Originally posted at Breitbart London by James Delingpole
SHOCK U.S. SENATE REPORT: LEFT-WING ‘BILLIONAIRE’S CLUB’ USING ENVIRONMENTALISM TO CONTROL THE US ECONOMY AND SUBVERT DEMOCRACY (Senate Minority report)
(Reuters) – Coastal flooding along the densely populated Eastern Seaboard of the United States has surged in recent years, a Reuters analysis has found.
The analysis was undertaken as part of a broader examination of rising sea levels Reuters plans to publish later this year.
For its analysis, Reuters collected more than 25 million hourly tide-gauge readings from nearly 70 sites on the Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific coasts and compared them to NOAA flood thresholds.
As many Americans question the causes and even the reality of climate change, increased flooding is already posing a major challenge for local governments in much of the United States.
[sure will in landlocked States!]
And goes on about climate change and sea level rise and probably being wound up by vested interests.
Guess the number of bears in the freezer
Jun 1, 2014
About a year ago I had to endure a fairly unpleasant interview on the subject of polar bears with the BBC’s Shelagh Fogerty (transcript here, my contemporaneous post here). Ms Fogerty was fine, but I was constantly interrupted by Greenpeace bigwig John Sauven who objected to my pointing out that estimates of polar bear numbers were in essence hypotheses, being based on computer simulations. This position was flatly denied by Sauven, who accused me of being a flat-earther for my temerity in doubting what he was telling me.
I was therefore amused when a reader pointed me to a recent post by Susan Crockford which reveals that I was being far too polite in dignifying estimates of polar bear numbers as “hypotheses”. She has learned that the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group has been playing a game of “guess the number of bears in the freezer”.
The idea they want to put in people’s heads is that even breathing is a ‘danger to the planet’, so faster breathing…you get the idea.
We can’t say ‘you couldn’t make it up’ because someone just did.
Today, MP’s vote on whether it should cease to be a criminal offence to buy and watch a TV without paying a hefty fee for the production their propaganda, whether or not you choose to watch it. Nearly 10% of all court cases in the UK are for non-payment of this extortionate impost. Which of course is another burden on the taxpayer, who has to cover the cost of this TV tax enforcement. Most non-payers are people who don’t have enough money to cover all their costs and are claiming benefits. They need legal aid to fight their case. Triple whammy for everyone else.
If the BBC was a high quality broadcaster, we might be prepared to continue putting up with all this expense. But a string of scandals has so damaged its reputation and output that it has blown its credibility. The public has had enough of its antics, sins, omission, and bias. I won’t rehearse the list here, everybody knows. However there is one issue which has been successfully hidden by the BBC which deserves another mention. 28gate.
Alasdair MacLeod claimed that such discussions amount to ‘false balance’ and breach an undertaking to the Corporation’s watchdog, the BBC Trust.
Mr MacLeod, head of editorial standards and compliance for BBC Scotland, sent an email on February 27 to 18 senior producers and editors, which has been obtained by The Mail on Sunday.
When covering climate change stories, we should not run debates / discussions directly between scientists and sceptics. If a programme does run such a discussion, it will… be in breach of the editorial guidelines on impartiality.
Rather than hit people, tell them they are bad, a kinder approach, this apparently is a new Friends Of Science billboard. In the snow.
Is this good thinking or is the only way aggression?
Will it change any minds or is it affirmation?
We held our local UKIP branch AGM last night where I was elected as vice chair and webcomms officer. I’m looking foward to working more closely with my committee colleagues Craig Sweaton (chair & media comms), Anne Murgatroyd (secretary) and Phil Banks (treasurer). The mainstream media is mis-portraying what UKIP stand for, so I thought I’d republish this short piece from Stuart O’Reilly at Oxford University to counter the misinformation:
There seems to be an awful lot of misinformation about UKIP. And believe me, if the discourses were true, I would certainly not be a member. We’ve had a few problematic characters: Godfrey Bloom and David Silvester being those that Oxford students will probably be the most familiar with. But our goals are far too important for us to be deterred by such people.
‘UKIP dislikes immigrants, right?’ Wrong. The vast majority of immigrants come to Britain to contribute, socially and economically. But our immigration system is flawed. We have a huge oversupply in the labour market, particularly in relation to unskilled and low skilled workers. It cannot be right that our government increasingly adds to this problem by having an open-door policy. The result is that wages are driven down, people are exploited and unemployment remains relatively unchanged. UKIP want a points-based system that does not discriminate against people from Africa, Asia and South America as the government’s current policy does.
Around ten days ago I made an enquiry to Copernicus (the innovative science unpublishers) asking when they would be billing me for the order I made at the end of 2013. It turned out they had forgotten to do so, and they provided an invoice for a fresh order on Jan 27, 10 days after they axed the journal.
No system is perfect, and sometimes papers with errors in them get past peer review into the scientific literature via journal publication. The checks and balances in the system operate to deal with this. The scientific method works through the process of the proposal and rebuttal of hypotheses, conducted in the scientific literature in as rational and objective manner as possible. If one group of scientists get papers published and another group believe their work to contain errors, they write a rebuttal paper pointing out the errors and get it published in the same journal the original work was published in, or in another journal if the editors don’t accept their rebuttal paper.
However, in the highly politicised and emotive world of climate science, things work differently, as the excerpts from the email chain below demonstrate:
> >>>—–Original Message—–
> >>>From: Phil Jones [mailto:email@example.com]
> >>>Sent: Wednesday, 16 April 2003 6:23 PM
> >>>To: Mike Hulme; Barrie.Pittock@xxxx.au
> >>>firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Greg.Ayers@xxxxx.au;
> >>>Rick.Bailey@xxxxx.au; Graeme.Pearman@xxxxx.au Subject: Re: Recent
> >>>climate sceptic research and the journal Climate Research
> >>> (more…)
It seems that the Bloggies have decided to axe the ‘Best science or technology blog’ category this year, probably due to the amount of earache the organisers were getting from the usual suspects about the climate sceptic blogs consistently packing the category finals. So I thought I’d get my own back by publishing a comparison of global traffic rank for the talkshop vs flagship global warming science site realclimate.org
Stitch that Gavin.
But surely Realclimate will beat the tiny Talkshop on its home turf in the US? Let’s have a look:
There’s nothing like a good strong ethics controversy to sort out friends from foes, and the last five days have been decisive in laying out the battle lines. The trouble started when James Annan whipped up an email campaign directed at science publisher Copernicus, complaining about our Special Edition of Pattern Recognition in Physics. Although the various proponent authors of the Planetary Solar Theory have different ideas about viable mechanisms we came to the same conclusions via different phenomenological methods: that an imminent solar slowdown is upon us, and it is likely to be deeper than the Dalton Minimum, possibly stretching until the latter decades of this century.
In the General conclusions paper all the contributing authors signed, we agreed that “This sheds serious doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project”. This did not please the proponents of the ‘trace gas levels control Earth’s climate’ theory, AKA cAGW, and emails trickled into Copernicus headquarters in Gottingen, Germany.
Doug has posted an essay, book review with wider commentary
I’m reading “American Betrayal”, by Diana West, macmillan (2013).
It is concerned with not the fact of Soviet influence (through placement and support of specific pro-Communist figures in the WWII+) American government, but with the refusal to recognize American political (and military and intelligence) life had been infiltrated by agents working against American (and British) best interests. Her book is a polemic, unfortunately, a rant written in a self-indulgent way that will be easy to dismiss as shrieking from a soapbox in Hyde Park. But her point is extremely well made and very, very pertinent to our on-going fight about CAGW: it is not the facts that are in dispute but the “implication” (her term) of those facts. To accept the implication of Soviet penetration is to accept that our view of the last 70 years is false, that the control and decision-making of our wise fathers was not for our but of Stalinist betterment. This is a paradigm shift that is simply unacceptable so as each unassailable point comes up, something is done to destroy the reputation of the teller, or negate the point as a “detail” within a broader, “normal” background.
I recently sent another complaint to the BBC, which they have now replied to. Their reply fails to address my main point, which is that all available scientific evidence shows extreme weather events have not increased in frequency or intensity since records began. Their utterly lame justification is that NGO’s and aid agencies say they have, so it must be true:
We understand you were unhappy with the interview with Oxfam’s Max Lawson as you felt that Max wasn’t challenged sufficiently.
We make no editorial comment or judgement on the views expressed by contributors to our programmes, and our aim is simply to provide enough information for viewers to make up their own minds.
This may include hearing opinions which some people may personally disagree with but which individuals may be fully entitled to hold in the context of legitimate debate.
The BBC is committed to impartial and balanced coverage when it comes to this issue.
There is broad scientific agreement on the issue of climate change and we reflect this accordingly;however, we do aim to ensure that we also offer time to the dissenting voices.
Image 7 of a sequence showing on faz.net, a German political newspaper.
Germany’s FAZ Features Chart No German Was Ever Supposed To See: John Christy’s “Catastrophic Errors Graph”
By P Gosselin on 23. November 2013
Today Germany’s flagship political daily, the renowned Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), which has long been a disciple of global warming religion (woeful deficits in climate sciences have long been a problem of the German mainstream media) raised a few eyebrows in daring to feature the global warming-blasphemous chart that no German was ever supposed to see.
The BBC’s Leanne Bennett has (inadequately) responded to my complaint about their 28gate climate reportage bias, failing to address the points I raised. Needless to say the email came from an address which doesn’t accept replies.
Dear Mr Tattersall
Thanks for contacting us.
We understand you believe the BBC’s reporting on climate change is biased.
The BBC is committed to impartial and balanced coverage when it comes to this issue.
I sent a complaint to the BBC today about their bias in climate reporting, text below the break. First though, a viewpoint from Karl McCartney, MP for Lincoln, on revelations about how much money the BBC has been taking from the E.U. It seems to me the two issues may not be unconnected:
MANY people who believe in the need to ensure the impartiality of the BBC, particularly in respect of its news and current affairs coverage, will be shocked by the corporation’s EU loans and grants.
There has long been concern by many at what can only be described as Left-wing reporting, particularly, though not solely, in matters relating to Britain’s relationship with Europe.
ANYONE LOOKING FOR THE EU SEED LAW PETITION CAN FIND IT HERE
H/T to ‘Oldbrew’ for spotting this article at PhysOrg. It’s so badly written, I’m only including the (non-attributed) quote from one of the scientists involved, and the abstract from the paper, which is available in full here.
The 3D movement patterns obtained showed highly complex structures. The aim was then to untangle these structures, concentrating on differences between the north and south of the Galactic plane. From these velocities it was seen that our Galaxy has a lot more going on than previously thought. The velocities going upwards and downwards show that there is a wave-like behaviour, with stars sloshing in and out. The novel element in our approach was true 3D observation, showing how complex the velocity landscape of the Galaxy really is. Modellers now have the challenge of understanding this behaviour, be it from ripples from an eaten galaxy or the wake from spiral arms. These new findings will make it possible to make 3D models of our Galaxy much more precise.
H/T to Roger Andrews for spotting this BBC article about the imprisoned Greenpeace Activists awaiting trial in Murmansk:
The new charge has a maximum penalty of seven years rather than 15, Russian news website Lenta reports.
The Arctic Sunrise was seized more than four weeks ago by Russian security forces after activists tried to scale an offshore oil platform.
All 30 people on board – including two freelance journalists – were detained.
So far all bail applications in the case have been refused.
From the Daily Mail:
Disgraced former minister Chris Huhne was paid to appear on the BBC, apparently in breach of the corporation’s own editorial guidelines, it has emerged.
The former energy secretary, who still has to wear an electronic tag after being released early from his sentence, is thought to have received around £150 plus travel expenses to conduct an eight-minute interview last week.
He told presenter Andrew Neil he was prosecuted and jailed merely to provide a ‘deterrent effect’ to others.
‘It wasn’t a question of changing my character. It was actually about stopping people like you, Andrew, from doing the same thing and swapping speeding points… That was why the prosecution was brought. I had not offended for ten years on this,’
TB – Comment. Well, apart from continuing to pervert the course of justice and waste large amounts of public money by lying at every turn right up to the final court appearance of course.