Scenting blood in the water

Following a 5 Star Blogging link to American Thinker yesterday and other comments around the UK end of the blogosphere, a storm is brewing about the previous government’s promotion of condensing boilers.

This is the type that has broken down by the thousand this winter. EU Referendum is leading the charge with ‘A Scandal Emerges’. As Dr Richard North says:

‘… this equipment was foisted on the unsuspecting public in 2005 by John Prescott, then deputy prime minister. It was done through the expedient of amending the thermal efficiency requirements for domestic heating appliances in the Building Regulations.

‘As part of the process, though, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister then in April 2005 issued formal installation guidance for these boilers, five pages of which were devoted to the condensate drain. Not once was there any mention of the danger of the pipes freezing, and nowhere was there any suggestion that precautions should be taken.’

CO2 emissions and climate change were all that mattered to the government, while no consideration was given to the propensity of the boilers to freeze in winter weather, sometimes putting the boiler beyond economic repair. The outcome is an example of what happens when airy fairy beliefs in flawed hypotheses clash with the real world and the consequences, as always, fall upon the poor bloody consumer.

As North says, everyone who has had a boiler failure for this reason over the last cold period, has a valid claim against government, for the costs of the call-out and remedial action, and for consequential losses.  This one has some legs in it yet.

4 Responses to “Scenting blood in the water”

  1. 2 Trooper Thompson 31/12/2010 at 8:44 pm

    I must remember to bring this up with my old man, Labour stalwart that he is. He’s had these problems.

  2. 3 rogerthesurf 31/12/2010 at 11:03 pm

    I think that we are in the grip of the biggest and most insane hoax in history, and unless the public get wise to it soon, we will all be parted from what wealth we have.

    Lets take a simple economic view of what is likely to happen.

    In the absence of sufficient alternative solutions/technologies, the only way western countries can ever attain the IPCC demands of CO2 emissions reduced to 40% below 1990 levels, (thats about 60% below todays) is to machine restrictions on the use of fossil fuels. Emission Trading schemes are an example.

    As the use of fossil fuels is roughly linear with anthropogenic CO2 emissions, to attain a 60% reduction of emissions , means about the same proportion of reduction of fossil fuel usage, including petrol, diesel, heating oil, not to mention coal and other types including propane etc.

    No matter how a restriction on the use of these is implemented, even a 10% decrease will make the price of petrol go sky high. In otherwords, (and petrol is just one example) we can expect, if the IPCC has its way, a price rise on petrol of greater than 500%.
    First of all, for all normal people, this will make the family car impossible to use. Worse than that though, the transport industry will also have to deal with this as well and they will need to pass the cost on to the consumer. Simple things like food will get prohibitively expensive. Manufacturers who need fossil energy to produce will either pass the cost on to the consumer or go out of business. If you live further than walking distance from work, you will be in trouble.
    All this leads to an economic crash of terrible proportions as unemployment rises and poverty spreads.
    I believe that this will be the effect of bowing to the IPCC and the AGW lobby. AND as AGW is a hoax it will be all in vain. The world will continue to do what it has always done while normal people starve and others at the top (including energy/oil companies and emission traders) will enjoy the high prices.

    Neither this scenario nor any analysis of the cost of CO2 emission reductions is included in IPCC literature, and the Stern report which claims economic expansion is simply not obeying economic logic as it is known in todays academic world.

    The fact that the emission reduction cost issue is not discussed, leads me to believe that there is a deliberate cover up of this issue. Fairly obviously the possibility of starvation will hardly appeal to the masses.

    AGW is baloney anyway!



  3. 4 Anoneumouse 01/01/2011 at 12:17 pm

    You really shouldn’t take the piss, don’t forget John Prescott is a ‘professor of climate change’ at a Xiamen University.

Comments are currently closed.

Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive