The failure of the left to force an agreement at the UN Copenhagen conference last week has obviously upset a lot of people in the media. The left wing newspapers (just about all of them) have been voicing their displeasure, but this wasn't so easy for the BBC who are, supposedly, impartial.
But the BBC are THE left wing media organisation. More than any other they encompass the beliefs and values of the left. They employ an almost entirely left wing staff and broadcast only left wing approved programming.
However, because they are "impartial" they are not allowed to put forward opinions on failures such as Copenhagen. So what to do? It's quite a conundrum but the BBC have now established a way around this.
What they do is they put forward a number of representatives from various left wing NGOs - such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF - and ask them their opinion. As if that matters!
Greenpeace, FoE and WWF are not democratically elected organisations. Their opinions are not required and should not be sought - and they are no more valid than my opinion. The BBC should no more be seeking the opinion of these organisations any more than they should be seeking the opinion of a large multinational corporation for their views on Copenhagen.
But in the days following the failure of the Copenhagen conference the BBC trotted out various spokespeople from the NGOs I mentioned for their opinion in a shameless display of grovelling to their puppet masters.
The worst thing about this is that they aren't even subtle about it. They are quite open about their unashamed bias now - they have stopped even trying to be impartial. It's a national disgrace that this organisation is now so institutionally biased and continues to receive public funding to put forward their putrid views.
Showing posts with label Global Warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Global Warming. Show all posts
Monday, December 21, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
The descent into madness
As a self confessed "paedo whore" nursery worker is jailed for just seven years after sexually abusing children in her care for pleasure, a father who defended his family and home from violent armed attack is sentenced to prison while his attacker is let free and the Ministry of Defence decides to cut Britain's air defence so as to purchase 22 new helicopters which may - just may - be ready in time to help pull our troops out of Afghanistan rather than do any good while they are still fighting there our leader is in Copenhagen pledging to give billions of pounds of British taxpayers money to foreign countries to "solve" a non-existent problem based on an unsubstantiated premise that the world is going to fry as a result of what man does.
Yes - the lunatics really have taken over the asylum.
Yes - the lunatics really have taken over the asylum.
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
It's official - breathing is bad for your health
That's according to the US Environmental Protection Agency after they formally declared that "greenhouse" gases endanger health. The principal gas they are concerned about, of course, is CO2 which you and I exhale every time we take a breath - so we're killing ourselves by breathing according to this ridiculous ruling.
It's also worth pointing out that by far the most prevalent greenhouse gas is water vapour. So, according to the barking mad people who make these decisions, water is a dangerous substance.
It just demonstrates how ridiculous this whole thing has become when the product of our breathing and the essential elements of life on earth are declared harmful to public health - but what would you expect when the people who perpetuate this myth are allowed to blatantly lie on TV and in our media without so much as a challenge?
Only this morning on BBC Breakfast, Sir David King - the government's chief propaganda - sorry scientific - advisor declared that they "know" man's activities are responsible for the warming we saw in the 20th century.
They know no such thing - it is supposition based on flawed computer models which have been proven to be incapable of predicting the climate even a year or two in advance let alone 100 years from now. And yet he is allowed to state this as a fact when it is nothing of the sort.
Well, he might as well make the most of it while he can. One day - not that far off in my opinion - the fallacy of the AGW argument is going to be exposed for what it is. And when that happens, the people who have sought to pull the wool over our eyes will have to face some very difficult questions - to say the least.
It's also worth pointing out that by far the most prevalent greenhouse gas is water vapour. So, according to the barking mad people who make these decisions, water is a dangerous substance.
It just demonstrates how ridiculous this whole thing has become when the product of our breathing and the essential elements of life on earth are declared harmful to public health - but what would you expect when the people who perpetuate this myth are allowed to blatantly lie on TV and in our media without so much as a challenge?
Only this morning on BBC Breakfast, Sir David King - the government's chief propaganda - sorry scientific - advisor declared that they "know" man's activities are responsible for the warming we saw in the 20th century.
They know no such thing - it is supposition based on flawed computer models which have been proven to be incapable of predicting the climate even a year or two in advance let alone 100 years from now. And yet he is allowed to state this as a fact when it is nothing of the sort.
Well, he might as well make the most of it while he can. One day - not that far off in my opinion - the fallacy of the AGW argument is going to be exposed for what it is. And when that happens, the people who have sought to pull the wool over our eyes will have to face some very difficult questions - to say the least.
Monday, December 07, 2009
The cavalcade of conspiracy
So the Copenhagen stitch up - sorry, conference - is under way with much fanfare and the usual bunch of Environazis demanding that their voice be heard even though they are proven to be liars and deceivers.
Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with saving the planet. Even if these mad Canutists were correct in their assumption that increasing CO2 will result in runaway warming (which I do not believe they are as there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support that hypothesis - none at all) then all these efforts will supposedly delay the inevitable by, at best, 10 years.
The reality is that it isn't going to happen. Any contribution to global warming made by man is insignificant and whatever we do isn't going to make the slightest difference to the climate in 100 years time or 1000 years time - but this isn't really what Copenhagen is about.
The purpose of Copenhagen is not to fix any supposed problem with the climate - it is the first step in an attempt to create a socialist world order under the pretext of some half-baked hypothesis. The main purpose of the conference is to redistribute wealth - and to make that redistribution legally binding. It is, in effect, the creation of a new world government appointed - not elected - to take money from you and me and give it to someone in a far off country.
I have no doubt that in a hundred years time, people will look back on these days in with sadness and bewilderment and wonder how it could have happened. By then, of course, the whole scam will have been well and truly debunked and the mad scramble to "save the planet" will have been revealed as nothing more than a political con-trick.
Unfortunately, it will be a con-trick that will have huge implications for the world and for the west in particular. This is happening at a time when the economic system of the west is on the brink of depression - we're teetering on the precipice of total economic collapse. Don't be fooled by the massaged statistics - all of Europe and the USA remains on the brink - and our political leaders are about to sign away what little hope we had of avoiding this for the sake of a flawed and wholly political belief.
Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with saving the planet. Even if these mad Canutists were correct in their assumption that increasing CO2 will result in runaway warming (which I do not believe they are as there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support that hypothesis - none at all) then all these efforts will supposedly delay the inevitable by, at best, 10 years.
The reality is that it isn't going to happen. Any contribution to global warming made by man is insignificant and whatever we do isn't going to make the slightest difference to the climate in 100 years time or 1000 years time - but this isn't really what Copenhagen is about.
The purpose of Copenhagen is not to fix any supposed problem with the climate - it is the first step in an attempt to create a socialist world order under the pretext of some half-baked hypothesis. The main purpose of the conference is to redistribute wealth - and to make that redistribution legally binding. It is, in effect, the creation of a new world government appointed - not elected - to take money from you and me and give it to someone in a far off country.
I have no doubt that in a hundred years time, people will look back on these days in with sadness and bewilderment and wonder how it could have happened. By then, of course, the whole scam will have been well and truly debunked and the mad scramble to "save the planet" will have been revealed as nothing more than a political con-trick.
Unfortunately, it will be a con-trick that will have huge implications for the world and for the west in particular. This is happening at a time when the economic system of the west is on the brink of depression - we're teetering on the precipice of total economic collapse. Don't be fooled by the massaged statistics - all of Europe and the USA remains on the brink - and our political leaders are about to sign away what little hope we had of avoiding this for the sake of a flawed and wholly political belief.
Friday, December 04, 2009
The curious case of Climategate and auto-suggest
Harold Ambler on Talking About The Weather has discovered something curious about the Climategate scandal and goings on at Google. He noticed that when the row first broke, the Google auto suggest feature would kindly fill in the word climategate as soon as you typed the first few letters into the search box.
This no longer happens. Indeed, as you can see from the images below, even if you type the whole phrase in you get no hints - instead getting something about "climate guatemala" (which doesn't even match the letter sequence!) - and yet the query yields 30,000,000 hits.
As Ambler points out, this curious anomaly only appears to afflict the phrase "climategate". Ambler has been in contact with Google who have assured him that there has been no policy decision to suppress the scandal - I'm not convinced.
Indeed, following on from the leaked CRU emails, this adds even more fuel to the Anthropogenic Global Warming conspiracy theory which is unfolding before our eyes. We can now see that the conspiracy does not just include various politicised scientists and environmental groups, but major media organisations as well - and not just the BBC either!
This no longer happens. Indeed, as you can see from the images below, even if you type the whole phrase in you get no hints - instead getting something about "climate guatemala" (which doesn't even match the letter sequence!) - and yet the query yields 30,000,000 hits.
As Ambler points out, this curious anomaly only appears to afflict the phrase "climategate". Ambler has been in contact with Google who have assured him that there has been no policy decision to suppress the scandal - I'm not convinced.
Indeed, following on from the leaked CRU emails, this adds even more fuel to the Anthropogenic Global Warming conspiracy theory which is unfolding before our eyes. We can now see that the conspiracy does not just include various politicised scientists and environmental groups, but major media organisations as well - and not just the BBC either!
Monday, November 30, 2009
The real "deniers"
As someone who is somewhat sceptical of the argument that the world is warming dangerously due to human emissions of carbon dioxide, I've been following the "Climategate" (oh, blimey!) incident with interest.
If you haven't heard of this you could be forgiven as the MSM have made very little of the incident - particularly on the BBC - despite the incredible revelations that have been made. Essentially it comes down to this - someone hacked or "acquired" a large number of emails and other info from the Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA).
These emails have been confirmed as genuine and reveal - amongst other things - a conspiracy by a small number of highly politicised scientists to hide, manipulate and massage data with the clear intent of promoting the dubious Anthropogenic Global Warming theory through both the IPCC, scientific journals and the MSM. As Booker says, it is a huge scandal for science which makes it all the more incredible that the coverage has been so thin.
This small group of scientists have repeatedly sought to prevent other independent scientists from reviewing the methods and data used to promote the AGW theory, denying them access to data and computer code which would allow them to test the conclusions of this small group of AGW proponents.
It is these people who like to label sceptics as "deniers" - but now we see who the real deniers are. They are a disgrace to the scientific community.
If you haven't heard of this you could be forgiven as the MSM have made very little of the incident - particularly on the BBC - despite the incredible revelations that have been made. Essentially it comes down to this - someone hacked or "acquired" a large number of emails and other info from the Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA).
These emails have been confirmed as genuine and reveal - amongst other things - a conspiracy by a small number of highly politicised scientists to hide, manipulate and massage data with the clear intent of promoting the dubious Anthropogenic Global Warming theory through both the IPCC, scientific journals and the MSM. As Booker says, it is a huge scandal for science which makes it all the more incredible that the coverage has been so thin.
This small group of scientists have repeatedly sought to prevent other independent scientists from reviewing the methods and data used to promote the AGW theory, denying them access to data and computer code which would allow them to test the conclusions of this small group of AGW proponents.
It is these people who like to label sceptics as "deniers" - but now we see who the real deniers are. They are a disgrace to the scientific community.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Bath or holiday? You can't have both.
Who says so?
A certain Lord Redesdale of the all-party parliamentary climate change group.
"We can either heat our homes and have hot baths, or fly but not both. There really does need to be much tougher policies on reducing carbon emissions from the homes."
Of course, when he says "we" he means you and me - not him. I really can't imagine his Lordship giving up his hot bath and foreign holidays - sorry, I mean fact-finding missions to the Caribbean - can you?
What is all this about? "Tougher policies on reducing carbon emissions from the homes"? That sounds suspiciously like compulsion to me - i.e. we (the ruling elite) have to force you (the mug electorate) to use less energy because we (the ruling elite) can't be arsed to have an effective energy policy.
So we're going to be forced to use less energy - and for what? Man's CO2 contribution is but a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of CO2 that enters the atmosphere naturally - and Britain's contribution to that drop is negligible. If everyone in Britain stopped producing C)2 tomorrow it would make absolutely no difference whatsoever - so why are we to be forced to use less energy?
The answer, of course, is that it isn't about using less energy - it's about raising more money through taxation. We'll be forced to use less by being taxed more on the energy we do use - one way or another.
Partly it will be through the general taxation - money taken from the taxpayer to pay for the largely useless and heavily subsidised wind farms which are not economically viable without huge subsidies from the state.
And then they'll be the money raised through indirect taxation - taxes or costly requirements placed on energy suppliers which they will recoup by charging us more for using less energy which is increasingly unavailable when we need it anyhow.
And all this for what? An imagined problem that exists only in the minds of "green" fools and the computer programs of climate models and which real world data tells us does not exist.
A certain Lord Redesdale of the all-party parliamentary climate change group.
"We can either heat our homes and have hot baths, or fly but not both. There really does need to be much tougher policies on reducing carbon emissions from the homes."
Of course, when he says "we" he means you and me - not him. I really can't imagine his Lordship giving up his hot bath and foreign holidays - sorry, I mean fact-finding missions to the Caribbean - can you?
What is all this about? "Tougher policies on reducing carbon emissions from the homes"? That sounds suspiciously like compulsion to me - i.e. we (the ruling elite) have to force you (the mug electorate) to use less energy because we (the ruling elite) can't be arsed to have an effective energy policy.
So we're going to be forced to use less energy - and for what? Man's CO2 contribution is but a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of CO2 that enters the atmosphere naturally - and Britain's contribution to that drop is negligible. If everyone in Britain stopped producing C)2 tomorrow it would make absolutely no difference whatsoever - so why are we to be forced to use less energy?
The answer, of course, is that it isn't about using less energy - it's about raising more money through taxation. We'll be forced to use less by being taxed more on the energy we do use - one way or another.
Partly it will be through the general taxation - money taken from the taxpayer to pay for the largely useless and heavily subsidised wind farms which are not economically viable without huge subsidies from the state.
And then they'll be the money raised through indirect taxation - taxes or costly requirements placed on energy suppliers which they will recoup by charging us more for using less energy which is increasingly unavailable when we need it anyhow.
And all this for what? An imagined problem that exists only in the minds of "green" fools and the computer programs of climate models and which real world data tells us does not exist.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Garbage in, garbage out
The Telegraph reports that a new "study" predicts global temperatures rise by 7C by the end of this century killing billions.
The study, carried out in unprecedented detail, projected that without "rapid and massive action" temperatures worldwide will increase by as much as 7.4C (13.3F) by 2100, from levels seen in 2000.
Scary stuff, eh? Except that the "study" is actually just another computer simulation.
The results are based on 400 trials of the new system, each time using slightly different variations in data at the start to try and iron out errors.
Hmmm, I wonder if any of these "trials" started at a baseline of - say - 1940 and projected to 1980 and when man made CO2 output was at its peak but temperatures declined? How do they know that their projections are accurate when we have no knowledge of what the climate will actually be in 2100?
No doubt the alarmists will cite this as "evidence" of dangerous man-made global warming.
Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Tom Picken said that if the new research by MIT is accurate the results for the planet would be catastrophic.
Oh, they have. Well. Mr Picken - when you have proven that they are accurate, come back and tell us. See you in a hundred years. Meanwhile, the sun continues to doze, the earth continues to cool, the Arctic ice refuses to go away and the Antarctic ice continues to expand.
All of which the computer models failed completely to predict - sorry, "project".
Does anyone still take these people seriously?
Why?
The study, carried out in unprecedented detail, projected that without "rapid and massive action" temperatures worldwide will increase by as much as 7.4C (13.3F) by 2100, from levels seen in 2000.
Scary stuff, eh? Except that the "study" is actually just another computer simulation.
The results are based on 400 trials of the new system, each time using slightly different variations in data at the start to try and iron out errors.
Hmmm, I wonder if any of these "trials" started at a baseline of - say - 1940 and projected to 1980 and when man made CO2 output was at its peak but temperatures declined? How do they know that their projections are accurate when we have no knowledge of what the climate will actually be in 2100?
No doubt the alarmists will cite this as "evidence" of dangerous man-made global warming.
Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Tom Picken said that if the new research by MIT is accurate the results for the planet would be catastrophic.
Oh, they have. Well. Mr Picken - when you have proven that they are accurate, come back and tell us. See you in a hundred years. Meanwhile, the sun continues to doze, the earth continues to cool, the Arctic ice refuses to go away and the Antarctic ice continues to expand.
All of which the computer models failed completely to predict - sorry, "project".
Does anyone still take these people seriously?
Why?
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Just a thought on stupid assumptions
You may have noticed that I don't post much about one of my pet subjects - global warming - these days. There is a reason for that - it's now a dead issue.
Yes, I know that it's still a big deal for many people and governments in particular, but as far as I'm concerned the debate is about to be settled by two things - the economy and the climate.
As things get progressively worse economically across the world, but especially in the USA and Europe, you'll soon see the issue of carbon emissions being forgotten. There will be far more important things to worry about.
As far as climate is concerned - well, my view is that we are entering a cooling phase that will last for decades. Possibly as much as 60-100 years and be as significant as the Little Ice Age - which brings me to my thought.
The thing is - we keep going on about how temperatures today are so much warmer than they have ever been since we started recording temperatures which is true, but here is the point.
We didn't start recording temperatures until we were in the middle of the Little Ice Age - and for much of the time since we did start recording temperatures the LIA dominated. It was only in the last 150 years that the world started to come out of the LIA so it is hardly surprising that temperatures today are higher than they've ever been recorded.
Nobody can actually tell you what the average temperature of the globe should be, but assuming that it was something which was heavily distorted by the LIA seems a pretty stupid assumption to make.
Yes, I know that it's still a big deal for many people and governments in particular, but as far as I'm concerned the debate is about to be settled by two things - the economy and the climate.
As things get progressively worse economically across the world, but especially in the USA and Europe, you'll soon see the issue of carbon emissions being forgotten. There will be far more important things to worry about.
As far as climate is concerned - well, my view is that we are entering a cooling phase that will last for decades. Possibly as much as 60-100 years and be as significant as the Little Ice Age - which brings me to my thought.
The thing is - we keep going on about how temperatures today are so much warmer than they have ever been since we started recording temperatures which is true, but here is the point.
We didn't start recording temperatures until we were in the middle of the Little Ice Age - and for much of the time since we did start recording temperatures the LIA dominated. It was only in the last 150 years that the world started to come out of the LIA so it is hardly surprising that temperatures today are higher than they've ever been recorded.
Nobody can actually tell you what the average temperature of the globe should be, but assuming that it was something which was heavily distorted by the LIA seems a pretty stupid assumption to make.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Great telly, but rather them than me
I don't know if you've been watching the excellent "Victorian Farm" on BBC2 over the last few weeks, but it's become one of the few highlights on TV for me since it started. The programme follows a group of people living and working a farm as they would have done in Victorian times - using traditional methods combined with the "new technology" that was transforming farming in the late 19th century.
The programme makes frequent references to how the new technology of the time was replacing the intensive labour that had been needed before - although makes little judgement on why this was happening. I believe that the general opinion is that the advent of new machinery forced many people out of the country and into the cities, towns and factories - but I would argue that it was possibly the other way around.
People started flocking to the industrial centres from the country because the factories offered higher wages - and businessmen don't pay higher wages unless they have to! If it really had been a case that the new farming technology was putting farm workers out of work then the wages offered by the industrialist would have been lower - not higher. Add on the fact that working in factories offered predictable hours (though long) and less backbreaking (though still very hard) work and you can see why people moved to the cities and why farming had to change.
Despite all the advances in technology, farming actually remained quite labour intensive long after the Victorian era. One of my favourite books about the local area is called "The Spacious Days" by Michael Twist recounting his early life living and working on a farm not far from Slough in the 1930's. It's a charming and witty read, but it also reveals that farming was still a very labour intensive occupation even up to just before the start of WW2.
Watching Victorian Farm reveals just how hard life was back then - even if the participants in the programme seem to be enjoying themselves. I actually think they are enjoying the simplicity and honesty of that way of life more than anything - the work itself, particularly during the harsh winter months, was arduous although ultimately rewarding - and they know that they'll be back in the modern world soon enough. You also have to admire the sheer creativity and skill of the craftsmen back then.
Contrary to what many might think - although I believe we could do far worse than reacquaint ourselves with some of the Victorian morality, can do attitude and work ethic - I don't dream of us going back to those sort of times. What we forget, though, is that without the power provided by fuel such as coal and the freedom provided by the internal combustion engine we wouldn't be that much different today. For me, there is a certain irony that so-called "progressive" policy towards "man-made" global warming is likely to force a return to a Victorian style existence far more than any conservative policy would.
The programme makes frequent references to how the new technology of the time was replacing the intensive labour that had been needed before - although makes little judgement on why this was happening. I believe that the general opinion is that the advent of new machinery forced many people out of the country and into the cities, towns and factories - but I would argue that it was possibly the other way around.
People started flocking to the industrial centres from the country because the factories offered higher wages - and businessmen don't pay higher wages unless they have to! If it really had been a case that the new farming technology was putting farm workers out of work then the wages offered by the industrialist would have been lower - not higher. Add on the fact that working in factories offered predictable hours (though long) and less backbreaking (though still very hard) work and you can see why people moved to the cities and why farming had to change.
Despite all the advances in technology, farming actually remained quite labour intensive long after the Victorian era. One of my favourite books about the local area is called "The Spacious Days" by Michael Twist recounting his early life living and working on a farm not far from Slough in the 1930's. It's a charming and witty read, but it also reveals that farming was still a very labour intensive occupation even up to just before the start of WW2.
Watching Victorian Farm reveals just how hard life was back then - even if the participants in the programme seem to be enjoying themselves. I actually think they are enjoying the simplicity and honesty of that way of life more than anything - the work itself, particularly during the harsh winter months, was arduous although ultimately rewarding - and they know that they'll be back in the modern world soon enough. You also have to admire the sheer creativity and skill of the craftsmen back then.
Contrary to what many might think - although I believe we could do far worse than reacquaint ourselves with some of the Victorian morality, can do attitude and work ethic - I don't dream of us going back to those sort of times. What we forget, though, is that without the power provided by fuel such as coal and the freedom provided by the internal combustion engine we wouldn't be that much different today. For me, there is a certain irony that so-called "progressive" policy towards "man-made" global warming is likely to force a return to a Victorian style existence far more than any conservative policy would.
Monday, December 08, 2008
Environazis living up to their name
A bunch of retards from a group called Plane Stupid did their best to prove just how stupid they are by barricading themselves on a runway at Stansted.
One of the activists, Lily Kember, 21, said they had used bolt cutters to get in to a secure area around 50 metres from the runway.
"Being arrested is a terrifying prospect, but not nearly as terrifying as the threat of climate change."
You think so?
"It's a bit cold, but everyone is in good spirits," she said.
Irony is lost on these people.
One of the activists, Lily Kember, 21, said they had used bolt cutters to get in to a secure area around 50 metres from the runway.
"Being arrested is a terrifying prospect, but not nearly as terrifying as the threat of climate change."
You think so?
"It's a bit cold, but everyone is in good spirits," she said.
Irony is lost on these people.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Meanwhile real education nosedives
As another study finds that, contrary to government myth, education standards have declined disastrously.
In a study, 1,300 of the brightest 16-year-olds were presented with questions from old O-level and GCSE papers.
An average of one-in-seven questions from tests taken in the 60s and 70s were answered correctly. Even pupils awarded elite A* grades in corresponding GCSEs this summer struggled with traditional questions.
Another liberal progressive lie exposed by fact based evidence. No doubt the progs will be rushing to assure us that the results prove how great education is. Oh - here we go ...
A spokeswoman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: “Standards in science have improved year on year thanks to 10 years of sustained investment and improvement in teaching and the education system - this is something we should celebrate, not criticise.”
Blah blah blah - more money than ever - blah blah blah - results prove - blah blah blah. Change the record will you? Why should we celebrate declining education standards? The "spokeswoman" then lets slip the truth.
“We want all young people to have a thorough grounding in chemistry, physics and biology, but also to be able to apply it to the science of climate change....."
Oh, right. In other words you teach science badly so that kids can apply it to bad science.
In a study, 1,300 of the brightest 16-year-olds were presented with questions from old O-level and GCSE papers.
An average of one-in-seven questions from tests taken in the 60s and 70s were answered correctly. Even pupils awarded elite A* grades in corresponding GCSEs this summer struggled with traditional questions.
Another liberal progressive lie exposed by fact based evidence. No doubt the progs will be rushing to assure us that the results prove how great education is. Oh - here we go ...
A spokeswoman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: “Standards in science have improved year on year thanks to 10 years of sustained investment and improvement in teaching and the education system - this is something we should celebrate, not criticise.”
Blah blah blah - more money than ever - blah blah blah - results prove - blah blah blah. Change the record will you? Why should we celebrate declining education standards? The "spokeswoman" then lets slip the truth.
“We want all young people to have a thorough grounding in chemistry, physics and biology, but also to be able to apply it to the science of climate change....."
Oh, right. In other words you teach science badly so that kids can apply it to bad science.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Secret report reveals CO2 is NOT the major cause of global warming
Actually, it's not in the least bit secret, but you wouldn't know that from the MSM who have categorically failed once more to report on a study which contradicts the IPCC approved narrative.
The paper suggests that, although there is a small underlying trend of warming connected to CO2 (which we are all aware of anyway otherwise this planet would be a freezing hell hole), the conclusion is that most of the warming is not from CO2. They even go as far as to say ....
These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: "[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
In other words, the IPCC is wrong, CO2 is not the driver of climate, the majority of the increase is natural and there really isn't any need to cut our economic throat by clamping down on CO2 emissions.
Of course, this one study is no more conclusive proof than anything else, but it amazes me that what should be considered as essentially a good news story is given absolutely no coverage. Why is it that the very real probability of climate change being almost entirely natural and, therefore, the need to spend trillions of dollars mitigating it unnecessary being ignored?
You'd have thought - what with the ballooning credit crisis - that governments all over the world would be dancing with joy at the news, but it seems that they are not. Why would that be?
The paper suggests that, although there is a small underlying trend of warming connected to CO2 (which we are all aware of anyway otherwise this planet would be a freezing hell hole), the conclusion is that most of the warming is not from CO2. They even go as far as to say ....
These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: "[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
In other words, the IPCC is wrong, CO2 is not the driver of climate, the majority of the increase is natural and there really isn't any need to cut our economic throat by clamping down on CO2 emissions.
Of course, this one study is no more conclusive proof than anything else, but it amazes me that what should be considered as essentially a good news story is given absolutely no coverage. Why is it that the very real probability of climate change being almost entirely natural and, therefore, the need to spend trillions of dollars mitigating it unnecessary being ignored?
You'd have thought - what with the ballooning credit crisis - that governments all over the world would be dancing with joy at the news, but it seems that they are not. Why would that be?
Friday, November 07, 2008
Fall of the Gore Dynasty
Physorg.com has a neat little reference to a paper from the National Science Foundation about Chinese dynasties and Asian monsoons. Unfortunately for global warming alarmists it includes a graphic which doesn't fit the narrative.
Check out those Northern Hemisphere temperatures! And how they correlate with the fall of dynasties - Yuan, Ming - who's next?
Monday, November 03, 2008
The (Little) Ice Age Cometh
As I'm sure you are all well aware by now, I'm not convinced that relatively small increases in an essential trace gas caused by mans activity on this earth are responsible for making the planet warmer. Actually, I find it completely and utterly implausible. What is more, despite many claims by warmists to the contrary, there is no evidence whatsoever that warming is caused by mans activities. None at all.
The only "evidence" they have comes from computer models and, as most of us realise, the general rule of computers is garbage in, garbage out. Other evidence they point to, such as the melting Arctic icepack and retreating glaciers, is not proven to be man-made. The Arctic icepack and the glaciers have melted and retreated many times in the past all through entirely natural causes.
What we are seeing from the alarmists is an inversion of the "null hypothesis" - the belief that what is happening is normal unless proven otherwise. Instead the alarmists are declaring that everything is caused by man unless proven otherwise - a complete reversal of the usual scientific methodology. Thus the retreating glaciers are "evidence" of man-made climate change even though they have retreated many times in the past through natural causes.
The simple fact is that there isn't any real world evidence, anywhere that the warming of the last 30 years has been caused by man - or even that it is set to continue. If anything, the evidence increasingly points to natural causes and suggests that the warming of the last century is over and we are now entering another, natural, cycle of cooling. Even the alarmists are starting to accept that this is the case - although they claim it is merely a brief pause in the unstoppable global warming caused by man.
I don't believe it is. I believe we are entering a period of cooling that will see the return of freezing winters to Britain similar to those endured during the Little Ice Age - the very period of intense cold the emergence from which is the reason for the warming of the last century (and wholly beneficial it was too!).
I don't think we can stop this period of colder climate arriving, nor do I think it makes sense to even try - any more than it makes sense to try and stop the warming which, in my opinion, was entirely natural. What I do believe we should do is ensure that Britain has sufficient, efficient, affordable and reliable power supply to get us through a new Little Ice Age.
The first October snowfalls in London for more than seventy years is the final warning we are going to get from the weather. It was a mercifully brief cold spell, but it is, I believe, a precursor of what is to come this winter. And with prolonged cold spells will come a demand for power which will place such strains on our energy supply system that a collapse is inevitable.
Our government is unprepared for this. Worse still, even as the climate cools and our energy industry lies on the brink of collapse our government are looking to introduce a bill that would not only leave our economy in ruins, but would ensure that thousands of people will die needlessly from the cold.
The sole MP who tried to raise the matter of the cost of the Bill - which could run to trillions of pounds if all its measures were implemented - was Mr Lilley. He was ruled out of order by the Speaker.
Remember that this winter, when the lights are out again, there is no heating and no power to cook a hot meal. Remember what it is that our elected representatives are doing.
The state of many of our power stations is already so parlous that, if this winter continues as cold as it has begun, we can expect major power cuts within months.
We're not even in winter yet - this is still the autumn; many of the trees still have leaves on them, but Scotland is enjoying an early start to its ski season with the prospect of a "bumper" year for Scottish winter sports. That may be good news for Scottish ski resorts, but it is not good news for the rest of us - especially the old and infirm.
Get yourself a good winter coat, plenty of warm socks and stock up on tins of food that you can warm up on a Calor gas ring - you're going to need them.
The only "evidence" they have comes from computer models and, as most of us realise, the general rule of computers is garbage in, garbage out. Other evidence they point to, such as the melting Arctic icepack and retreating glaciers, is not proven to be man-made. The Arctic icepack and the glaciers have melted and retreated many times in the past all through entirely natural causes.
What we are seeing from the alarmists is an inversion of the "null hypothesis" - the belief that what is happening is normal unless proven otherwise. Instead the alarmists are declaring that everything is caused by man unless proven otherwise - a complete reversal of the usual scientific methodology. Thus the retreating glaciers are "evidence" of man-made climate change even though they have retreated many times in the past through natural causes.
The simple fact is that there isn't any real world evidence, anywhere that the warming of the last 30 years has been caused by man - or even that it is set to continue. If anything, the evidence increasingly points to natural causes and suggests that the warming of the last century is over and we are now entering another, natural, cycle of cooling. Even the alarmists are starting to accept that this is the case - although they claim it is merely a brief pause in the unstoppable global warming caused by man.
I don't believe it is. I believe we are entering a period of cooling that will see the return of freezing winters to Britain similar to those endured during the Little Ice Age - the very period of intense cold the emergence from which is the reason for the warming of the last century (and wholly beneficial it was too!).
I don't think we can stop this period of colder climate arriving, nor do I think it makes sense to even try - any more than it makes sense to try and stop the warming which, in my opinion, was entirely natural. What I do believe we should do is ensure that Britain has sufficient, efficient, affordable and reliable power supply to get us through a new Little Ice Age.
The first October snowfalls in London for more than seventy years is the final warning we are going to get from the weather. It was a mercifully brief cold spell, but it is, I believe, a precursor of what is to come this winter. And with prolonged cold spells will come a demand for power which will place such strains on our energy supply system that a collapse is inevitable.
Our government is unprepared for this. Worse still, even as the climate cools and our energy industry lies on the brink of collapse our government are looking to introduce a bill that would not only leave our economy in ruins, but would ensure that thousands of people will die needlessly from the cold.
The sole MP who tried to raise the matter of the cost of the Bill - which could run to trillions of pounds if all its measures were implemented - was Mr Lilley. He was ruled out of order by the Speaker.
Remember that this winter, when the lights are out again, there is no heating and no power to cook a hot meal. Remember what it is that our elected representatives are doing.
The state of many of our power stations is already so parlous that, if this winter continues as cold as it has begun, we can expect major power cuts within months.
We're not even in winter yet - this is still the autumn; many of the trees still have leaves on them, but Scotland is enjoying an early start to its ski season with the prospect of a "bumper" year for Scottish winter sports. That may be good news for Scottish ski resorts, but it is not good news for the rest of us - especially the old and infirm.
Get yourself a good winter coat, plenty of warm socks and stock up on tins of food that you can warm up on a Calor gas ring - you're going to need them.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
What is it that alarmists actually want?
It's rare that I praise The Guardian - and today is no exception. In a piece about thinning Arctic sea ice, Juliette Jowit gets some exercise by jumping to conclusions.
The findings, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, raise the possibility that the loss of the Arctic sea ice could accelerate, because as the ice recedes the water temperature rises.
Really? What does the author of the study say, Juliette?
Katharine Giles of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at University College London, who led the study, said it was too soon to say whether the downward trend would continue and lead to summer sea ice disappearing even faster than forecast. "It's dangerous to extrapolate out because colder weather would mean the ice could recover again," said Giles.
So the "possibility" that the Arctic melt could accelerate is "dangerous" to suggest. Not least because, as the article points out, the Arctic has been getting colder. The loss of sea ice in the last two years was not caused by warming temperatures - man-made or otherwise - but by entirely natural warm currents and strong winds. As the author points out, the Arctic is getting colder.
The north pole was predicted to be ice free this year by the alarmists - but it wasn't. Instead the sea ice extent actually grew (that's why this year is the second lowest, not the lowest). Does anyone remember the coverage of the guy who was intending to paddle his kayak to the north pole earlier in the year? He appeared on BBC TV and in lots of newspaper articles to publicise his stunt - and what happened to him?
He failed - miserably. Not that you'd know that from the news here which, having seen him off in a blaze of glory, then allowed the dismal failure of his attempt to drop from their radar. Doesn't fit the agenda, you see.
According to this site monitoring sea ice extent, the Arctic is recovering nicely - it already appears to be above 2005 levels and may even be approaching 2002 levels (my eye-sight ain't what it used to be). You can use this site to compare sea ice today with historic extents going back to 1979. As you can see, October 27th 2008 doesn't look a great deal different to October 27th 1979.
The findings, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, raise the possibility that the loss of the Arctic sea ice could accelerate, because as the ice recedes the water temperature rises.
Really? What does the author of the study say, Juliette?
Katharine Giles of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at University College London, who led the study, said it was too soon to say whether the downward trend would continue and lead to summer sea ice disappearing even faster than forecast. "It's dangerous to extrapolate out because colder weather would mean the ice could recover again," said Giles.
So the "possibility" that the Arctic melt could accelerate is "dangerous" to suggest. Not least because, as the article points out, the Arctic has been getting colder. The loss of sea ice in the last two years was not caused by warming temperatures - man-made or otherwise - but by entirely natural warm currents and strong winds. As the author points out, the Arctic is getting colder.
The north pole was predicted to be ice free this year by the alarmists - but it wasn't. Instead the sea ice extent actually grew (that's why this year is the second lowest, not the lowest). Does anyone remember the coverage of the guy who was intending to paddle his kayak to the north pole earlier in the year? He appeared on BBC TV and in lots of newspaper articles to publicise his stunt - and what happened to him?
He failed - miserably. Not that you'd know that from the news here which, having seen him off in a blaze of glory, then allowed the dismal failure of his attempt to drop from their radar. Doesn't fit the agenda, you see.
According to this site monitoring sea ice extent, the Arctic is recovering nicely - it already appears to be above 2005 levels and may even be approaching 2002 levels (my eye-sight ain't what it used to be). You can use this site to compare sea ice today with historic extents going back to 1979. As you can see, October 27th 2008 doesn't look a great deal different to October 27th 1979.
Perhaps the most curious thing about all this is that the alarmists are not jumping for joy at the way their predictions are failing to materialise. You'd have thought they'd be happy that the Arctic is recovering nicely, temperatures have cooled globally over the last 10 years, polar bears are thriving, and the human fingerprint that is supposed to prove we are the cause of global warming has failed to materialise in the tropical upper troposphere indicating that whatever did cause the globe to warm it wasn't man-made CO2 emissions.
So, given that the earth, despite all the nasty things man does, is doing very well thank you very much, you'd have thought they'd be content. Instead their hand wringing becomes even more frenzied.
So why do they seem more determined than ever to push this busted theory forward? You don't suppose that they might actually have a hidden agenda do you?
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
A global warming experiment you can try at home
As I frequently mention, I'm no scientist but I am endowed with a degree of common sense and common sense tells me that "global warming" is entirely or, at worst, mostly, due to natural causes - and mostly due to that big ball of fire we call "The Sun".
Canutists scoff at this suggestion - even while conceding that the sun was indeed the cause of previous warming cycles. They claim that they know the sun isn't causing the warming this time because there has been no significant increase in something called Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) during this warming cycle. What they frequently fail to mention, however, is that TSI has been at historically high levels both before and throughout this period of warming.
So, armed with this info and my common sense I conducted a small experiment which you can try at home. All you need is a "sun", an "earth" and a little time. As the earth is predominantly water I used a large saucepan of water. For the sun I used a gas hob.
Now turn on the heat and set the setting to low then place the pan of water on the hob. You'll notice that, the water does not suddenly become warm, but, at first, the water remains cold - over time it gradually heats up. What is more, that heat dissipates out of the pan - if you hold your hand over the water you will feel the heat.
Now turn the heat up to medium. What happens? Yes! The water heats up some more and the heat it gives off is increased. Now turn the heat down to low and you'll notice that even though the source of heat is decreased, the warmth from the water remains high for some time after. It does not suddenly return to the previous temperature. This is because the water stores the heat and releases it slowly into the "atmosphere".
Now the clincher. Turn the heat right up and leave it there on high for 30 minutes (to simulate thirty years). Does the water reach it's optimum temperature in the first minute? Not even in the tenth minute. It keeps getting warmer and warmer and giving off more and more heat until it eventually started to boil (about 25 minutes in my case). When I turned the heat off the water did not suddenly become cold - it only cooled gradually.
So, you see, TSI didn't need to get any stronger - just by being turned up high it warmed the oceans for 30 years and those oceans stored up the heat and gradually released it to the world causing a slight warming. Now the sun has "turned off" and those oceans are starting to cool - very slowly. As long as it stays turned off that will continue to happen - hopefully that won't be too long.
I know it's not "scientific", but I have limited resources. I'm sure if the IPCC were to give me some of the billions it spends on research - say, £5,000,000? - I could come up with a peer reviewed (reviewed by my peers down at the Red Lion) study.
You can keep all your bull about watts per sq metre, upper tropospheres and minute increases in an essential trace gas - my common sense says warming is natural and normal and so is cooling. Only one is better for humanity than the other. Can you guess which?
Canutists scoff at this suggestion - even while conceding that the sun was indeed the cause of previous warming cycles. They claim that they know the sun isn't causing the warming this time because there has been no significant increase in something called Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) during this warming cycle. What they frequently fail to mention, however, is that TSI has been at historically high levels both before and throughout this period of warming.
So, armed with this info and my common sense I conducted a small experiment which you can try at home. All you need is a "sun", an "earth" and a little time. As the earth is predominantly water I used a large saucepan of water. For the sun I used a gas hob.
Now turn on the heat and set the setting to low then place the pan of water on the hob. You'll notice that, the water does not suddenly become warm, but, at first, the water remains cold - over time it gradually heats up. What is more, that heat dissipates out of the pan - if you hold your hand over the water you will feel the heat.
Now turn the heat up to medium. What happens? Yes! The water heats up some more and the heat it gives off is increased. Now turn the heat down to low and you'll notice that even though the source of heat is decreased, the warmth from the water remains high for some time after. It does not suddenly return to the previous temperature. This is because the water stores the heat and releases it slowly into the "atmosphere".
Now the clincher. Turn the heat right up and leave it there on high for 30 minutes (to simulate thirty years). Does the water reach it's optimum temperature in the first minute? Not even in the tenth minute. It keeps getting warmer and warmer and giving off more and more heat until it eventually started to boil (about 25 minutes in my case). When I turned the heat off the water did not suddenly become cold - it only cooled gradually.
So, you see, TSI didn't need to get any stronger - just by being turned up high it warmed the oceans for 30 years and those oceans stored up the heat and gradually released it to the world causing a slight warming. Now the sun has "turned off" and those oceans are starting to cool - very slowly. As long as it stays turned off that will continue to happen - hopefully that won't be too long.
I know it's not "scientific", but I have limited resources. I'm sure if the IPCC were to give me some of the billions it spends on research - say, £5,000,000? - I could come up with a peer reviewed (reviewed by my peers down at the Red Lion) study.
You can keep all your bull about watts per sq metre, upper tropospheres and minute increases in an essential trace gas - my common sense says warming is natural and normal and so is cooling. Only one is better for humanity than the other. Can you guess which?
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
EF-OF
How does one start up a "think tank"? It seems as if virtually anyone can set themselves up as one and then publish their opinions - and the really weird thing is that respected newspapers will publish the output of such think tanks as newsworthy.
Forum for the Future, a research body committed to sustainable development, said they wanted to stir debate about how to avert the worst effects of global warming by presenting a radical set of 'possible futures'.
Which included such things as the population of the Antarctic increasing to 3.5 million by 2040. Are they aware that the Antarctic is getting colder and snowier? Do they really think that millions of Aussies are going to abandon the delights of Sydney for a frozen wilderness?
Australia and Oklahoma will be abandoned because of water shortages and athletes will stay at home in the world's first virtual Olympics, competing against each other in virtual space with billions of spectators.
Honestly, why does anyone take this garbage seriously? However, if they can do it so can I. So I am announcing the inauguration of a brand new think tank principally aimed at considering England's future. It will be a completely online think tank so the name I have chosen for this new research body is England's Future - Online Forum - to be known as EF-OF.
To get the ball rolling EF-OF have produced the following report into climate change and its effects on England
If our climate continues to change the way it has been for the last couple of years some people are going to look very very silly indeed. EF-OF believe that it is going to get colder. Thousands of immigrants will leave the country as they head off back to warmer climes and more reliable power supply in nations such as Zimbabwe, Somalia and Sudan.
England will introduce a system whereby using too much power will result in appliances shutting down automatically. This system will be known as "power cuts" and will kick-in without warning and at the most inconvenient time - i.e. just when people actually need power.
This will have significant economic benefits as the onset of severe cold coupled with shortage of power will result in the deaths of millions of elderly and vulnerable people thereby saving the nation billions in pension and health care costs. This will be necessary, of course, as the lack of power will mean there will be virtually no economy worth talking about. What there is will be working three day weeks and spending what little money they have on life's little luxuries - like food.
If you want to know the future - EF-OF.
Forum for the Future, a research body committed to sustainable development, said they wanted to stir debate about how to avert the worst effects of global warming by presenting a radical set of 'possible futures'.
Which included such things as the population of the Antarctic increasing to 3.5 million by 2040. Are they aware that the Antarctic is getting colder and snowier? Do they really think that millions of Aussies are going to abandon the delights of Sydney for a frozen wilderness?
Australia and Oklahoma will be abandoned because of water shortages and athletes will stay at home in the world's first virtual Olympics, competing against each other in virtual space with billions of spectators.
Honestly, why does anyone take this garbage seriously? However, if they can do it so can I. So I am announcing the inauguration of a brand new think tank principally aimed at considering England's future. It will be a completely online think tank so the name I have chosen for this new research body is England's Future - Online Forum - to be known as EF-OF.
To get the ball rolling EF-OF have produced the following report into climate change and its effects on England
If our climate continues to change the way it has been for the last couple of years some people are going to look very very silly indeed. EF-OF believe that it is going to get colder. Thousands of immigrants will leave the country as they head off back to warmer climes and more reliable power supply in nations such as Zimbabwe, Somalia and Sudan.
England will introduce a system whereby using too much power will result in appliances shutting down automatically. This system will be known as "power cuts" and will kick-in without warning and at the most inconvenient time - i.e. just when people actually need power.
This will have significant economic benefits as the onset of severe cold coupled with shortage of power will result in the deaths of millions of elderly and vulnerable people thereby saving the nation billions in pension and health care costs. This will be necessary, of course, as the lack of power will mean there will be virtually no economy worth talking about. What there is will be working three day weeks and spending what little money they have on life's little luxuries - like food.
If you want to know the future - EF-OF.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Lies, damn lies and global warming propaganda
Interesting piece on The Times today by Philip Eden regarding the way certain weather events are "spun" to give the impression that what is happening with our climate is somehow unusual - which it isn't.
Take the summer floods of 2007, which turned Tewkesbury into an island. Much was made of the claim that May, June and July comprised the wettest such three-month period in 242 years of records.
Sounds truly exceptional, doesn't it? It allows ministers to use the U-word - "unprecedented". But it was only the wettest May-to-July period. If you look at all the three-month periods on record, May-July 2007 was merely the 42nd wettest.
Eden article actually laments the way the various agencies - he cites the Met Office and the Environment Agency - who should be providing "objective information" - are "selecting the statistics their political masters want to hear" - something he describes as "data dredging".
Eden attributes this politicised manipulation of the weather stats as being motivated by government wanting to disguise their failure to get to grip with certain tasks - such as flood defences - which is very true, but it is also due to the fact that they want to portray our climate as becoming more "extreme" so that can justify more taxation on the basis of "climate change".
Calling such events "unprecedented" provides an excuse for failure for those we pay to maintain the infrastructure. Sadly, as someone once said: "Thirty years ago, these people had the grace to look thoroughly uncomfortable when they lied to us; now, they lie with a smile on their face."
They lie with a smile because they think they can blame someone else - us!
But it is still lying.
Take the summer floods of 2007, which turned Tewkesbury into an island. Much was made of the claim that May, June and July comprised the wettest such three-month period in 242 years of records.
Sounds truly exceptional, doesn't it? It allows ministers to use the U-word - "unprecedented". But it was only the wettest May-to-July period. If you look at all the three-month periods on record, May-July 2007 was merely the 42nd wettest.
Eden article actually laments the way the various agencies - he cites the Met Office and the Environment Agency - who should be providing "objective information" - are "selecting the statistics their political masters want to hear" - something he describes as "data dredging".
Eden attributes this politicised manipulation of the weather stats as being motivated by government wanting to disguise their failure to get to grip with certain tasks - such as flood defences - which is very true, but it is also due to the fact that they want to portray our climate as becoming more "extreme" so that can justify more taxation on the basis of "climate change".
Calling such events "unprecedented" provides an excuse for failure for those we pay to maintain the infrastructure. Sadly, as someone once said: "Thirty years ago, these people had the grace to look thoroughly uncomfortable when they lied to us; now, they lie with a smile on their face."
They lie with a smile because they think they can blame someone else - us!
But it is still lying.
Planet Gaga
Honestly, where do they get this crap from?
Rural communities which protect nature and exploit forests, wetlands and wildlife sustainably will be the best equipped to cope with the droughts and floods that will increasingly hit Africa, Asia and Latin America with climate change, says a new UN-backed report.
Yeah, right - which is why a bit of rain leaves thousands homeless in Baltimore while a torrential deluge has little effect on Bangladesh.
I'd have more respect for these ecoloons if the garbage they spouted was not so demonstrably gibberish.
Rural communities which protect nature and exploit forests, wetlands and wildlife sustainably will be the best equipped to cope with the droughts and floods that will increasingly hit Africa, Asia and Latin America with climate change, says a new UN-backed report.
Yeah, right - which is why a bit of rain leaves thousands homeless in Baltimore while a torrential deluge has little effect on Bangladesh.
I'd have more respect for these ecoloons if the garbage they spouted was not so demonstrably gibberish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)