Monday, September 07, 2009

Shock Horror: I Agree With Peter Hitchens!

Bloody hell. I have just achieved a first. In between meetings in Yerevan I have just read Peter Hitchens' Mail on Sunday column. His main piece is a strong attack on wind farms headlined "We might as well use hamsters on treadmills". I agree with him. He them talks about Gordon Brown. I agree with him. He then defends Prince Charles against attacks from architects. I agree with him. And finally he urges people to watch a video about the dangers of texting while driving. I agree with him.

I need a lie down.


Scott Mund said...

Maybe god is Great after all.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Dangers of texting while driving?

Not a problem if you are a. A Muslim or b. a Labour Peer or c. Both.

Having kept a keen eye out for prosecutions in recent months, I notice that Lord Ahmed, who actually killed somebody, set a record for the court's leniency.

No surprise there, or, as you may recall, was it a surprise that the judge in the case was well connected to the Government.

But don't text in the car, and certainly don't get a blow job in the car. It ruins the soft Corinthian Leather.

Purple Man said...

No wonder you weren't on that A-List!!

Paul O'Rourke said...

If Hitchens didn't have such an enormous chip on his shoulder he could be bearable. I have no idea what the chip is and don't want to know but I wish he'd get over it coz he is not really half bad.

Sean Haffey said...

Well, let's talk about windmills.

a. The UK is big enough that when there is no wind in one part of the country, there's plenty in another.
b. Land and sea breezes are a geographical fact of life.
c. It's not Brussels bureaucrats closing nuclear plants, it's the fact that they wear out and the smart thing to do therefore is close the plant long before there's a danger of a leak resulting from this. (But Brussels has set laws that will shut down dirty coal plants.)
d. Actually I quite like how windmills look. The blades are aerodynamically graceful. And I intellectually am attracted to something that harnesses natural power.

Finally, as discussed by you in an earlier blog release, it's possible that Britain will run short of power in the middle of the decade. We'll have to find some way around this, whether it's wind power, nuclear, gas-fired stations or ignoring the EU's pollution laws.

John Demetriou said...

Why is it such a shock to agree with him? A lot of his stuff is pretty spot on.

Particularly his rather views on the useless Tories and how they will be no better and no less useless and lefty than Labour.

I know you disagree with that. Quite how or why, is beyond me.

Jabba the Cat said...

The main problem with Hitchens minor is that he would have us all regress to the times of Mary Whitehouse and e censored closed mind society.

Minor seems to be a few decades mentally and logically behind his brother Hitchens major.

As for backing Charlie against the architects...Charlie knows dick shit about architecture(as well as most other things) and should stick to hugging trees in silence.

Jabba the Cat said...

@ WW

Is it also a coincidence that the Lockerbie bomber is also a Muslim and hence the kid glove arse licking appeasement treatment from the one eyed Scottish git and his fellow socialist arse lickers.

Personally, I think Gaddaffi is long overdue for another bomb strike over Tripoli, just to show him who's boss and where is the compensation money, and, why he should be begging us to take his oil at knock down prices.

adam said...

oh the evilllll daily mail

horror horror horror

Anonymous said...

Peter gets it right most of the time.

John R said...

Good grief, that's one in a row.

Philipa said...

Just because Peter Hitchens stumbles over a few truths does not mean he's not COMPLETELY BONKERS.

Bird said...

I was shocked too. He didn't once mention "the useless Tories".

Alcuin said...

Re Wind Farms. The best location in Europe is probably the Hebrides, where they are about 30% efficient, i.e. a 1MW turbine will deliver an average 300kW over a year. When the wind does not blow, no power. When the wind is too strong, you have to feather them to prevent damage.

In Germany, the electoral system favours the Greens, hence turbines and solar panels everywhere. However, less wind, and an efficiency of only 16%. To back up the wind component, they have to buy electricity from coal stations in Eastern Europe.

Watch James Lovelock giving Stephen Sackur a sharp lesson in real Physics.

Anonymous said...

Bit obvious though isn't it. I mean who would not agree with any of that?

Oh, Mr Haffey
Hm ... where do we start ?
Wind farms are only 25% efficient and there is no way the entire power needs on the UK can be run from half the country covered on wind farms. (by the way the build up of bugs and salt has been shown to reduce this inefficiency further). It would need the installed capacity to be twice the necessary as well!
Its hugely expensive and many countries are cutting back investment.

And the variable wind power cannot cover base loads and there are various studies which show that only a small part of the installed load will be saved by swapping to wind.

Building on peat bogs is recognized as a serious disruption of an important carbon sink; the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds opposes wind development on the Lewis because the turbines would take 25 years to theoretically save the amount of carbon that their construction will release from the peat (not to mention the threat to birds)
And chopping down trees to build on mountains - I ask you!
Building these things has a massive disruptive impact on the environment.d

Bill Quango MP said...

Broken clock syndrome.

Aaron said...

Right wing blogger agrees with right wing columnist?

I never thought I'd see the day....

Francis Ronald D said...

A wind turbine delivers energy (kWh), not power (kW). A 1 MW wind turbine with a 30% capacity factor will deliver on average 300kWh in one *hour*.

Anonymous said...

Agree about the windmills.

No way should our energy policy be built around whether the wind blows or not.

Two forms of solar energy worth looking at though because they are constant are tidal and sunlight for crops. If those two fail then we won't be needing any energy anyway.

notaracist notatory said...

Perhaps Wrinkled Weasael has his own agenda, BUT ....

Lord Ahmed's texting was not connected to the fatal accident. Records showed that he was 1.8 miles from the crash site at the last text sent/received.

He is clearly a prat for texting while driving, but WW's version is a little slanted.

Sean Haffey said...


Yes, wind turbines are not 100% efficient.

It will shock many, obviously including you, to discover that no power source is 100% efficient. All power stations require a good deal of energy to construct them. Nor did I anywhere suggest that wind would be the sole solution to our energy requirements.

But wind, backed by other power generation, offers the ability to to generate clean power, without costly imports of fuel.

And if, for a moment we did actually decide to run everything off windpower, we still would not be talking about covering half the countryside or anything like it.

Build turbines to give you clean and cheap power when the wind blows and use other more costly sources when it doesn't.

Little Black Sambo said...

You are both sane and sensible people, and must expect to come out on the same side on matters of importance.

ukipwebmaster said...

Look in the mirror. If there are signs of yellow blotches with purple streaks - don't panic.
You're turning UKIP.

Anonymous said...

So, right-wing blogger agrees with right-wing newspaper columnist.

I fail to see the shock horror.

Jabba the Cat said...

@ Alcuin said...

"Watch James Lovelock giving Stephen Sackur a sharp lesson in real Physics."

Watching that interview got me really worried. I almost died from laughing.

John Demetriou said...

So, Dale, are you going to apologise to Mr Wilkinson on Hitchens's thread about this piece?

Because I think you made a mistake there, and you should be embarassed with your ridiculous conduct.

The fact your assumption has been negated, and you failed to pop back on there to explain yourself speaks volumes.

You big baby.

John Demetriou said...

Cheers for the response. You're truly the big man.