well social thinkers/planers/economists i.e 10 out of 51 of the british contigent have climate or other qualification related to the ares in the report overwhelming or what i’m sold !
mind 32’000 scientists signed a petition
saying the opposite so even if you discount 2/3rds as a bit iffy qualification wise thats about 10.000+
hmmm tricky i’l have to toss a coin !!
What makes me laugh is the BBC itself doesn’t partake in any of these schemes.
So we get wanker Harrabin lecturing us the prols about not flying so much, but they themselves (and Harrabin in particular) doesn’t practice what he preaches.
This of course is very common with the left in general.
1. They tell us to take fewer holidays and fly but they themselves do the opposite (Polly Toynbee)
2. They tell us to send our kids to shit third rate dumphole state schools which they lie about the perofmances of, but send their own kids to public or grammar schools (Diane Abbott and Harriet Harman)
3. They tell us to drive smaller cars and use public transport, but they wouldn’t dare go near a train or a bike (Diane Abbot and most of the cabinet)
In America, they are looking at giving people another tax break to compensate for the increase in the cost of fuel and food.
Over here, they are putting taxes UP again. Go on Gordon keep going, at this rate come the next election Nu Liebour will be down to under 100 MP’s at this rate.
Jon: wrote:
““The BBc interviewed one Ms Mel Evans on the web page – here are her friends.
http://www.ameliasmagazine.com/amelias_blog/earth/
And I bet not one of them knows what a greenhouse gas is.”
You know for a while now I’ve noticed that the vast majority of British socialists, you know those who promulgate all these luddite ideas in which to save the earth. (Why does the BBC’s fav Tony Ben come to mind) aren’t short of a bob or two. So while perusing through the above link I came across this ever so transparent plug for a eco friendly shopping bag which could be used instead of an earth damaging Plastic one. I did however notice one problem (well two actually)
A) It costs £150 (Yes £150)
B) It’s made of leather. (Don’t think the animals rights lot will like that)
http://www.ameliasmagazine.com/amelias_blog/2008/07/splashing_out_for_a_worthy_cau.php
I remember seeing some video on YouTube of the same sort of Che-t-shirt-wearing, bongo-plying, juggling activists as these during the last G8 meeting in Scotland. They couldn’t get near the compound to tell all of the leaders of the world’s 8 richest countries what fascist baby-killing criminals they are in person, so they tried to get nearer by cutting across some guy’s farm. He, seeing a load of hippies trespassing on his land, came out brandishing a bat and proceeded to tell them to get the fuck off his land whilst waving the weapons around menacingly, much to the shock and horror of the hippies (‘How could a noble peasant farmer who spends his days tending mother Earth for the benefit of feeding poor people hate us so?’). Others cut across fields and ended up getting chased by a herd of cows. It was brilliant. I assume it was one of them that put up the video because after the overwhelming majority of comments turned out to ridicule them – and my ‘Even the cows hate you’ comment – it was promptly taken down. At least, I can’t find it anymore.
Devils advocate,
I take it you meant to say that MAN MADE climate is a near certainty in the scientific comunity? Natural climate change based on cycles is a proven fact yes? Whereas human influenced climate change is still a theory yes?
Just want to be sure of your belief position DA as the the fact and the theory when not prefaced can become confused by some!
As you must know there are many scientists who disagree with the AGW theory and they are not all in the pay of big oil are they? Here lies the problem we face when trying to uncover facts and truths from propaganda.
Look at it from the ‘deniers’ position just for a while OK? The BBC is only offering one side of a scientific theory and its obvious that any science not backing up the AGW theory is ignored as much as possible, so its quite possible that people are thinking something smells fishy yes? Its obvious that the IPCC is a political setup controlled by a small group editing out critical science yes? I can assure you and promise you that tens of thousands of scientists DO NOT agree with the AGW theory and to boldly assert that ‘nearly all scientists speak with one voice’ does your case no god whatsoever!
I am sorry that it takes a dummy like me to remind you that ANY scientific theory is only as good as the real world observable evidence that supports that theory and the most recent observations are most certainly not supportive of a carbon dioxide driven or assisted warming. Does this mean that the AGW theory is dead? of course not BUT because the incoming data is not consistent with the theory then it is only common sense to wait and look at the evidence more closely!
I and others here would take you more seriously if you were to take a more impartial and balanced view and I offer this challenge, give me one example of scientific research that contradicts part of the AGW theory, I would be very interested to hear your reply, when I do, I will post a similar one OK? To see the full picture you have to look at the full picture even if doing so may challenge your preconceptions!
Cassandra: The problem is green left mafia are mostly arts graduates. They have NO understanding as to how science works, nor for the most part do they care.
A while back Radio 5 had one of the usual anti space phone-ins (what has space ever done for us)
Of course it was a panel of the usual mincing liberals (Richard Bacon being one) who think it’s wrong to spend money on space research when millions starve. Forgetting of course more money is spent on the arts than on space research.
Not only that, but research in one area often leads indirectly to breakthrough’s in other areas.
The classic of recent times has to be the world wide web. Berners-Lee wasn’t working at Cern to create the WWW, but as part of his work he was looking at how to link documents etc across networks. This eventually gave us the WWW.
I once explained this to an arts person and I pointed out that if CERN hadn’t existed we either wouldn’t have the WWW or it would have taken years longer to develop (because CERN gave Berners-Lee the time to develop it AND effectively gave it to the world for free)
The arts person just didn’t get it. And that’s the problem, they seem to think someone just sits down and invents something.
With people that thick probably running the BBC and the Country, is there any hope when talking about climate change theories?
Devil’s Advocate | 04.08.08 – 10:37 am
“How can you be “anti-” anything that is a fact verified by the vast majority of scientists in this field. A bit like being anti- cancer or anti- BSE.”
So you cite BSE – just goes to show how gullible you are – BSE was supposed to kill thousands of people according “top scientists” – and it didn’t – it was a typical scare latched on by the BBC and hyped up.
Also as I’ve asked before, can you give me at least 30 names of the “vast majority of scientists in this field.”
Its not much to ask and if they are prominent it should be easy.
The same people that want us covered in wind turbines are the same ones that will object when the power companies try to build lines of pylons to link all the windmills up to the population centres.
When the lights start to go out the greens will be the first to find reasons why they should be the last to be left in the dark.