Posted by: Grant | October 23, 2011

Stuff I Missed During The Week

This Economist Greenie tries to prop up the multibillion dollar “Climate” industry – Fails.
Tries to tell us, despite freezing winter after freezing winter, it is actually getting warmer – “scientists say” – yeah right!

The heat is on
A new analysis of the temperature record leaves little room for the doubters. The world is warming
Oct 22nd 2011

The “new analysis” is demolished here…

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project puts PR before peer review

Pielke Sr- No surprise about BEST

A mathematician’s response to BEST

James Delinjgpole demolishes it politically
Global warming is real
By James Delingpole
Last updated: October 21st, 2011

” …Let me explain what is going on here. And you can trust me: I’m not a climate scientist. What I am is someone eminently more qualified to deconstruct the semantic skullduggery going on here: a student of language, rhetoric and grade one bullshit.

In the first half of his piece, Professor Muller sets up his straw man. He does so by ascribing to “skeptics” views that they don’t actually hold. Their case, he pretends for the sake of his wafer-thin argument, rests on the idea that the last century’s land-based temperature data sets are so hopelessly corrupt that they have created the illusion of global warming where none actually exists.

No it doesn’t. It has been a truth long acknowledged by climate sceptics, deniers and realists of every conceivable hue that since the mid-19th century, the planet has been on a warming trend – emerging, as it has been, from a widely known phenomenon known as the Little Ice Age. A period which in turn was preceded by the even better known Medieval Warming Period.

This is why the standard rebuttal to the term “climate change denier” is: “But I don’t deny that climate changes. I recognise that it has done so since the dawn of time. What I question is not the process of climate change, but what causes is it, whether it represents a problem and whether there’s anything we can do about it other than sensible mitigation.”… “

 (BTW there is always a flurry of this “scientists say” stuff leading up to a big conference!)


Interesting piece of philosophy

Browner, Colbert, the EPA, and Broken Windows
Posted on October 20, 2011 by Willis Eschenbach
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

” …The onlookers come to believe that breaking windows stimulates the economy, but Bastiat points out that further analysis exposes the fallacy. By breaking the window, the man’s son has reduced his father’s disposable income, meaning his father will not be able purchase new shoes or some other luxury good. Thus, the broken window might help the glazier, but at the same time, it robs other industries and reduces the amount being spent on other goods. Moreover, replacing something that has already been purchased is a maintenance cost, rather than a purchase of truly new goods, and maintenance doesn’t stimulate production. In short, Bastiat suggests that destruction – and its costs – don’t pay in an economic sense…. “


To be fair the UK Government haven’t actually done this yet.
If to many people get into “Fuel Poverty” just get a Prof. to re-define it because it is “unreliable”!!!
Good one!

Politcs & Policy
October 19, 2011 5:02 pm
Revised definition would cut ‘fuel poverty’
By David Blair, Energy Correspondent

” …Prof Hills highlighted the human cost, saying that fuel poverty claims 2,700 lives every winter, more than the number who die in road accidents in England and Wales. The average annual energy bill will reach £1,293 next month, equivalent to 6 per cent of median household income, almost double the proportion in 2004.

If this trend continues, the average household will be in fuel poverty, as currently defined, around the time of the next election in 2015.
 But Prof Hills said the established definition included wealthy people with big homes that were costly to heat. It was “unduly determined” by the level of energy bills and probably unreliable because it assumed that householders reported their incomes accurately.
 Prof Hills proposed a new definition based on the amount a household would need to spend on energy to reach minimum levels of warmth. If this expenditure would force the household below the official poverty line, defined as 60 per cent of median income, they would then be in fuel poverty.
 Under a law passed in 2000, the government is obliged to eradicate fuel poverty “as far as reasonably practicable” by 2016. Under his proposed

definition, said Prof Hills, the figures were not on track to achieve this goal… “

( Full Text of article – )


The “Left Coast” of the USA blunders on regardless!

California commits business suicide
Posted on October 21, 2011 by Anthony Watts

A mass exodus of business and jobs out of California will be the likely result of this madness. From the San Franscisco Chronicle:

State’s cap and trade program gets final approval


May the Deity spare us from Greenie local officials!

Tide of anger at ‘flawed’ facts on water levels
by: Mitchell Nadin
From:The Australian
October 17, 201112:00AM

Andrew Bolt gives Donna Laframboise “The Delinquent Teenager” book a rave review.

Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Children
Andrew Bolt
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 10:25am

“How Kevin Rudd sold the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

The first thing I’d say is the IPCC – International (sic) Panel on Climate Change – scientists has 4000 essentially humourless scientists in white coats who go around and measure things and have been doing so for about 20 years.

But an explosive new book reveals the IPCC is actually stuffed with young activists, rather than leading scientists, Reader Michael summarises:

Here are some excerpts from the book The Delinquent Teenager  written by Donna Laframboise, a Canadian investigative journalist. The details are priceless and beyond words. This is outrageous.

Her book chronicles how the IPCC participants are picked by governments, not for their scientific knowledge and expertise, but for their political connections and for “diversity.” Other issues she uncovers go as far as to say that approximately 1/3rd of the sources for the IPCC come from magazines, press releases and unpublished scientific papers. It also tables corruption, scandals, and conflicts of interest. The Summary for Policy Makers (i.e. our leaders) is compiled by bureaucrats not scientists and often completed before the articles they actually summarise are made available. 

She writes:… “


A side effect of “Climate Change” – improvements in short term computer modelling.

The Alligator Model
Posted on October 20, 2011 by Willis Eschenbach
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

” …Why would I think that Jacobson’s model might be showing something near reality in this question, when I am generally scornful of the IPCC models?

Several reasons:
1. The time frame of the analysis is short, he’s not futzing around with 100 year fantasy forecasts…. “



  1. Hi Grant,
    A huge post today. 🙂
    I read the article about California, all I could do was shake my head, it all sounds so familiar. For a state that is broke, I too can see businesses moving out. I hate to think what California will look like in a few years after this cap and trade starts, it’s not going to be pretty. 😦

    I read Andrews blog regularly and saw the article about the IPCC, very good, it is a shame these things don’t get into the MSM.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: