Flooding in York

December 29, 2015

This was a man-made disaster. It was not “unforeseen” as it’s happened before–more than once, in fact. The cause has nothing to do with “climate change” (whatever that means!).

In this instance, the UK Environmental Agency in York noticed that “water was entering the building” (the building holding pumps which were to operate to mitigate the effects of fooding), and they decided that this electrical equipment was “at risk”. So, they lifted a flood barrier thus deliberately flooding a large residential area.

See Martin Brumby discuss this story, as an insider, at http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/12/27/the-eus-role-in-the-floods.html#comments, Dec 29 9:23 a.m. where he asks the pertinent questions:

So, were the pumps working and, if not, why not?

Were the electrics maintained and sited above flood levels? (Think:- Fukushima!) If not, why not?

Who made the decision to open the barrier and make the £8M (1982 prices) installation an irrelevance? Who was consulted?

How many of those responsible will be sacked?

Privacy of Account Transactions at Big UK Bank

June 30, 2015

My bank–let’s call it The Big Bank–recently let me know of a future new service called “CashBack” where they offer 3% cash back per month on utilities and household bills, e.g. Council Tax, gas, electricity, TV packages, water bills, phone, broadband, and mobile contracts. This “benefit” costs £2 per month.

The bank told me that their calculation for me indicates that I would get approximately £17 per month back. So … the idea is give the bank £2 per month and they give me back £17. Humm. As an “investment” looks to be a no-brainer. Better look more closely.

  • Who is paying the delta between £17 and £2?
  • I can’t imagine The Big Bank taking the hit. So the service provider is probably subsidising this partially or whole? Why can’t the service providers simply reduce their costs instead of this scheme?
  • Use a now-favourite term, this doesn’t seem sustainable. Doesn’t taste well.

Most importantly, why did The Big Bank feel the right to inspect my banking transactions to determine the £17 savings I could incur? They could not compute this possible savings without looking at my banking transactions. Is this proper and in conformance with banking privacy rules, regulations, and law?

Seems as if The Big Bank has a lot of time on their hands to shuffle money around to no benefit to society. I wonder who benefits by how much?

I declined this “benefit”.

Scotland Gagging on Wind Power

January 12, 2015

Terrific article by Euan Mearns Scotland Gagging on Wind Power. Read the whole thing. He focuses on “the vast electricity surplus that Scotland will produce on windy days in the years ahead. That surplus has to be paid for. Where will it go and how will it be used?”

“It seems likely that Scotland’s beautiful landscape is being wrecked in pursuit of an ideological, empty dream.”

All it takes is simple arithmetic, a bit of understanding of energy and power to see where this is heading. Not good.

Somerset Flooding Self-Inflicted

February 4, 2014

We hear all about how the awful recent flooding in Somerset (England) was do to government not taking action, and “climate change”. Turns out the floods are direct result of European Union Policy introduced in 2007 and adopted formally by the UK Environmental Agency in 2008.

See http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84683

Finally, we get an explanation that makes sense and is understandable. Not the policy is necessarily a good one and perhaps not something the people of Somerset would agree with had they known, but at least a good explanation of the root cause.

Matt Ridley is a World Treasure

November 17, 2013

See a lecture he recently made in Australia:

Also recommended is his book “Rational Optimist”.


November 4, 2013

Ryanair is in the news today. They are reporting their financial outlook shows reduced earnings. The stock market is responding and crushing their share price.

While I don’t wish bad tidings on anyone or any company, Ryanair is one company with which I have twice experienced as a customer. The first was opportunistic with the spirit of “it can’t be as bad as I hear”. The second was a “let’s try again” as they flew where we wanted to go.

I have not, and promised myself, I would never ever, try again.


July 26, 2013

at “Niche Modeling” a story titled “How Did Climate Skeptics Know the Scare was not Real?” talks about how the climate scare is collapsing and how many scientists are renouncing their previous certainty.

It is instructive to look into ourselves and ask – how could the skeptics have been right – when the consensus of the learned experts thought differently?

My theory is that due to their scholarship in other fields – such as engineering, the hard sciences, and economics – skeptics are attuned to genuine scientific insight and not deceived by the “uninspired pastiche of catchphrases and clichés” that constitutes the majority of global warming research.

Correct, IMHO.