Grumpy Old Sod Dot Com - an internet voice for the exasperated. Sick of the nanny state? Pissed off with politicians? Annoyed by newspapers? Irate with the internet? Tell us about it!

Send us an email
Go back
11th September 2013: The world's gone mad and I'm the only one who knows
13th August 2013: Black is white. Fact. End of.
11th August 2013: Electric cars, not as green as they're painted?
18th June 2013: Wrinklies unite, you have nothing to lose but your walking frames!
17th May 2013: Some actual FACTS about climate change (for a change) from actual scientists ...
10th May 2013: An article about that poison gas, carbon dioxide, and other scientific facts (not) ...
10th May 2013: We need to see past the sex and look at the crimes: is justice being served?
8th May 2013: So, who would you trust to treat your haemorrhoids, Theresa May?
8th May 2013: Why should citizens in the 21st Century fear the law so much?
30th April 2013: What the GOS says today, the rest of the world realises tomorrow ...
30th April 2013: You couldn't make it up, could you? Luckily you don't need to ...
29th April 2013: a vote for NONE OF THE ABOVE, because THE ABOVE are crap ...
28th April 2013: what goes around, comes around?
19th April 2013: everyone's a victim these days ...
10th April 2013: Thatcher is dead; long live Thatcher!
8th April 2013: Poor people are such a nuisance. Just give them loads of money and they'll go away ...
26th March 2013: Censorship is alive and well and coming for you ...
25th March 2013: Just do your job properly, is that too much to ask?
25th March 2013: So, what do you think caused your heterosexuality?
20th March 2013: Feminists - puritans, hypocrites or just plain stupid?
18th March 2013: How Nazi Germany paved the way for modern governance?
13th March 2013: Time we all grew up and lived in the real world ...
12th March 2013: Hindenburg crash mystery solved? - don't you believe it!
6th March 2013: Is this the real GOS?
5th March 2013: All that's wrong with taxes
25th February 2013: The self-seeking MP who is trying to bring Britain down ...
24th February 2013: Why can't newspapers just tell the truth?
22nd February 2013: Trial by jury - a radical proposal
13th February 2013: A little verse for two very old people ...
6th February 2013: It's not us after all, it's worms
6th February 2013: Now here's a powerful argument FOR gay marriage ...
4th February 2013: There's no such thing as equality because we're not all the same ...
28th January 2013: Global Warming isn't over - IT'S HIDING!
25th January 2013: Global Warmers: mad, bad and dangerous to know ...
25th January 2013: Bullying ego-trippers, not animal lovers ...
19th January 2013: We STILL haven't got our heads straight about gays ...
16th January 2013: Bullying ego-trippers, not animal lovers ...
11th January 2013: What it's like being English ...
7th January 2013: Bleat, bleat, if it saves the life of just one child ...
7th January 2013: How best to put it? 'Up yours, Argentina'?
7th January 2013: Chucking even more of other people's money around ...
6th January 2013: Chucking other people's money around ...
30th December 2012: The BBC is just crap, basically ...
30th December 2012: We mourn the passing of a genuine Grumpy Old Sod ...
30th December 2012: How an official body sets out to ruin Christmas ...
16th December 2012: Why should we pardon Alan Turing when he did nothing wrong?
15th December 2012: When will social workers face up to their REAL responsibility?
15th December 2012: Unfair trading by a firm in Bognor Regis ...
14th December 2012: Now the company that sells your data is pretending to act as watchdog ...
7th December 2012: There's a war between cars and bikes, apparently, and  most of us never noticed!
26th November 2012: The bottom line - social workers are just plain stupid ...
20th November 2012: So, David Eyke was right all along, then?
15th November 2012: MPs don't mind dishing it out, but when it's them in the firing line ...
14th November 2012: The BBC has a policy, it seems, about which truths it wants to tell ...
12th November 2012: Big Brother, coming to a school near you ...
9th November 2012: Yet another celebrity who thinks, like Jimmy Saville, that he can behave just as he likes because he's famous ...
5th November 2012: Whose roads are they, anyway? After all, we paid for them ...
7th May 2012: How politicians could end droughts at a stroke if they chose ...
6th May 2012: The BBC, still determined to keep us in a fog of ignorance ...
2nd May 2012: A sense of proportion lacking?
24th April 2012: Told you so, told you so, told you so ...
15th April 2012: Aah, sweet ickle polar bears in danger, aah ...
15th April 2012: An open letter to Anglian Water ...
30th March 2012: Now they want to cure us if we don't believe their lies ...
28th February 2012: Just how useful is a degree? Not very.
27th February 2012: ... so many ways to die ...
15th February 2012: DO go to Jamaica because you definitely WON'T get murdered with a machete. Ms Fox says so ...
31st January 2012: We don't make anything any more
27th January 2012: There's always a word for it, they say, and if there isn't we'll invent one
26th January 2012: Literary criticism on GOS? How posh!
12th December 2011: Plain speaking by a scientist about the global warming fraud
9th December 2011: Who trusts scientists? Apart from the BBC, of course?
7th December 2011: All in all, not a good week for British justice ...
9th November 2011: Well what d'you know, the law really IS a bit of an ass ...


Captain Grumpy's bedtime reading. You can buy them too, if you think you're grumpy enough!
More Grumpy Old Sods on the net


Older stuff






This from television personality Johnny Ball ...

At Londonís Royal Court Theatre last week (back in February 2011, actually - GOS), a new play opened to rave reviews. Itís about an environmental scientist who ó horror of horrors ó doesnít believe in global warming.
The play is called The Heretic and, though I havenít seen it yet, I could already sink to my knees in gratitude. Because in my own quiet and reasonable way, I am that global warming heretic. In the past decade or so Iíve been mocked, vilified, besmirched ó Iíve even been booed off a theatre stage ó simply for expressing the view that the case for global warming and climate change, and in particular the emphasis on the damage caused by carbon dioxide, the so-called greenhouse gas that is going to do for us all, has been massively over-stated.
For daring to take this contrarian view, Iíve lost bookings, had talks cancelled and been the subject of a sinister internet campaign against me that only came to an end following the intervention of the police.
There was even a painful moment recently when if you Googled my name, the second site that came up mysteriously redirected you to a site offering explicit pornographic pictures. Nothing to do with me, I hasten to add, and one call was enough to quickly rectify the problem, but I fear more damage had been done.
For taking an intellectual stand, my name and reputation have been comprehensively trashed. And something very similar has happened to Dr David Bellamy, who has never been shy about expressing his belief that climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon. His media career, particularly in television, has suffered as a result.
Britain seems to have become a remarkably intolerant place, a place where healthy debate seems to be stifled rather than encouraged. But am I going to bow to this bullying and keep quiet? No I am not, and for one simple reason.
Blinded, maybe even brainwashed by the climate-change zealots, we are spending so much money on reducing carbon emissions that there is a danger of us bankrupting ourselves ó and future generations ó to solve a problem that in the opinions of a growing number of scientists and opinion-formers has been wildly exaggerated.
To put it another way, those who have been worshipping so ardently at the altar of reduced carbon emissions ó and how quickly they adopted the messianic zeal and intolerance of a religion ó may find that they have been deifying not just a false god but a ruinously expensive one, too.
As someone who has dedicated his life to popularising science and mathematics for young people, I find it hard ó hurtful even ó to be cast in the role of villain. Iím also aware that many of the people who have been kind enough to enjoy my TV programmes over the years are surprised to hear me ó nice, cheery, Johnny Ball ó expressing such strong and arguably provocative views. So let me explain how I came to them.
A quarter of a century ago, when I was churning out television series almost twice a year, I hit upon a successful way of working. For every series of six science shows, I would come up with seven ideas ó six plus a spare ó and every one of those shows, including the spares, got made. Except for one: about renewable energy, a subject then very much in its infancy. I instinctively warmed to the almost Heath Robinson-like engineering behind those early attempts to harvest the energy of the wind and the waves, the tide and the sun.
But there was a big problem: Hard as I tried, I couldnít make the sums add up. These devices either didnít produce anything like enough energy, or the energy they produced was too expensive to be economically viable. None came close to reproducing the power of the physical process that has driven our civilisation since the Industrial Revolution ó the heating of water. Be it by charcoal, coal, gas or nuclear energy, itís warmed until the temperature approaches 100C, and it suddenly expands to become power-generating, engine-driving steam.
Until renewable energy could do something like that, I couldnít see how it had a serious future. I checked the sums ó they were right ó and walked away. The show never got made.
Which would be completely unimportant but for one thing. In the 25 years since, the Ďscienceí of global warming and climate change, with its carefully selected graphs of rising temperatures, sea-level and CO2 levels (by the way, other carefully selected graphs can show the exact opposite) has all but conquered the world, and no opposing view is to be tolerated.
The cult of reducing carbon emissions shapes everything we do, at local, national and global levels. The very future of the planet, we are told, hangs on our dispensing with fossil fuels and adopting renewable energy sources as quickly as possible.
But hereís the problem ó 25 years may have passed since I tried to make that TV programme and the technology has improved a little, but the sums still donít add up. Iím quite sure renewable sources have a minor contribution to make to our energy needs, but they still donít produce anything like enough energy at anything resembling the right price to offer a viable future. If it costs 2.3p to produce one unit of electricity using gas, it costs 2.5p to produce the same electricity using nuclear energy and perhaps 2.9p using coal. Using wind power, the cost is an astonishing 9.8p.
In the face of such figures, most reasonable people interested in cleaner, sustainable energy would surely go off and build carbon-free, nuclear power stations or gas-fuelled ones.
But advocates of global warming with their dire warnings about the evils of CO2 emissions have got too firm a hold, their thinking become too widely accepted, for anything that sensible to be an option. Instead, theyíre changing the sums, and manipulating the maths. The result is a growing burden of green taxes, renewable energy subsidies and unseen charges that will cost us ó and particularly our children ó billions and billions of pounds.
Already, these additional costs are adding 50 per cent to all our energy bills, and 50 per cent to air-fares. At a time of severe economic hardship, when thousands of jobs are being lost and households struggle to make ends meet, this is a potentially ruinous burden.
But itís also ó in my opinion and that of a growing number of others ó an unnecessary burden. Iím all for the careful use of the Earthís resources and I applaud the many breakthroughs that have been made both in the recycling of these scarce resources and in the battle against environmental pollution.
I want a clean, green planet. But this obsession with controlling carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere is now as dangerous as it is ridiculous. Along with water and oxygen, carbon dioxide is one of the three basic requirements for sustainable life. And yet this natural gas ó only 4 per cent of which is produced by man ó has been branded as the greatest threat to the future of this planet. Well, forgive me, but I think thatís nonsense.
My own view, for what itís worth, is that the water content of air has far more impact on temperature than carbon dioxide levels do. Itís a common-sense belief based on simple observation ó we all know the impact that a layer of cloud has on temperature ó and basic chemistry that tells us that when we burn any sort of fossil fuel two molecules of water are produced for every one molecule of carbon dioxide.
But any increase in air temperature produced by raised water vapour levels will be minor and largely self-regulating. So climate change is absolutely normal and in my lifetime has never yet resulted in any signs that should cause alarm.
Already I can hear those wholeheartedly committed to the global warming cause queuing up to cast the first stone at such blatant heresy. But should we trust them? Not if they include the likes of Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who last year was forced to admit the panel had exaggerated the rate at which Himalayan glaciers were shrinking. Or Dr Phil Jones, the Cambridge climatologist at the centre of a scandal after he was accused of manipulating and suppressing climate change data.
Or the scientists who realised that a 0.7C rise in global temperatures over the past 100 years was hardly the stuff of environmental Armageddon, so they looked for a particularly chilly year against which to compare todayís figures, and found 1961. Suddenly, global temperatures had gone up at 0.7 degrees in just 50 years: now, that was more like it.
Itís statistics like these that give rise to the sort of absurd pronouncement we saw at the Copenhagen climate change conference late in 2009, where it was grandly announced that at a cost of $100 billion a year we might just be able to limit the increase in global temperatures to 1.5C by the end of the 21st century. I regard that as an almost unimaginable amount of money effectively being poured down the drain, taking the futures of millions of young people with it. And that makes even a mild-mannered chap like me very angry.
Iíve had the good fortune to live in a period when things have always got progressively better, where each ten years is always a bit better than the previous ten years, where children can grow up pretty safe in the knowledge that they will enjoy better lives than their parents. Until now, when weíre suddenly told it all has to stop.
I donít make television programmes any more, but I do still visit 80-100 schools a year and I know what children are taught about climate change, and what the result is. They accept it absolutely and will solemnly tell you that they always turn off lights, close doors and, at school, have installed solar panels on the roof. They tell me how worried they are about global warming, rising sea-levels and, having seen alarmist films such as Al Goreís An Inconvenient Truth, the imminent prospect of all human life being wiped out.
And this breaks my heart. I want children to be excited about the future, not cowed by it. I want them to grow up in a world which is going to be better than the one their parents knew, not significantly worse. I want them to grow up excited by technology and new inventions, not worrying about where the electricity is going to come from to power them.
And that exciting future could still be theirs. There is plenty of power out there if weíll only let them have it. Gas-powered power stations are now twice as efficient as they were 18 years ago, while the safety record of nuclear power in Western Europe is second to none. We ought to be investing in these, not ridiculous and highly inefficient wind farms that are only being built because of the huge government subsidies and guaranteed profits that are being offered.
People have a right to know the truth, but itís so difficult to break the strangle-hold the global warming gang have on the debate. David Bellamy canít get on television and I canít even get a ten-minute meeting with the controller of Radio 4. Maybe that doesnít matter, maybe our time has passed. But what does matter is that the view held by the so-called climate change sceptics must be heard too.
Weíre not going to hell in a handcart because of some tiny increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, but hell is certainly where weíll end up if we insist on spending hundreds of billions of unaffordable pounds trying to correct a problem that is grossly over-stated. Itís time to get back to the real science and the real sums. Itís time to get back to the future which, if we adopt the right policies, will be brighter than we can yet imagine.
(From The Global Warming Policy Foundation website)

The GOS says: The first person to claim that Johnny Ball is not a scientist so isn't entitled to voice an opinion, gets a packet of dog-poo through his letterbox. Prince Charles and Al Gore aren't scientists either, and they shoot their mouths off at the drop of a hat.
I'm not a scientist either, but I don't have too much difficulty spotting when someone's trying to pull the wool over my eyes. And I'm old enough to remember that only forty years ago these same scientists were telling us that the earth was rapidly cooling, that global famine would have decimated the world population by the year 2000, and that all life in the sea would be extinct within a couple of decades. Pick the fish-bones out of that!


Grumpy Old - homepage

Use this Yahoo Search box to find more grumpy places,
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.








Copyright © 2011 The GOS
Grumpy Old - homepage


Captain Grumpy's
- some older posts

ID cards
Old folk
Hairy man
The church
The Pope