The Enemy Within


That old subversive Andrew Neil goes off message:


afneil Andrew Neil   Isn’t it difficult for politicians to attack energy cos for rising prices when Commons voted to raise prices by 40% by 2020.


And another subversive, Paul Hudson (via Bishop Hill)

Real risk of a Maunder minimum ‘Little Ice Age’ says leading scientist

It’s known by climatologists as the ‘Little Ice Age’, a period in the 1600s when harsh winters across the UK and Europe were often severe.

The severe cold went hand in hand with an exceptionally inactive sun, and was called the Maunder solar minimum.

Now a leading scientist from Reading University has told me that the current rate of decline in solar activity is such that there’s a real risk of seeing a return of such conditions.


Paul Hudson is not a favourite of the Climate Change alarmist tribe…having previously (2009) stated that there had been no global warming since 1998 and that we may get a period of cooling…here Michael Mann complains (as revealed in the CRU emails):
‘…extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from
what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?



And at least ITN are fact checking what Ovo Energy are claiming:

itvnews ITV News Ovo Energy boss claims the firm cut prices last year – but firm’s website says it put prices up in April


Shame the BBC didn’t bother.

Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to The Enemy Within

  1. David Kay says:

    The supporters of AGW are sinking quicker than the hopes of a greenpeace terrorist hooligan getting bail for christmas.

    i hope they enjoy the turnip soup for christmas lunch


    • Stewart says:

      This chap doesn’t think much of Al Beeb,s reporting of climate change

      Intrigued about claim that CO2 levels have twice been higher ,than present, in last two centauries
      Any one know more about this?


      • David Kay says:

        thanks for the link stewart
        i’ll have to have a read of his site tomorrow


      • Old Goat says:

        CO2 levels have been far, far higher in the past, when global life generally thrived. Piers Corbyn has no time for the AGW-because-of-CO2 myth.


      • Beeboidal says:

        Any one know more about this?

        I didn’t, but having looked into it, I do now. Briefly, It relies on a paper by a biologist called Ernst Georg Beck. I have problems with it in that it claims large fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 in short timescales. It is very hard to see a mechanism that increases CO2 content in such a short timescale. It is even harder to envisage a mechanism by which this CO2 is removed form the atmosphere in such a short timescale.
        With all due respect to Piers Corbyn, It’s a non-runner for me.

        What is encouraging is that CAGW has had it’s first real encounter with high energy prices, and CAGW appears to be losing. Dave may buckle on green levies .Will the public in future accept the rising levies on energy that Big Green has planned for us?


  2. iainmac says:

    Interestingly, BBC reports on the union rep at Grangemouth who has just resigned state that he was being investigated by the company for his union activities whereas he was in fact being investigated for carrying out Labour Party business in company time. BBC is being very misleading.


    • thoughtful says:

      Sorry Iain but he was carrying out the business of Unite which apparently includes compromising the Labour party by signing up people as members often unawares. To be fair to Labour it had nothing to do with them and everything to do with Len McClusky who seems to want to be pulling the strings from behind the scenes.

      My feeling on this is that the over privileged Islington & Hampstead elite who actually run the Labour party are not going to allow some pig ignorant Jock Oik any inch what so ever ! Sod the unions, the Labour party gave up caring about the working man back around the time they lost to Margaret Thatcher and it doesn’t look like they’re going to be thinking about them anytime soon!


      • Jack says:

        Good to see the anti scots bigotry is still alive and well on this forum ‘Jock Oik’ FFS would anyone label Len MCCluskey with English so and so . No funny, that.


        • David Kay says:

          we wanna hear what we say about scousers, mancs and them suvern nonces. why should sweaty socks be any different?


        • Wild says:

          Jack, that remark is remarkably dim. Thoughtful is clearly attacking the snobbish Islington & Hampstead elite. Before you get offended try to understand what people are saying first.


          • Jack says:

            I hear what people are saying only too well. The fact that you still dont ‘get it’ shows how deep the bigotry runs. Let me explain one last time. When you criticise or comment on people who are English you never ever ever mention their nationality. For example in this very story a major player deserving of comment is Len McCluskey yet no one ever throws his nationality into the pot. For good reason, its irrelevant. Yet when its a Scot then almost every comment mentions their nationality in a derogatory fashion. Thats bigotry plain and simple. It may not be termed racism because of the strict definition of ‘race’ but the mind set is the same as a racist. The fact hat someone is a Scot is deserving of abuse. Your defence that ou also similarly abuse Scousers etc is laughable. You really not to look at yourself in the mirror over this. Here are many fellow scots who agree with much of what is said on his forum but who no longer visit it as it full of bigoted abuse frompeople who clearly see the mere fact hey live south of the border or in some cases south of Watford as giving them some sort of moral high ground. They are in fact horrible little people who are incapable of building any sort on consensus with potentially like minded people ( apart from the bigotory that is )


            • Wild says:

              “I hear what people are saying only too well.”

              Nope. Stop digging.


              • Stewart says:

                “I hear what people are saying only too well.”
                Clearly not, here’s what thoughtful said again especially for the hard of comprehending.
                ‘THE LABOUR PARTY are not going to allow some pig ignorant Jock Oik’
                he’s drawing attention to their ( the labour party’s) casual metropolitan snobbery
                An interesting aside is the fact that ‘Jock’ was originally used by highland scots as a derisory way of referring to lowland scots.
                Jock being their (highlanders) pronunciation of the common English name Jack .The implication being that they (lowlanders) were not true scots , which is to some extent historically correct


      • richard D says:

        Stevie Deans was (and may even still be) Falkirk Labour Party chairman. Ineos, his former employer, has apparently discovered that he spent something like 25% of his time on Labour Party business – (note – NOT Unite business, which he presumably, as a full-time trade union official , spent the rest of his time on).

        Part of that time was spent on recruiting Labour Party members from the constituency, enticing them by offering to have their Labour Party membership paid for by Unite. In return, they were expected to vote, when told, for the Prospective Parliamentary Candidate favoured by Unite, to replace the Former Labour MP, Eric Joyce, basically thrown out of the Labour Party for drunken brawling on a number of occasions whilst supposedly representing his constituency.

        So – in this particular regard, although he was acting in the interests of Unite, what Deans was doing was Labour Party recruitment, and therefore Labour Party business.

        And this was all laid out by people in Falkirk Labour Party, until they mysteriously withdrew their ‘evidence’ so that there was no case to answer for Deans’ behaviour, since the evidence that he was transgressing Labour Party rules was no longer available. Mr Milliband should have continued to investigate at this point, but instead, meekly capitulated to Unite, and its boss, Len McCluskey

        This is the point where everyone is wondering why, having been completely duped once, Mr Milliband appears not to be looking into the actions of his own local Party Chairman, given the release of the evidence in the form of 1,000+ e-mails apparently showing what he was doing. A Labour Party spokesperson hasd apparently claimed this had nothing to do with the Labour Party, but was a matter between Unite and Ineos. I would guess that most people would assume that Deans basically resigned as an Ineos employee before he got fired. And the reason for firing him would have been his conducting of Labour Party biusiness using company time and assets.

        The case he has to answer within the Labour Party will NOT be about what he did in his role as Unite union rep, so much as what he was doing within his role as Chairman of the Falkirk Labour Party, and what others in the Party were doing to help him. A putsch within the Labour Party is very much Labour Party business. Milliband was shoo-ed off the scene once by Unite, his paymasters, and he will look even weaker if he does not address this issue now.

        There apparently has already been, as a result of these e-mails being released, a fresh complaint to the police about the handling of the Labour Party candidate selection. There can be no question that this is a Labour Party problem.


        • Arthur Penney says:

          Everything is explained fully and simply in this article written by an impeccable source.


          • richard D says:

            Heh, heh. 😉


          • Stewart says:

            But thought this was interesting analysis from comments section
            wonder how guardian commissars allowed it through?

            LabanTall nocausetoaddopt

            29 October 2013 8:54pm


            Len says –

            “This is the bitter harvest of years of laws designed to weaken trade unionism, of neoliberal dogma that rules public ownership out of court, and of rule by a smug elite whose greatest achievement is not economic or social, but to have paralysed the will of politicians.”

            Laban says –

            “but trade unionism is weak because of the huge imbalance of power between employers and employees, because there are so many more people looking for work (employees) than people offering it (employers). So why has Unite been a cheerleader for mass immigration for the last 20 years, which drives down terms and conditions for employees while raising profits for employers?”

            Marx says –

            “The main purpose of the bourgeois in relation to the worker is, of course, to have the commodity labour as cheaply as possible, which is only possible when the supply of this commodity is as large as possible in relation to the demand for it”


          • Guest Who says:

            “Everything is explained fully and simply in this article written by an impeccable source.”

            Some good comments in response, garnering even better recommends.
            The Graun mods also having to grit teeth I imagine purging some responses to the more popular ones for what one imagines is a poor standard of debating civility.


  3. George R says:

    A reprise -James Delingpole:
    ” Why can’t the BBC be impartial in the climate change debate?
    “The Beeb constantly resorts to ‘experts’ whose arguments are bigoted, feeble, fatuous, fallacious and stupid.”