Blackouts are a-coming

I have been warning of upcoming power-shortages in the UK for some years now; in fact suppliers of large generator should be sending me Xmas cards. I have even blogged about this subject on quite a few occasions. Today I read that

"Britain could face regular blackouts within seven years if the Government does not intervene in the energy market to ensure that more power stations are built, the head of National Grid says today.

In an interview with The Times, Steve Holliday, chief executive of the company that operates the power and gas transmission network, said that Britain was facing an acute shortage of generating capacity because a string of ageing nuclear and coal-fired plants were due to be retired from service.

The warning came after Ofgem, the energy industry regulator, said on Friday that it was to consider fresh incentives to encourage the development of renewable energy schemes in Britain.

Mr Holliday said that National Grid’s own analysis indicated that, under a business-as-usual scenario, Britain would fail to attract enough investment in new plants and would lack sufficient generating capacity to meet peak demand around 2015. "

I confidently predict blackouts well before 2015, my best guess would be the winter of 2010/11.

Reliance on Wind Power leads to Blackouts

I have blogged about this before and no doubt will gaian, but in this case take a read of Watts Up With That as they write about Texas's recent blackouts:

'When the wind is light, the turbine blades do not turn. And, the coldest nights usually occur with snow cover and light winds. The 9pm weather map for the region is below. The red number at upper right is the current temperature and they are well below zero deep into New Mexico and parts of Kansas and Colorado, so regional power use is high. Springfield, CO was already -15°F. Temperatures are in the single digits and teens over most Texas with very light winds in the areas where the turbines are located.'

Reliance on wind power is ridiculous and I fail to understand why supposedly intelligent people cannot see that.

The twenty-sixth weekly "No shit, Sherlock" award

This week the award is more of a "No shit, Sherlocks" award as it goes to the Commons Select Business and Energy Committee for stating that the UK faces a "disastrous energy crunch", that the threat of future blackouts is "real" unless existing coal and nuclear plants are replaced as power stations supplying around a third of the UK's energy needs will close by 2020 and that "The concern that people have about prices will be a picnic compared with significant number of power cuts".

"No shit, Sherlocks"

Maybe the Labour government and the Committee should read my articles on this matter, including here, here, here and here. Or perhaps some reading of Christopher Booker in The Telegraph might enlighten them as to why the blackouts are coming, alternatively the Labour government could not do anything constructive but just release some dodgy statistics to show that the UK has never been so well prepared for power shortages and see if the public will swallow more lies.

The one hundred and sixty third weekly "No shit Sherlock" award

This week's award is presented to the National Grid as reported by The Times for this insight:

'The risk of electricity blackouts will be at the highest level for six years this winter and even greater in subsequent years because of lack of investment in new power plants, according to National Grid.

The safety margin of the UK's power supply system has fallen in the past two years from 17 per cent above the level needed to cope in an "average cold spell" to 5 per cent.

National Grid admitted that a prolonged period of low wind, common in cold spells, would push the margin even lower as output plummeted from the nation's 5,000 wind turbines... '

Lack of power supply provision means an increased risk of power blackouts - "No shit, Sherlock"

And thanks to Ed Miliband for massively assisting in causing this problem.

And so the blackouts start

For around five years I have been advising clients to invest in backup generators for their offices as a precaution against the coming blackouts that will result from the government's woeful record of investment in electricity generating capacity. Now I learn that nine power stations had to shut down yesterday causing the National Grid to issue a "demand control imminent" warning and strongly urge suppliers to provide lower-voltage electricity to meet demand.

Two points:

1) So the fourth largest economy in the world cannot cope with the shutdown of nine power stations. This Labour government decided to spend large amounts of money on ridiculous computer systems, smart suited consultants and creating a client state rather that actually investing money in the infrastructure of this country.

2) Was this just coincidental? Nine power stations failing within a 12 hour period. Might that be more than coincidental? Conspiracy theory or possible fact? Here's an article from The NEw Scientist from 10 days ago:

"POWER plants could be sabotaged by a simple internet attack that shuts down their control systems.

Core Security in Boston, Massachusetts, has discovered a serious vulnerability in a software package called Suitelink that is widely used to automate the operation of power stations, oil refineries and production lines. This could allow attackers to crash Suitelink by sending an outsize data packet to a certain port on the computer running the program. Suitelink's maker, Wonderware, has since issued a software patch to plug the security gap.

Core had only just begun examining this kind of supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) program when it found the problem. This may mean that more vulnerabilities are still hidden in software of this type."

Here's an extract from more on that story at CNet:

""I will tell (you) how to break into a nuclear reactor," Ira Winkler, president of security firm ISAG said as he launched into his presentation on "How to Take Down the Power Grid" at RSA 2008 on Tuesday night.

"Frankly, it's really easy to break into the power grid," he said. "It happens all the time."

First, you set up a Web server that downloads spyware onto the computers that visit.

Second, you send an e-mail to people who work inside a power station that entices them to click on a hyperlink to the Web server with the spyware. Warning them that their human resources benefits are going to be cut and sending them to a Web site with "hr.com" in the domain would work, according to Winkler, who said he has done this several times in company-approved penetration tests.

Third, you wait as the recipients--and everyone else they forwarded the e-mail to--visit the server and get infected.

"Then we had full system control," he said. "Once the malware was downloaded onto their systems...we could see the screens and manipulate the cursors."

It took about a day to set up the attack and was effective within minutes, according to Winkler.

"It had to be shut down after a couple of hours because it was working too well," he said.

This is akin to social engineering attacks that happen all the time, but this attack has more far-reaching consequences than most such attacks.

Power stations running special SCADA control software have the perception that they are more secure than other networked systems. However, they are just as vulnerable because they are connected to the Internet and run on computers that also run Windows NT, he said.

"Things are really this bad," Winkler said. "I'm not exaggerating.""

Of course there is another less likely possibility as the BBC reported six years ago:

"MI5 has drawn up a secret list of more than 350 key British institutions considered potential terrorist targets in the wake of the threat posed by al-Qaeda forces.

Key government buildings and installations vital to the economy are on the "critical national infrastructure" list.

...

The list is thought to include the country's 15 nuclear power stations, the main National Grid sites, oil installations and petrochemical facilities."

Just something else to worry about as the economy goes phut!

That's peculiar

Today I read that:

"Venezuela has imposed an electricity rationing programme which will lead to four-hour blackouts every week across the country. "

But yesterday I read that:

"Scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey announced Friday that approximately 513 billion barrels of “technically recoverable” oil were found in the Orinoco belt region of Venezuela – twice as much as previously believed.

Outside the Middle East, the largest oil reserves in the world exist in Venezuela. The Orinoco region spans a 50,000-square-kilometer (19,305-square-mile) area in the eastern portion of the country. Nearly 20 foreign oil companies hold contracts there, according to the Latin American Herald Tribune."

That's odd...

The lights will be going out all over the UK

The Telegraph reports:

"The UK is at "real risk" of imminent power shortages as a result of attempts to shift to more environmentally friendly methods of electrictity production, a report has warned.

The study, which was carried out by Capgemini, a global energy consultancy firm, also claims that electricity generation has fallen to its lowest level in ten years.

The shortage has been caused by the increase in the level of demand for energy combined with a growing tendency to build wind turbines, at the expense of other, more reliable, electricity sources, it says.

The report estimates that around one quarter of the UK's energy plant capacity will close by 2015 as the country struggles to balance its carbon emissions targets with production of new energy sources.

An added problem is that Britain is moving from being self-sufficient in oil and gas as North Sea production declines, the report states.

In 2005, the UK became a net importer of gas. By 2010, imports could account for 40 per cent of British gas needs; by 2020, 80 per cent to 90 per cent.

Nuclear reactors currently account for about 20 per cent of Britain's electricity, but this will shrink to 6 per cent in 20 years as ageing plants are closed down.

A spokesman for Capgemini said that unless new power stations are built "the lights will go out".

He added: "Last year the system very nearly ran out of power and situation is still very tight. We have a large number of power stations that are going to close between now and 2015.

"There are stations that are planned to replace them but these stations are being built fairly slowly and the planned output of the new power stations will not necessarily cover those that are closing.

"We still have time to sort this out but over the next few years we may well be facing a shortage of energy."

The report also warned that the credit crunch had slowed down investment into utilities infrastructure across Europe and warned that governments should expect a "difficult wake up" once the recession is over.

It estimates that an investment of at least 1 trillion euros (£790 billion) is needed across the continent over the next 25 years.

Last year a report by Logica CMG, a business consultancy firm, warned that demand for energy could outstrip supply by almost one quarter within eight years.

The loss to the economy could be £108 billion each year, it said.

It comes just a fortnight after energy experts warned that Britain faces blackouts within ten years as power stations go out of service.

They claimed that government dithering had failed to guarantee the construction of new plants.

Nine oil and coal-fired power plants are to close by 2015 because of an EU directive that aims to limit pollution.

At the same time, four ageing nuclear power plants will also be shut.

Dr Jon Gibbins, of Imperial College and many other industry experts are concerned the UK is becoming increasingly reliant on imported gas, which can show sudden price hikes.

It also puts Britain at the mercy of gas rich states in the Middle East and Russia, which is increasingly flexing its muscles as the world's first energy super-power.

Dr Gibbins said it is vital that Britain has a diverse source of electricity, from nuclear, renewable sources, such as wind power, and coal fired power stations where the carbon emissions are captured and stored under ground.

Dr Gibbins was one of 31 experts quizzed on the issue by BBC News.

The Government is aiming to cover 20 per cent of electricity needs from renewable energy sources such as wind and wave power by 2020. This would require a multi-billlion pound investment which does not appear to be forthcoming, the experts said.

Energy minister Michael O'Brien insisted the UK is building sufficient new power stations. He pointed to the fact that the French company EDF is committed to spending £12.5billion on delivering new nuclear power stations."

I have blogged previously about the way that this country is going to have severe power generation problems in the very near future. As I have said before, buy a generator.

The UK and world economy

I am renowned at home, work and amongst friends as having being an economic pessimist for the last five years and as having been predicting a crash in house prices and economic ruin for that long. Of course my views were widely derided as friends and colleagues bought portfolios of buy to let properties and boasted of the power of "leverage".

Last year as property prices stalled there was some acceptance that maybe the property market would suffer a small correction but nowhere the 40% that I had been predicting. Now the consensus seems to be that maybe, just maybe, I might have been right.

I started very quietly predicting the coming of a 1929 like depression around a year to 18 months ago, quietly because I just knew the reaction I would get. I started pushing the idea last summer but oddly it has been only in the last few weeks that any credence has been placed on my views.

My problem is that a few months back I started to fear that what was around the corner might actually be worse than I had originally feared and that a 1929 depression might be a walk in the park compared to what we were heading towards. Quantative easing being seriously discussed, 200 shops a day predicted to be closing soon, blackouts on the way, war in the Middle East soon to spread beyond Gaza, war between India and Pakistan on the way..........

It doesn't look good does it?


On November 30th last year I blogged this, that I repeat in full: "The Telegraph report:

"Gold is poised for a dramatic surge and could blast through $2,000 an ounce by the end of next year as central banks flood the world's monetary system with liquidity, according to an internal client note from the US bank Citigroup.

The bank said the damage caused by the financial excesses of the last quarter century was forcing the world's authorities to take steps that had never been tried before.

This gamble was likely to end in one of two extreme ways: with either a resurgence of inflation; or a downward spiral into depression, civil disorder, and possibly wars. Both outcomes will cause a rush for gold.

"They are throwing the kitchen sink at this," said Tom Fitzpatrick, the bank's chief technical strategist.

"The world is not going back to normal after the magnitude of what they have done. When the dust settles this will either work, and the money they have pushed into the system will feed though into an inflation shock.

"Or it will not work because too much damage has already been done, and we will see continued financial deterioration, causing further economic deterioration, with the risk of a feedback loop. We don't think this is the more likely outcome, but as each week and month passes, there is a growing danger of vicious circle as confidence erodes," he said.

"This will lead to political instability. We are already seeing countries on the periphery of Europe under severe stress. Some leaders are now at record levels of unpopularity. There is a risk of domestic unrest, starting with strikes because people are feeling disenfranchised."

"What happens if there is a meltdown in a country like Pakistan, which is a nuclear power. People react when they have their backs to the wall. We're already seeing doubts emerge about the sovereign debts of developed AAA-rated countries, which is not something you can ignore," he said.

Gold traders are playing close attention to reports from Beijing that the China is thinking of boosting its gold reserves from 600 tonnes to nearer 4,000 tonnes to diversify away from paper currencies. "If true, this is a very material change," he said.

Mr Fitzpatrick said Britain had made a mistake selling off half its gold at the bottom of the market between 1999 to 2002. "People have started to question the value of government debt," he said.

Citigroup said the blast-off was likely to occur within two years, and possibly as soon as 2009. Gold was trading yesterday at $812 an ounce. It is well off its all-time peak of $1,030 in February but has held up much better than other commodities over the last few months – reverting to is historical role as a safe-haven store of value and a de facto currency.

Gold has tripled in value over the last seven years, vastly outperforming Wall Street and European bourses. "


I have been saying for three years that gold is where our money should be, maybe Mrs NotaSheep will listen this time... "

Once again I wonder if Mrs NotaSheep will listen to me...

"Green" Climate polices: probably unnecessary; certainly ineffectual; ruinously expensive

Roger Helmer, is on a mission to bring the truth about man made climate change and green power generation to the public.

Here is his latest press release:

'An East Midlands MEP has launched a campaign to challenge what he calls "Climate Hysteria". Conservative Roger Helmer MEP believes that current changes in climate are entirely driven by natural forces, and that policies designed to mitigate climate change by cutting CO2 emissions, although hugely expensive, will achieve nothing. He explains his thinking on his web-site at www.rogerhelmer.com

He will be unveiling billboards in major cities across the region with the slogan "GREEN CLIMATE POLICIES: PROBABLY UNNECESSARY; CERTAINLY INEFFECTUAL; RUINOUSLY EXPENSIVE", as soon as the sub zero temperatures affecting the United Kingdom subside. The poster campaign is backed by electronic media, including a banner on the popular Conservative Home website.

Helmer has worked on the climate issue for a number of years, organising seminars in the European parliament, attending conferences in the UK and the USA, working with prominent climate scientists, and publishing a book and a DVD on the subject. He is currently on his way to the UN Climate Conference in Cancun, Mexico.

He notes that recent opinion polls show that a majority of citizens in the UK and the USA no longer believe the hype on climate, and the public are increasingly tired of being blamed by politicians and the media for a non-problem. They are especially reluctant to pay green taxes and higher power bills "to combat climate change". Helmer notes that increasing numbers of scientists are also challenging the climate orthodoxy. A recent reader poll in the prestigious journal Scientific American showed 77% no longer believe that human activity causes climate change.

Helmer argues that even if we in Britain were to close down our economy, our shortfall in emissions would be made up by China in around twelve months. China, he says, is building a new coal-fired power station every week, with India not far behind. Nothing we do will make any difference.

Meantime many renewable technologies, like wind power, deliver only an intermittent trickle of very expensive electricity. The UK's renewables policies, spearheaded by Lib-Dem Chris Huhne MP, are likely to drive up electricity bills by 40% by 2020. Helmer argues that renewables will never do more than to contribute at the margin, and that the UK's future power generation must be based on coal and nuclear. Unless we commit to that programme, he says, we will see extensive blackouts and power failures within a few years.'

Here is a sumary of his video statement:

'In 1975, serious scientists were warning of Global Cooling and the coming Ice Age. They were wrong. Today some of the same scientists are warning of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). I think they’re wrong again. If you imagine that the world began in 1975, you could be forgiven for buying into the AGW theory. But the moment you take a longer view, it’s clearly untenable.

In the last hundred years, average global temperature has risen a mere 0.7 degrees C. Even this may be an exaggeration, because of the "Urban Heat Island" effect. There is ample evidence that results from ground-based weather stations have been contaminated by urban sprawl, tarmac, car parks, vehicles, buildings and air-conditioning units. Temperature data from satellites over the last thirty years show some warming, but less than that from ground stations.

This slight rise is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate cycles. We need no special explanation. It is possible to identify a long-term, 1000 to 1500 year climate cycle that has been in place for a million years. It can be clearly seen during the 10,000 years or so of the current Interglacial, with the Hollocene Maxima; the Roman Optimum, followed by the cool Dark Ages; the Mediæval Warm Period (when the Vikings got to Greenland, it was green!); the Little Ice Age (with winter ice so thick on the Thames that they had fairs, and roasted oxen, on the river); and now a gentle recovery to what promises to be a new 21st Century Optimum.

They tell us that we are at risk of a Tipping Point, of "runaway global warming", and species extinction. But look at the history: it was warmer in the last two climate optima, yet there was no Tipping Point, no runaway effect, no species extinction. Last time I checked, polar bears, the Warmists’ pin-up species, were thriving, with increased numbers, as the Arctic has warmed slightly.

Many scientists believe that the Sun is the main driver of the Earth’s climate, and certainly the long-term correlations of climate and solar activity are much better than with CO2. In particular the Maunder and Dalton Minima, very cold periods of the Little Ice Age, were clearly associated with low solar activity. There is a credible theory that solar magnetism affects the flux of cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, which in turn drives cloud cover and hence climate. NASA has identified warming over recent decades on Mars, where the carbon dioxide ice caps are shrinking, and on the moons of Jupiter. Since there are no 4x4s on those planets, this warming across the Solar System strongly points to a solar cause.

There are at least four good reasons to believe that the current warming is not caused by CO2 – man-made or not.

1 Current CO2 levels are rather low: In geo-historical terms, current CO2 levels are very low. It is true, as the Warmists say, that the current CO2 level of around 400 ppm is the highest since the Industrial Revolution. Yet taking the long view, it is historically low. Atmospheric CO2 levels have been ten or fifteen times as high – 4000 to 6000 ppm. And these periods were not associated with warming. Indeed they partly covered a major Ice Age. No Tipping Point. No runaway global warming. Biologists tell us that if we halved the CO2 level to 200 ppm, plants would cease to grow. CO2 a good thing. It is virtually airborne fertiliser. It increases biomass formation and crop yields. It is our best hope of feeding a hungry planet.

2 The Signature or Fingerprint of warming: The computer models on which the Warmists’ predictions are based, in their Nintendo Games approach, give widely different results, depending on initial conditions. But they all agree on one point: a CO2/greenhouse warming should be most marked in the upper atmosphere, between 5 and 10 km altitude, and in the Earth’s equatorial region. Here we have a testable hypothesis. There should be a tropical hot spot. But observation shows no such effect. The little warming we have seen is primarily at ground level, mainly Northern hemisphere. Science works by falsifying hypotheses. The predictions of the AGW hypothesis have been falsified, which is sufficient to disprove AGW.

3 The record of the temperature/CO2 relationship: In Al Gore’s science-fiction movie "An Inconvenient Truth", he makes great play of graphs representing a reconstruction of temperature and CO2 levels over the last 600,000 years. He lays one on the other, and Hey Presto, they match! Proof, he says, that CO2 drives temperature. But if you look at those graphs in higher resolution, you find that the CO2 graph lags the temperature graph by around 800 to 1000 years. So Yes, there’s a causal relationship, but exactly the opposite of Gore’s point. Temperature drives CO2, not vice versa. And the explanation is not hard to find. There is about fifty times as much CO2 dissolved in the oceans as in the atmosphere. If the oceans warm, they give up dissolved CO2, and when they cool, they absorb it again.

4 The Law of Diminishing Returns: Those who haven’t studied the science tend to assume a linear relation between atmospheric CO2 and the corresponding greenhouse effect. In fact, it’s governed by a negative logarithmic equation – a law of diminishing returns. The higher the current level of CO2 in the air, the smaller the effect of any further addition. We’re already so far up the curve that further CO2 increases will have little effect.

In fact climatologists (even the Warmists) know perfectly well that a doubling of CO2 would affect climate by only around 1 degree C. To generate an alarmist scenario, therefore, they have to postulate positive feedback effects. These are entirely possible. For example, slight CO2 warming could result in more evaporation of water from the oceans, and more water-vapour in the air. Water vapour is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, so that would enhance warming. But many scientists believe that there may also be negative feedback effects. These too are plausible. Extra water vapour could increase cloud formation, so more solar radiation would be reflected back into space, leading to cooling. Such a negative feedback would help to maintain an equable global temperature.

So the issue comes down to an arcane debate over a scientific question which the public might have trouble getting their heads round, and of which most politicians and policymakers are blissfully unaware. Yet they have chosen to bet the ranch, and put the competitiveness of our economy and the prosperity of our grandchildren at risk, on one side of that arcane debate.

In this context, what are we to make of the "scientific consensus" of the IPCC? The IPCC has shown itself not to be the consensus of unbiased and disinterested scientists, but an advocacy group driven by a small clique of committed Warmists, who control the IPCC’s editorial process and fiercely defend their own agenda. These scientists work together. They peer review each other’s papers, and they work to exclude dissenting opinions. Their machinations were made public by the famous leaks from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. We found that this group have cobbled together unrelated data sets without admitting doing so. They have deliberately subverted the peer-review process. They have tried to block publication of dissenting views, and have sought the dismissal of editors of learned journals who take a more open approach. They have (in their own words) sought to "hide the decline", and to eliminate the Mediæval Warm Period from the record. Much of the "peer reviewed science" in the Fourth IPCC Report, on which so much climate policy is based, was found to be no more than propaganda from extreme green zealots like the WWF and Friends of the Earth.

For more on the science of Global Warming, see the book list below.

Certainly Ineffectual: There are two reasons to suppose that despite the eye-watering costs, our efforts to mitigate climate change will come to nothing (even if you accept AGW theory). Those reasons are (A) Political: and (B) Scientific.

If we in the UK were to shut down our economy entirely, our emissions reductions would be made up by growth in China in around twelve months. China is building a new coal-fired power station every week, with India not far behind. If China and India won’t play ball, the USA will not be able to get serious CO2 reduction programmes through Congress. It is clear that these vast countries will not forego economic growth for the sake of AGW theory, which is why Copenhagen failed, and why Cancun will also fail. Global CO2 emissions will continue to grow, and our painful sacrifices will have been for nothing.

But reducing emissions will not actually affect the climate significantly anyway. A widely quoted estimate in respect of the Kyoto Protocol illustrates the problem. Kyoto was of course not fully implemented, and will not be, and looks unlikely to be replaced. Yet if it had been fully implemented, it would have reduced mean global temperatures (from what they would otherwise have been) by only 0.2 degrees C – by 2100. This is a difference almost too small to measure, lost in natural and random variation, and in ninety years time. Yet we would have spent, globally, many billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars to achieve it.

Ruinously Expensive: In the UK, our current climate programmes (at the behest of EU regulation) look set to raise the cost of electricity by as much as 40% by 2020, while at the same time creating a huge risk of black-outs as reliable coal and nuclear power stations are replaced by intermittent wind. That’s £16 billion on electricity bills by 2020. It’s also another million British families forced into fuel poverty. These price rises damage the prosperity of all of us. And they damage the competitiveness of our economy, not just against the rising giants of Asia, but also against France, which gets 80% of its electricity at low cost from nuclear power stations. We are embracing poverty by choice in pursuit of a disputed scientific theory.

As Charles Moore of the Daily Telegraph put it: "A fascinating scientific theory about a controversial subject has been magicked by its supporters into a hard fact".

So there you have it. Our green climate policies are probably unnecessary, certainly ineffectual, and ruinously expensive. It’s time to change course.

Recommended further reading:

"An Appeal to Reason", Lord (Nigel) Lawson

"Cool Thinking on Climate Change", Roger Helmer, Bruges Group

"Unstoppable Global Warming (every 1500 years)", Prof Fred Singer

"Blue Planet in Green Shackles", Vaclav Klaus

"Climatism!", Steve Goreham

"Red Hot Lies", Chris Horner

"Climate: The Counter Consensus", Prof Robert M. Carter

"The Wind Farm Scam", John Etherington

"The Hockey Stick Illusion", A.W. Montford

"Heaven and Earth", Prof Ian Plimer'

And finally, here is the video...

Power cuts necessitate candles

The Palestinians and the Arab countries are the masters of the power of propaganda, just take a look at the following links for some historical context - here, here and here.

Now you can see that the latest "power cuts" in Gaza have been manipulated. Did you see the photos from Reuters described as being of "Palestinian lawmakers attend a parliament session in candlelight during a power cut in Gaza January 22, 2008. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem". This is one of those photos -


Do you notice something odd about this photo? I'll give you a clue, why are they using candles? Presumably because there is no electricity to power the lights. Now look at the curtains, they are drawn but it is still daylight outside, so why do they need the candles? The answer is they don't, it is just a put up job. You can see more on this matter here.


You can also read about it at The Jerusalem Post in a piece entitled "Palestinian journalists: Hamas staged blackouts" written by "KHALED ABU TOAMEH" that would be a Muslim working as a journalist for an Israeli newspaper, I wonder how many Jews are employed as journalists by newspapers in Muslim countries.

It is rumoured that The Arab News had the same story but I have been unable to find it there.

Here come the blackouts

The Times report that:

"THE threat of winter gas cuts loomed over Europe yesterday as Russia and Ukraine failed to resolve a dispute that led Moscow to cut off gas supplies to its neighbour last week.

Despite assurances from the two countries that supplies to Europe would not be affected, three European Union states reported an immediate drop in pipeline pressure.

Poland, Hungary and Romania, which rely heavily on Russian gas delivered through pipelines that cross Ukraine, said that less gas than expected was being delivered.

Romania’s pipeline operator said supplies had fallen by 30-40%. And a spokesman for Hungary’s main energy company said: “Pressure started to decline on Friday. It’s declining continuously.”

The news prompted the EU, which gets a fifth of its gas from Russia via Ukraine, to summon a crisis meeting in Brussels tomorrow and demand that transit and supply contracts be honoured."

Have you bought your generator yet? Prices are bound to rise soon...

A serious man for serious times

Let me take you back in time, not too far, just to September 2008 when Gordon Brown gave his speech as Labour leader to the Labour Party Conference. Let's examine Gordon Brown's speech and see if it chimes with reality.

"I didn't come into politics to be a celebrity or thinking I'd always be popular. Perhaps, that's just as well. No, 25 years ago I asked the people of Fife to send me to parliament to serve the country I love.

And I didn't come to London because I wanted to join the establishment, but because I wanted and want to change it.

So I'm not going to try to be something I'm not."

Well he managed to become popular although the celebrity thing seems to have gone by the board what with Gordon Brown preferring to be interviewed by the incisive Fern Briiten and the hard hitting Piers Morgan rather than Jeremy 'pussycat' Paxman.

"if people say I'm too serious, quite honestly there's a lot to be serious about - I'm serious about doing a serious job for all the people of this country."

The serious man has with the serious job to do, is the man who prefers to be interviewed on the couch by Fern Britten and opine on Susan Boyle than be interviewed by Paxman and discuss the collapsing UK economy.

"And so here I am - working for this incredible country, while trying as far as possible to give my children an ordinary childhood. Some people have been asking why I haven't served my children up for spreads in the papers. And my answer is simple. My children aren't props; they're people."

But ready to cry on television in an effort to appear normal.

"And where I've made mistakes I'll put my hand up and try to put them right. So what happened with 10p stung me because it really hurt that suddenly people felt I wasn't on the side of people on middle and modest incomes - because on the side of hard-working families is the only place I've ever wanted to be. And from now on it's the only place I ever will be."

Interesting if he makes mistakes he will try and put them right but not apologise.

"But our duty, what gives us moral purpose, is serving the people who need us most- Britain's vast majority - people on middle and modest incomes who need to know that they are not on their own amidst this change - we are on their side."

That will be the people who will be paying an extra 3-5p in the pound on Income Tax for the next 30, 40, 50 years to pay fir Gordon Brown's stupidity.

"We are and will always be a pro-enterprise, pro-business and pro-competition government. And we believe the dynamism of our five million businesses large and small is vital to the success of our country. "

Fine words but since the reality is completely at odds with the rhetoric I think we can just ascribe the words 'political promises' to these sentiments.

"So the new settlement also requires another great and historic endeavour to end the dictatorship of oil and to avert catastrophic climate change, a transformation in our use of energy. New nuclear power, an unprecedented increase in renewables and investment in clean coal."

How's the nuclear power plans coming along, any chance of them being on-stream before the blackouts start?

"And I am asking the climate change committee to report by October on the case for, by 2050 not a 60% reduction in our carbon emissions, but an 80% cut - and I want British companies and British workers to seize the opportunity and lead the world in the transformation to a low carbon economy and I believe that we can create in modern green manufacturing and service one million new jobs."

Ah man made climate change the refuge of socialist scoundrels and totalitarians the world over. It's not happening but that won't stop them using it as an excuse to tax us more.

"But I say to you that we will invest it wisely, continuing our record investment in schools, Sure Start centres, transport and hospitals."

That great New Labour lie, that all Labour spending is 'investment' and so beyond criticism.

"People feel their communities are changing before their eyes and it's increasing their anxiety about crime and anti-social behaviour. And so we will be the party of law and order."

Why do people feel their communities are changing? Could it because since 1997 Labour have openned our borders to an unprecedented degree and so changed the face of the UK for ever and in a way that they had no mandate for. As for claiming to be the party of 'law and order', the politicisation of the police force and the turning of much of the judicial system into a revenue raising arm of government rather than a punishment programme has had the expected result of making much of the UK's inner cities near no-go areas.

"When we talk about three million more people in work since 1997 - that's not just a number, that's a life that's been changed - three million times over"

How many of thise three million jobs have gone to UK citizens and how many to immigrants from elsewhere in the EU or beyond? That makes the figures look and sound less impressive.

"fairness is in our DNA."

No comment necessary re this absurd claim form the head of one of the most unfair governments ever to ruin this country.

"The measures we have taken this year alone will help lift two hundred and fifty thousand children out of poverty. "

Is that a gross or net figure? I think the former, in which case how many dropped into poverty. Anyway how is poverty defined and does that definition explain why Labour have concentrated on those on the margins of poverty rather than the poorest, with the side disbenefit that economic equality is now worse than it was in 1997.

"And Ed Balls and I will never excuse, explain away or tolerate low standards in education. So we will keep up the pace of reform: more academies, trust and specialist schools, more of the brightest and best graduates becoming teachers, more investment in building schools for the future - state of the art schools for world class schooling."

As the UK drops down the world's education leagues. Whilst in the UK we now have an all shall have prizes education system as exam standards drop year after year.

"in just one year in the fight against hospital infections, we have doubled the number of matrons and achieved a 36 percent reduction in MRSA."

How much did the number of matrons reduce in the first 10 years of this Labour government and how much did MRSA increase before this 36% reduction?

"Jacqui Smith and Jack Straw are introducing a landmark reform in our justice system - to put victims first. In consultation with victim support we will create an independent commissioner who will stand up for victims, witnesses and families"

12 years of putting the interests of the criminals first and now a change of heart, is that one anyone could really believe.

"I am proud that Britain will honour our obligations to provide refuge from persecution. And we recognise the contribution that migrants make to our economy and our society, but the other side of welcoming newcomers who can help Britain is being tough about excluding those adults who won't and can't. That's why we have introduced the Australian-style points-based system, the citizenship test, the English language test and we will introduce a migrant charge for public services."

What about the migrants who don't make a positive contribution but who live off of benefits and in some cases work for the destruction of the UK? Is this the same "Australian-style points-based system" that Labour so derided when originally suggested by the Conservative party?

"And so let's hear no more from the Conservatives - we did fix the roof while the sun was shining."

Really? How?


There is more, much more, but I really have a limited bullshit input and I have reached that now.

Another problem for humanity

The watchers inform us that:

'If you look in sun direction in time of sunset you could see the largest sunspots since 2005 . Active region 1339 is now visible from the Earth. These huge sunspots have been slowly rotating to face the Earth since November 3, 2011. The largest of these sunspots, Sunspot AR 1339, is said to be 17 times the Earth’s width. The gigantic sunspot is about 80,000 km(50,000 miles ) long. This region of the Sun has caused massive solar flares which can trigger radio blackouts and long-lasting radiation storms. Right now Sunspot AR1339 is crackling with M-class solar flares, unleashing at least five of them in the past 24 hours.'

Standby for interruptions to satellite based communications, gps etc. etc. etc. 

The EU and the UK

I remember some years ago listening to a piece on BBC radio about how well funded UK pensions were compared to the rest of the EU and how the EU might want to take control of our pension funds to help fund the rest of Europe's. I was reminded of this by reading this piece on A Tangled Web, David Vance reports that:

"The EU seeks to grab control of Britain's vital North Sea oil and gas supplies under emergency plans revealed for the first time in Brussels yesterday.

EU leaders are demanding control of British energy reserves to prevent power blackouts that have left millions of eastern Europeans without heat in Arctic weather due to the Russian gas blockade. Euro-MPs are calling for the creation of a European gas reserve, made up of British and Dutch supplies, which member states can tap into in the event of any future shortage. The transfer of ownership would be enacted under secret powers written into the controversial Lisbon Treaty. It gives Europe the legal power to take over individual states’ supplies to “ensure security of energy supply in the Union”. Ultimate control over Britain’s vast natural gas and oil fields – by far the biggest resource within the EU – will fall to Brussels if the new treaty, which has already been ratified by Britain, is adopted throughout Europe."

David Vance gets it and correctly says:

"Under Labour, and under the auspices of the Lisbon Treaty, this will assuredly happen. We hand over our energy to keep Europe warm, even as we freeze. The sooner we get OUT of the EU tyranny the better."

The trouble is, I see no way out.

Why you shouldn't vote for Barack Obama

The post below was spreading round the web yesterday, I have reposted it to keep it moving along and persuading the as yet undecided US voters.

 

Conservative bloggers in the #VRWC unite to defeat Obama

A half-dozen conservative bloggers have united and will all have the same post on their blogs today in an effort to help defeat President Obama. Please read this post in its entirety and be sure to go visit each bloggers site via the links. I would also encourage anyone to reblog or link this post to get the word out to as many people as possible. Romney may not be the first choice for some of these contributors, but we can all agree that Obama must go so help us spread the word! Join us to help the undecided vote to stop the destruction of America!

"Why bankruptcy is preferable to bailouts" by Spellchek

President Obama has been on a chest-thumping tour touting the success of the bailouts both in the auto industry as well as the financial industry.Supporters and critics alike have focused upon what constitutes a success.Some will calculate the cost to the taxpayers.Others will focus on the jobs saved.It is these glass half-empty/half-full arguments that highlight the crux of the problem.Bailouts v. bankruptcy is not an apples to apples comparison.
A bailout by its very nature is the epitome of a reward for past indiscretions.The idea is how best to cushion the blow and alleviate the pain.The fear card plays a big role here as witnessed a full-fledged campaign to warn us of the disaster awaiting should we decline to bailout a failing company/industry.Then to make it worse,we saw government picking the winners and losers in the fallout.
A bankruptcy is intended as a poison pill as much as a legal recourse to alleviate a failing business model.It's called moral hazard.It is painful by design so it will have a preventative effect.The path chosen by Obama eliminates this.Companies/industries know they can operate with high risk or inefficient practices when an implied guarantee of a bailout is always awaiting.
The key difference is that implied guarantee.It enables risky behavior and distorts the free market.And why not?When you know there is reward as opposed to pain available,who wouldn't engage in high risk/high reward practices?Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac enabled the housing bubble accordingly.AIG and the other players in the banking sector engaged in the derivatives market with our 401(k)s and pensions as monopoly money.
Bailouts encourage and enable bad business practices.Bankruptcy penalizes it.So when you question whether or not Obama succeeded with his bailouts,you should instead be asking why he engages in a policy that promotes risky investments and inefficient business practices that will eventually require you the taxpayer to pay for it.

"The Libyan Scandal" by What Would The Founders Think

Politicians lie. There is nothing that is earth-shattering about this statement. Presidents are politicians and they generally adhere to the stereotype.
There have been exceptions to the rule, but Presidents like Washington and Garfield are few and far between.
Sometimes presidents lie with the best of intentions. More often than not they lie to protect themselves and their careers.
But while the reasons presidents lie are probably as numerous as the lies that they tell, the depth of mendacity demonstrated by President Obama is unique in American political history. It is not merely that he will do or say anything to remain in office, but the reason he will do or say anything to remain in power - his hatred of American pre-eminence on the world stage. We have never had a president who felt it his mission to reduce the nation to benefit other nations.
It is an established fact that Obama is a devotee of Saul Alinsky - a completely amoral - "ends justify any means" individual. Obama has learned his lessons well and seeks to bring America down a peg by any and all means necessary. Obama is apparently quite comfortable with Lenin's adage, "You've got to break a few eggs to make an omelet."
It is only when one understands Obama's motivations and complete lack of morality, that one can understand how this callous president could refer to the death of an American ambassador and other Americans in Libya as "bumps in the road." One has to wonder, where does that road lead?

"Barack Hussein Obama & The Race Card" by Mind Numbed Robot

Barack Hussein Obama was swept into office by a wave of voters willing to give the new guy a shot. He offered a chance to redeem America from its original sin and at the same time promised to end the bi-partisan bickering of politics as usual in the DC beltway. He was a relative unknown on the national scene and took every advantage of that fact. After all, when a candidate doesn't have a record to campaign on, it's much easier to paint himself as the elixir for the times.
Four years later, we know a lot more about the man at the helm of our ship of state and it should be clear that Obama was either not ready for the task he was given or his prescriptions did not work as advertised. In fact, if they were meant to heal a nation of its economic malaise and draw the political parties together in some magical union of left and right then the cure was worse than the disease. The patient should switch doctors, stat.
Too many also, voted for Obama under the premise that he would close the supposed divide between the races, a flag his surrogates in the media fly on his behalf but one he seldom raises himself, as if to stay above the fray. Indeed, the subject of Obamas race is ever in play by the media and that too has had the opposite effect than what Americans were promised, namely, more division, not less.
Sooner or later Barack Hussein Obama must lose his pigment to be judged by actions and results. That time is now. Americans must look at the man without the rainbow goggles and flowery rhetoric to discern what he and his party have accomplished in 4 years. We must decide if we are pleased with the results of Obama's Transformational Vision for America:
An America that believes the Constitution is flawed and must be remade or flat-out ignored.
An America that owes the world an endless apology.
An America that is not the last bastion if freedom in the world, not that shining city on the hill, but just another third world ghetto.
My friends, America deserves and demands better than Barack Hussein Obama's dismal vision for our future. We must make that message crystal clear on November 6th in numbers that cannot be denied or ignored.

"US Relations With Islamic Countries — Another Reason To Vote For Romney" from Conservatives on Fire

Obama came into office with zero experience in anything useful. But, narcissist that he is, he was sure that because his middle name was Hussein and because he went to a Muslim school in Indonesia when he was a child and because he had dreams from his Kenyan father that he could single-handedly resolve all the problems between the Muslim nations of the world and America.
Mitt Romney, of course, has no foreign affairs experience. But, we know that he has ben a very successful businessman. So, we can expect him, like a good businessman, to surround himself with the most capable people in foreign affairs that he can find. He would never nominate a woman to be Secretary of State whose only claim to fame was that she married a sexual predator who was once President of the United States. We know that a President Romney would never make a trip to Cairo to apologize for Americas past actions in the area nor would he bow to a Saudi king. A president Romney would not have ended the war in Iraq without maintaining a large air base we had there for strategic reason just because the Iraqi government, that we helped to bring about, didn't want us there. A president Romney would never have announced two years in advance our withdrawal from Afghanistan giving the Taliban no reason to seek peace. A President Romney would have supported rebels in Iran in 2009. He would never have permitted his Secretary of State to train young Arabs from North Africa on how to organize protests against their governments. There never would have been an Arab Spring and there would still be the tenuous stability in the Middle-East held for the last forty years. Our embassies would not have been left unprotected and we would not have a dead ambassador and three of his staff in Libya. And, if there had been attacks on our people in that region, a president Romney would not have tried to place the blame on some stupid You Tube video when it was obviously a well planned terrorist attack. And, following some such attack, a president Romney would not have gone before the UN General Assembly and, at first defend our constitutionally protected right of free speech, only to turn around and say that we can't let the world be won by those who insult Islam. And, a President Romney would not be seeking emergency aid for Egypt just after their Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi, stood in front of the UN General Assembly and told America where they could stuff it.
A President Romney may not be able to bring peace to the Muslim nations, not after the mess Barack Obama has made of our relations there; but we can know that he would deal with those nations from a position of strength and not of weakness, as Obama has done. Because of Obama, the Muslim world is a more dangerous place. Ask yourself, if trouble breaks out in that region, who would you rather have as the US president?
On November 6, 2012, vote for Mitt Romney!

"Supreme Court is Another Reason to Vote Romney This November" by Motorcitytimes.com

I didn't support Romney in the primaries. However, after it became clear that he was going to become our nominee, I had an offline discussion with a smart and passionate Ron Paul supporter.
We discussed the wisdom of voting for, what amounts to, my second choice candidate. We bantered back and forth a few times then I said "no matter how bad you think Romney is, he would never nominate a left-wing lunatic like Elena Kagan or Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court." And I added, "Justice Kennedy has announced he plans to retire sometime after the 2012 election and Ginsberg is no spring chicken."
What is worse, I said this to my passionate Libertarian friend before Justice Roberts flipped his vote in the ObamaCare debacle underscoring the urgency of getting more Constitutionalist Justices on the Court.
Intellectually, I understand why some passionate Libertarians and Conservatives want to sit out the upcoming elections. They are tired of holding their noses while voting for 'the lesser of two evils.'
However, the prospect of Obama getting TWO MORE Supreme Court appointments, shifting the court even further to the left should frighten all freedom loving Americans into action.
Imagine four Obama Supreme Court Appointees blocking conservative reforms while rubber stamping every left-wing agenda item for the next 25 years.
If this happens, Obama will have succeeded in fundamentally transforming America.

"America's Need for Energy" by WyBlog

President Obama calls his energy strategy "all of the above". That's actually a good description, because he's gung-ho for everything that's above the earth and abosolutely opposed to using anything found below ground.
Coal? Not in his plans. And he's shuttering coal power plants as fast as he can, putting thousands of Americans out of work in the process. When he said he'd bankrupt the coal industry, he meant it.
Oil? Sorry, we can't drill for it, and we surely can't build pipelines to deliver it.
Natural Gas? Only if it magically rises to the surface without drilling or fracking.
Nuclear? He's instituted a moratorium on uranium mining. Harry Reid has ensured there's no place to store nuclear waste. And so there are no new plants on the horizon.
But solar power is the future! Just so long as you don't put all those solar panels anywhere near an endangered species or pristine wetland. And wind turbines are all the rage, unless they'd block the Kennedy clan's view or make too much noise near Barbra Streisand's house.
The real danger with all these changes to the power grid is instability. Those coal plants provide a valuable service, keeping the flow of electricity constant in the face of varying demand. Solar cells can't do that at night (or in the rain). And wind turbines don't spin without wind. So you can't flick a switch and expect them to work on a moment's notice. We'd better get used to the idea of brownouts, and probably rolling blackouts too.
Just imagine the next hot summer day when you go to switch on your air conditioner only to discover that Obama's "Smart Grid" has decided you're not on the list for extra electricity today. Because that's what's coming if we don't replace the 36,000 megawatts of generating capacity Obama has mothballed in the cause of saving the planet.
Strangely though President Obama insists everyone should drive an electric car. I suspect he's unclear on exactly where the electricity comes from, because as the EPA shuts down many of our existing power plants the supply of electricity keeps shrinking. Hanging solar panels on lampposts won't take up the slack either.
Yet if the price of gasoline keeps going up we may have no choice. California's environmental regulations are generally held up as a model for the nation. And thanks to those regulations California leads the way in gas prices, topping $5 per gallon. They're well on their way to fulfilling Steven Chu's dream.
So what's a concerned citizen to do? The good news is Governor Romney plans to take a more practical approach to energy policy if he's elected president. Drilling for oil and gas is not incompatible with protecting the environment. American ingenuity and engineering know-how is the best in the world. We can make our nation energy independent, create good jobs, and do it safely and efficiently.
When it comes to energy the choice is clear. President Obama will ensure that we freeze in the dark. Mitt Romney can keep America working, with a balanced approach that recognizes the value in coal, oil, gas, nuclear, and yes green technologies too.

And there you have it. Six very good reasons to vote against Barack Obama and for Mitt Romney. On November 6^th the choice is yours.
Choose wisely!