NEW!! Power Politics: The inside Track on Energy (e-book, Just £3.20/$4.99!!)

by Professor Michael Economides & Peter C Glover

The power politics behind the world's most important commodity explained with insight and wit.


Also available at Amazon Kindle and all other e-sellers.


The Great Evangelical Disaster REVISITED (e-book, £3.20/$4.99)

(HardWired Books, 2012) by Peter C Glover

30 years ago Dr Francis Schaeffer's warning of a new super-spirituality that would come to dominate in the church. The book revisits Schaeffer's warnings finding them prophetic. 



Energy and Climate Wars

How Naive Politicians, Green Ideologues, and Media Elites Are Undermining the Truth About Energy and Climate

by Peter C Glover & Professor Michael Economides (Continuum, 2011)

"An excellent, readable book for anyone who wants to know the real implications of climate madness for energy policy." Steve Goreham, author Climatism: Science, Common Sense and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic.  ..a watershed book... Donald G. Nelson

Hardback print edition available direct from this site at £12 (plus £2.99 shipping)


Also available from Amazon and all other retailers in hardback or e-book version



Powered by Squarespace
About this site


"A petty reason...why novelists more and more try to keep a distance from journalists is that novelists are trying to write the truth and journalists are trying to write fiction."

Graham Greene


Global Warming Just Isn't Happening: Official, Energy Tribune & The Commentator, January 20, 2013

Green Hypocrisy as Al Gore Sells Out for Petro-dollars, Energy Tribune & The Commentator, January 10 & 9, 2013

UK's New Year Shale Resolution, Energy Tribune, January 7, 2013

UK PM Must Sack His Energy Secretary, Energy Tribune (US) & The Commentator (UK), December 19, 2012

Greenpeace-WWF Wind Claims Blown Away, Energy Tribune (US) & The Commentator (UK), December 11, 2012

Cameron's Same-Sex Marriage Blunder, The Commentator, December 12, 2012

UK Energy Bill Triples Green Subsidies, Energy Tribune, December 7, 2012

Iran's Gazan Proxy War, Energy Tribune, November 28, 2012

Obama's Energy Mandate: More Oil and Gas, Energy Tribune, November 23, 2012

The Next Oil Revolution, Energy Tribune, November 18, 2012

The EPA's Dirty BIG Secrets, Energy Tribune, November 14, 2012

Resurrecting Republican Conservatism, Rant Political, November 12, 2012

US Votes for Big Government & the Entitlement Society, Rant Political, November 8, 2012

Obamanomics, Solyndra and Crony Capitalism, Energy Tribune, October 31, 2012.

Fracking Goes to Hollywood, The Commentator and Energy Tribune, October 22, 2012



Fuelling the Rise of the Anglosphere, Energy Tribune, February 28, 2012

A Shale-fuelled Economic Miracle for 2012, Energy Tribune, January 5, 2012. 

Occupying Durban: The Greatest Sham on Earth, Energy Tribune, November 28, 2011.

Ten Fracking Things Everyone Should Know, Energy Tribune, April , 2011.

U.S. Has Earth's Largest Energy Resources, Energy Tribune, March 24, 2011.

Gasland's Fracking Nonsense, Energy Tribune, February 18, 2011.

BP and Union Carbide: A Tale of Two Moralities, Troy Media, June 30, 2010

The Nabucco Conspiracy  Energy Tribune March 26, 2009

Media Credibility, Not Ice Caps, In Meltdown  American Thinker  February 23, 2009

Dissing Hansen  American Thinker  February 2, 2009

Wind Power Exposed  Human Events  November 24, 2008 & Energy Tribune, November 25, 2008.

Muslim Apartheid: Getting Behind The Veil  Catholic Insight (Canada) December, 2006 & World Politics Review, October, 2006

Green Hypocrisy At 30,000 Feet  TCS Daily, October 5, 2006

Photoshop of Horrors  TCS Daily, August 9, 2006

Torturing The Truth, TCS Daily, March 9, 2006

Search this site

Godless: The Church of Liberalism - my review

666383-457790-thumbnail.jpgI recently wrote an extended review of Ann Coulter's US bestseller Godless: The Church Of Liberalism. It has just been published in the The Evangelical Times (UK) and the US newspaper Christian Renewal and is due to be published in Catholic Insight (Canada) in October.  As the first two of the above don't publish online you can access a copy here.

Liberal activists constantly say that no one would listen to Ann Coulter if she were not quote 'a leggy blonde'.  I make no apologies for running a picture here however.  It is true that I think she has a terrific mind and a powerful way with logic. But I am not blind to her other virtues.  I may love her mind...but, gentlemen, I am not quite that shallow.


Plastic models, unglued politicans & other fabrications

Playing on a TV screen near you
When I saw the headline "Airfix made me the man I am" I was just about to congratulate Tory Leader David Cameron on finally owning up to what many of us had long suspected turned out to be a piece about plastic model-making firm going bust. Indeed, much like the various computer models predicting the cataclysmic consequences of 'climate change' - one of Mr Cameron's pet hobbies - the whole thing just fell apart.

Indeed, this weekend, Mr Cameron confirmed further his anti-conservative credentials by proclaiming his desire for "emissions law". Sadly, our possible PM-in-waiting seems fairly glued (geddit?) to the desire to exact an array of environment taxes aimed at 'doing something about climate change'.  This is the same 'climate change' that has, at present, no real science climate consensus in its support.  Not to mention that it would cost trillions to have even the slightest affect on any such changes - which may well, of course, be entirely natural.

Has Mr Cameron also become unglued then?  Or is he depending too much on the consistently discredited climate computer models predicting catastrophe at every turn - being more 'solvent' than the Airfix company? Odd is it not how 'models' rarely give a true picture of the real thing? I blame human error. Well the Jolly Green Pygmy (as avers to Giant) Politician is not interested in waiting to find out.  He wants us all pouring billions into a science 'black hole' of environmental taxes at (or down) our earliest convenience.

NB. My piece What Climate Consensus? published by the British Journalism Review last week has been linked by my friends at The American Thinker here.  Over at the BJR blog some debate has already been logged with one commentator doing the liberal usual of accusing the sicence detractors such as the very eminent and 'incovenient' Professor Richard Lindzen, perjoratively, as 'a Maverick' while entirely refusing to engage with the actual argument. Here is a superb rebuttal of such methods (and showing why they do it) from The Boston Globe's Alex Beam in his MIT's Inconvenient  Scientist. Enjoy (unless you are anti-intellectual in debate of course).  


Islamofascists in rural England?

It is not what we think about when we consider escaping to the English countryside.  Country town school buildings being used for al-Qaeda training sessi0ns.

But Islamic extremists - and there are plainly increasing numbers of them - care little for our British values and heritage. Indeed, there goal is to overturn our values by achieving cultural changes including including: cutting the education bill (by scrapping education for women altogether), re-writing history books (by nuking Israel and revealing how Hitler was misunderstood) and reinstating the death penalty  (for anyone who disagrees with them).

Still there would be no need to do away with British liberal instutions like the BBC , New Statesman and The Guardian at least. Why  dismantle that which has served you so well for so long? Ah yes, the future beckons  for our English countryside idylls: more tea, Imam? 


British criminal justice system disgraced again

Just sixteen weeks into a 15 month sentence (a pittance in itself) former world boxing champion Naseem Hamed has been this morning released from prison. Let us just remind ourselves what Hamed actually did.

 Having more money than sense he drove his £325,000 Mercedes McLaren near his home at approaching 100mph.  He was showing off his what his car 'could do' to two friends as he approached a "blind dip". Driving this  'killing machine' thus he, not unnaturally, hit full on a car being driven in the opposite direction - and with such ferocity that the other car was thrown backwards. The driver was killed and Hamed succeeded in fracturing "every major bone in his body".  For this the British justice system deemed under four months imprisonment a suitable recompense to the victim - and his wife (also badly injured in the crash).  Hamed is only 32 and will perhaps be able to take up his former life and set about ingficting further physical damage on human beings before he dies. We migh also expect to see him earning renewed celebrity status (and more money) warning about the dangers of speed.


Bush rightly 'makes the case for war'

Yesterday George W Bush spoke of the global war against terror as  "decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century." He is right of course. And it boils down - though hardly any will admit it it - to a straight fight between Judeo-Christian worldview & values v Islamofascist worldview & values. It is just that most, for their own reasons, for political reasons or just because they plain refuse to understand, do not articulate the "struggle" in those underlying terms.

As today's Wall Street Journal op-ed by the excellent Daniel Henninger points out the White House has perhaps failed to set out the case publicly and consistently as it might have done to 'sell the war' and its key importance to us all.  Focusing on yesterday's speech by George Bush he notes: "What occurred on 9/11 was off the charts of human experience. But not the London plot. That was a pivotal event in the politics of the war on terror. It was something most people could process and internalize. Logical conclusion: Yup, they are out there and they are trying to kill all of us. (Is there any other conclusion?)"

If that doesn't focus even the most 'anti-war' liberal Western mindset then nothing will - and we will just need to 'work around them'.  


What Climate Consensus?

666383-450417-thumbnail.jpgThe British Journalism Review has just published my latest article: What Climate Consensus? which is a substantial piece (2,300 words) addressing the fact that there is no such thing as a 'science consensus' on climate change. 

The reasons for the fuss from science researchers and the mass media is twofold:  1. science research speculation coupled with media-induced public alarm  can literally mean billions (pick you own currency) for science laboritaries eager for cash (and global scares are the best way to ensure them). 2. The mass media attracts larger audiences through scaremongering stories of all kinds (and climate change is currently top of the pops).

Readers of this blog will know I have long published the balancing materials the MSM (largely) ignores and that I have alsomanaged to have a number of pieces published in the press in the UK, US and Canada. The latest, however, is perhaps the best 'placed'.  The BJR magazine has in its next quarter September edition published my What Climate Consensus? The object of the exercise is to suggest to fellow journalists and editors (at source - most receive the BJR) that they might like to be aware of this information...which they either have not seen or have thus far ignored. (NB. The BJR blog manager appears to have given it the name 'Global warming? What global warming? 'at present. That was not the title the magazine published it in, however).


Just when you thought it was safe to fly again...

666383-450401-thumbnail.jpgJust when you thought it might be safe to fly again...Ryanair comes up with a scheme to allow mobile phones and Crackberrys on their planes.  Because of current in-flight restrictions and security arrangements planes are just about the one place you are not likely to hear the ubiquitous and nauseating ring tones and these words: "Hello, its me, I'm on the train plane...".

For all those techno junkies out there who are planning on taking their techno paraphernalia as their hand luggage when they fly you really need to be warned of this and that this is what can happen when the radiowaves finally succeed in frying the brain. Personally, I am flying another airline.   


US voters still spotting 'Godless' Democrat policies

666383-448973-thumbnail.jpgA new Pew Research Center poll in America has revealed that only 26% of Americans perceive the Democrat Party (liberals , though more 'conservative' than UK liberals, of course) as friendly towards religious faith. This will have come as a shock to a party the US electorate clearly found to be amoral in many of its policies at the 2004 election - and which has been trying hard to 'find God' ever since.  Plainly, the US electorate (being - to a degree - brighter, more politically aware and distincntly more Christian than its UK counterpart) sees straight through liberal policies as pursuing the antithesis of God's 'policies' or teachings.  

Plainly, when it comes to the 'party of God', US voters still do not see the Democrats as moral. If only UK voters were as astute about liberal policies in the UK. But what voters on both sides of the Atlantic have yet to fully grasp is that liberals, far from eschewing 'faith' at all - have simply traded their nation's Judeo-Christian spiritual heritage for a mess of  Secular Liberal pottag - one belief system for another.

Democrat strategists after the 2004 election drubbing have done their level best to reveal themselves as having 'found God' as Slates' Amy Kellogg here notes. Sadly, however, God still seems disinclined to allow his followers to be diverted by Democrat strategy seeking to obscure Democrat policy.


So what should real conservatives do?

The question keeps arising: in the light of a Cameron Conservative Party which has tacked to the left of the Liberal Party what should real conservatives do at the next election?  The answer is not an easy one - at least for those of us who believe in the importance of free voting in a democratic society. But then that is the real point here. Do we real have any longer a true democratic society?

 None of us voted for an un-elected (buy us) of a European elite to take decisions for our sovereign nation. And neither do we have true representation of the will of the people in the UK.  Just set the opinion polls (on Europe and the death penalty) against the polices of the three major parties.

In those circumstances we have two real options open to us. 1. A protest vote for a minor party that DOES reflect some our key policy conerns (I have voted UKIP for this very reason in the past - though there's is not an wholistic concervative ideology in truth). 2. Don't vote at all.  I fully appreciate that the latter denies the whole basis of the importance of voting in a free society. But the problem is that the conservative position and its adherent range of policies is nowhere represented by the three major parties - which are all variant scoialist liberal parties.

All we can do is vote or not with our consicence.  This may be the first election where most real conservatives (who should not be suckered by the misty-eyed 'let's all pull together for the sake of the party' nonsense - as the aprty has clearly 'lost its mind') have to vote with thrie feet, not with their hands.  No representation of our views means, quite simply, we have no democracy worthy of the name. So much for the liberal myth of  'real choice'.  The reality at present is: you can have any colour of creed - so long as its  liberal.  We might need to send the parties a message this election: we don't care for any of your choices.


The ONLY message to send terrorists



Stem cell 'wonder cure' claims slammed

At last some common sense in the rush for stem cell 'wonder cures'. 14 medical charities have written to The Times to warn that the claims for them are entirely overblown and, worse, untested and potentially very dangerous.

 Ann Coulter on stem cell research generally: "Although there has been research on both adult and embryonic stem cells since the fifties, only adult stem-cell research (ed: morally ethical) has prodcued any cures- and lots of 'em. Adult stem cells have been used for decades to treat dozens of diseases, including Type 1 diabetes, liver disease, and spinal cord injuries. Currently, adult stem cells are used to treat more than eighty diseases...By contrast, the embryonic stem-cell researchers have prodcued nothing. They have treated nothing. They have not even begun one human clinical trial. They've successfully tereated a few rodents, but they keep running itno two problems: First, the cells tend to be rejected by the immune system. Second, they tend to cause malignancies called teratomas - meaning 'monster tumours'."

Scientist Michael Fumento says, "it was the very success of asdult stem-cell research compared with the abject failure of embryonic stem-cell research that led to the all-out PR campaign: 'Savvy venture capitalists have poured their money into ASC's, leaving the ESC reseatrchers desperate to feed at the federal trough'. "

Do you see why embryonic stem cell researchers - against all the failures of clarity of the real science - are desperate for public funding  to keep them employed in useless embryonic stem cell research? They know only too well that private funding won't be forthcoming for something private venture capitalists KNOW can't work.  So why whould the public purse pick up the tab for something real scientists and private science funders know is a loser?


Labour out at next election? As Cameron saves the planet?

greenncross.jpegI am natural conservative - as avers to a Cameron Conservative (conservatives: those with a a strong idoeological worldview/ Cameron Conservatives: those with no discernible cerebral functioning) so it pains me greatly that David Cameron may well win the next election.

The problem is it will be no less painful to imagine the Centraliser General Gordon Brown - a man who has put 500,000 more people on to the nation's dependency culture - walking through the doors of No 10 in 2009/2010. The former (leftwing) New Statesman editor  Peter Wilby, writing in The Guardian, has certainly given up the New Labour-again 'ghost' in favour of a Cameron victory.  A Liberal Democrat coup is certainly possible - and about as likely as Pluto regaining planet status.

The old joke, during Neil Kinnock's Labour years, suggesting, should he win, "Would the last person leaving Britain please turn off the light" is staring us all in the face no matter who wins. The prognosis does not look good for Britain in the second decade of this century. But then our stomach for standing for an increasingly un-democratic system which has degenerated into a politically-correct quagmire of nitwits scrabbling for the 'centre-ground' is all there is will come back and bite us all. What we need is real democracy again. A party which wants to take the UK out of the social welfare sinking EU. A party which believes in law and order - and the death penalty (which most Brits want restored, so whatever happened to representation of the people?). A party which acknowledges the need for ideology and a Judeo-Christian moral basis to our cultural values.

Such a party used to be called The Conservative Party. But that party is lately been co-opted into the Green Party and run by the Green Cross Code Man. Until it comes to its senses we face an inexorable rudderless, decline to pre-1980s standards (and perhaps worse). Only those of us who lived then can know exactly what that means.  


Hez: Regrets, I've had a few. But then again...

hezregrets.jpgAccording to this Guardian front page piece this morning Hezbollah chief, Hassan Nasrallah, says he would not have sanctioned the kidnapping of the two Israeli sodliers (though not sorry enough to give them up) had he known it would lead to war. (Apparently, he mis-heard Allah's instructions. Easily done.)

If that is true then it validates Israel's action entirely in pursuing Hezbollah into the Lebanese heartland. If it stops them taking other hostages - indeed all terrorists taking hostages - then it has served the war served a valuable purpose. What would now be a major mistake is for Israel to release ANY Muslim or Arab prisoners in a quid pro quo move - or they will lose the moral high ground they have up to this point maintained.

 Nasrallah apparently remains non-commital about a role as a Guardian columnist (if Mossad let him live make retirement).  I understand the working title: 'Jihadist and Liberal world perspective...'  Sounds about right.


What are awards for exactly?

Now it may just be that I have always held 'awards' of any kind in low regard because a) I have never won one (with a couple of minor school and sport caveats) and b) I am unlikely ever to win one in for my writing (too politically-incorrect and non-populist) .

 But neither can I see any real value in making awards - especially the 'back-slapping' variety - though I remain open to having my mind changed.  It is just that you can never ever be sure about the politics of those who judge and the criteria by which they do it.  I note that the US TV Emmy Awards are currently struggling for credibility. I have no problem with 24 winning best drama I might say (though I would have gone for Without A Trace at present).

Then there's the laughability of the Nobel Peace Prize and various media awards, including journalism awards (when journalists the mainstream journalism, as far as I can see, has something of a major crisis of truth problem. As the Trust in the Media poll in May proved.

Then there is the bizarre notion of the BBC and The Guardian with their Best of the Blogs  awards. Given that the best of the blogs - ie those that have and are forcing truth into the mainstream without liberal bias reflect the very antithesis of the values held by the the BBC and The Guardian, it is somewhat perverse.  And even the many other back-slapping awards including Tim Worstall's Best of British et al. Does he read them all? Answer: No. Do any of the award-givers  do so or even know what is out there?  I doubt it. So what useful purpose does it serve?  And how reflective is it actually of true  value?

Some of the 'best' blogs are in my view wholly lacking in an worldview coherence. I no longer even bother to read Glenn Reynolds' Instapundit. Not because his laconic quick-fire references are not useful - but they don't reflect any serious reflection quite often and thus (more importantly) a wholly unstructured personal worldview.  Then there's the Christian equivalent in the self-aggrandizing Warnie Awards by someone who perceives himself by the theological oxymoron of a 'Reformed charismatic' (a contradiction in theological terms to anyone that actually teaches the Scriptures from a Reformed position of course).

I suspect 'campaigns' (what people are prepared to stand up for publicly) say more about the worldview, principles and thus value of indidivuals who participate than do 'awards'. Thus my forthcoming 'Make France History' campaign should be the most popular in world history.  I might even receive an award for it. That would be useful, wouldn't it?


Is PC-ism the new official religion of Scotland?

It is not just the Catholic Church that should be "worried and alarmed" about Celtic goalkeeper Artur Boruc being cautioned for a Breach of the Peace when he performed the sign of the Cross during a 'old firm' game against Glasgow Rangers.

(For the record there is a history of sectarianism between the two Glasgow clubs  - Rangers 'heritage' being Protestant and Celtic's Catholic. The same thing used to be true about the two Manchester clubs. United , in the 50s being Catholic, and City being Protestant. Its all bunkem these days though. In the Glasgow case its now more about tribalism, not religion. Most of these football fans wouldn't know a Christian from a wet sponge - unfortunately, not helped by the fact that far too many liberal 'Christians' are indeed wet sponges. )

But this latest act of blatant PC-ism (political correctness) goes beyond the bounds of what ought to be acceptable to us all.  It appears the increasingly idiot Scottish Executive, which is also currently intent on foresting Scotland with propellor blades and wind farms, is keen to blow away all vestiges of common sense.   Will they prevent the Islamist Clans from shouting Allah Akhbar! in the streets, too? Will they stop Scots from consistently making sour remarks about 'Sassenachs' (that's us Anglo-Saxons in England) in their usual surly manner?

Presumably, all goalkeeper Artur Boruc really wants is to save things. After all that's the business he's in.   Now you see what an excess of haggis does to people's sensibilites?