The subsidy junkies are now lobbying Scottish politicians to lift 2020 renewables target from 20% to 30% -

The Scotsman
Published Date: 22 March 2011
By PETER RANSCOMBE BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT
SCOTLAND'S political parties will today be urged to raise the nation's renewable energy targets to attract fresh investment into the industry. Niall Stuart, chief executive of Scottish Renewables, will call on politicians to lift the 2020 goal from 20 per cent to 30 per cent...

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/business/Politicians-urged-to-raise-targets.6738092.jp

Sadly the Liberals, Labour and SNP spokesmen all said this was a good idea. The Scottish Conservative Party did not return calls for comment.

Yes, Bob Watson was on before 7am criticizing the media for allowing 'climate deniers' to have any say. In answer to the question of how he could get his view across better he complained that the BBC put up the likes of Nigel Lawson with contrary views, so this should be stopped. His proposal to get the AGW message across is to persuade the media to impose self-censorship and not allow responses or challenges from 'climate deniers'. He used the 'D' word more than once, including in his closing soundbite.

This appears an incredibly weak argument, of course: the AGW message cannot stand on its own, but has to be the only message to be delivered by suppressing all others. Same old view as the Team and Climategate. And totalitarianism.

Phillip

I heard Bob Watson, too. He seemed grumpy that he couldn't get the science across when sharing a studio with a 'denier'. I wonder why?

I just caught the tail-end of Prof Bob Watson (Mr alarmism) on Radio 4 at about 6.50am. He spoke about the scientific evidence???, the problems of getting the message (propaganda) across when he has to share air-time with Lord Lawson, and climate deniers???

Monbiot appears to have done a complete (but welcome) flip in The Guardian today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima

Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollution. For a clearer view, look at the graphic published by xkcd.com. It shows that the average total dose from the Three Mile Island disaster for someone living within 10 miles of the plant was one 625th of the maximum yearly amount permitted for US radiation workers. This, in turn, is half of the lowest one-year dose clearly linked to an increased cancer risk, which, in its turn, is one 80th of an invariably fatal exposure. I'm not proposing complacency here. I am proposing perspective.

If other forms of energy production caused no damage, these impacts would weigh more heavily. But energy is like medicine: if there are no side-effects, the chances are that it doesn't work.

the gremlins are busy again, at least for the last 15 mins.....

To assist us in identifying what happened, you can include this encoded error report:

--- BEGIN SQUARESPACE ERROR REPORT ---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--- END SQUARESPACE ERROR REPORT ---

The Bishop is not Viscount Chrstiopher Monckton, he is Andrew Montford, author of the HSI , whose opinions can in no way be considered either lightweight or extreme, as I hope you'll agree.

Congrats Bish... you made The Australian...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate-change-doubters-are-endangering-our-common-future/story-fn59niix-1226025032986

Of course, I'm not entirely sure you'll enjoy the "lightweight and extreme" tag, but....

An article by John O'sullivan about the media hype on Fukushima, Chernobyl and the minor effects of radiation is at http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/33961.html. Shades of global warming, the hypocrisy and the difficulties two researchers had of getting novel results accepted.

What they saw, just as with the great global warming debate, a propaganda war is constantly in play; ‘Big Green’ still insists on hyping the myth that a million died from Chernobyl when, in fact, independent studies put the actual death toll in the range of 38 to 4,000 (e.g. see the 2005 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency).

Well worth reading. It puts the after-effects of Chernobyl firmly in place.

Move along taxpayer, nothing to see here
http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/move-along-taxpayer-nothing-to-see-here/

Exposes the lack of diversity in the membership of the Committee on Climate Change.