News is just coming out on the South China Morning Post that:

“Two Chinese firms probed for spiking alcohol with Viagra

Chinese police have opened an investigation into whether two distillers in China’s southwestern Guangxi province added impotence treatment drug Viagra to their liquor in the country’s latest food-safety scare.

The Liuzhou Food and Drug Administration said it found that Guikun Alcohol Plant and Deshun Alcohol Plant in the provincial city of Liuzhou were putting sildenafil – more commonly known as Viagra – into three of their baijiu products. Baijiu is a fiery grain liquor that commands high prices in China.

Law enforcement officers confiscated 5,357 bottles of the suspect products, 1,124 kg of raw alcohol and a batch of white powder labelled sildenafil, in a case that involved more than 700,000 yuan (HK$872,000), according to a statement that the administration posted on its website on Saturday.”

Read more

Now, here is a lesson for Obama and Clinton, because if they are going to get together then they’ll need Viagra

---

Addendum

Forgot to mention: it’s the planet they’ll have to feed the Viagra to, if after 18 years without anything showing, they want to get a rise before the presidential election next year.

People often say “they’re a Nazi” in order just to mean they are immoral, but following a comment I read on a forum, I want to discuss instead whether the modern green movement might be more like the Nazi in their philosophy, propaganda techniques and general politics than most people would care to admit.
Left Wing
It’s often a favourite past time of the left to liken anyone on the right to the Nazis – no doubt because the left-wing were against Hitler and so they assume the German Nazis must be right wing. But even a cursory glance at the history of the Nazis tells us they were the “National Socialist Party”. (Not to be confused with the similar sounding & initials of the Scottish Nationalist Party).
Fascist
Second, the Nazis were undoubtedly fascist: bypassing democratic procedures forcing through dictate. However, anyone that’s seen the unconstitutional way the EPA (Energy impoverishment Agency?) in the US can’t help seeing the similarity to the Nazis. Because like the Nazis, the EPA are bypassing democracy. They have used legislation designed to control actual pollution to control energy, which in effect means they now control all production, all food, all dwellings, all (also) water – indeed given their undemocratic and unconstitutional behaviour it is only a small step for them to pass rules to prohibit various “unnecessary” parts of the internet as “causing pollution”.
The reality is that the EPA have redefined “pollution” to mean anything they don’t like. So whilst CO2 is good for plants, it is now a “pollution”. Likewise, anything else “harmful” (meaning they don’t like it) could be deemed a pollutant.
Thus, by this word-play they are able to bypass the constitution to give themselves the power to prohibit anything they don’t like. AKA fascism.
And of course, “Greens” aren’t really “green”. Rising CO2 is causing a greening on the planet. If these people were green, they would be celebrating the benefit of CO2 on plants globally. Instead, their politics means they are against everything and anything that gets in the way of forcing everyone to accept their views – including nature itself!
So, e.g. in our local nature reserve, an indigenous tree species in a wood that has been there over 100 years was cut down because the eco-fascists deemed the area to be “bogland”. And once these nutters have deemed an area “polluted by nature” – they will just destroy nature.
Pro- “hi tech/science”, anti simple engineering
One of the great divides in the war was a philosophical one about technology. In Britain and the US, we had the view that “the best technology which was not yet available was not as good as the second best that was available”. So, e.g. we focussed on producing Spitfires and other air-planes with a proven history of working reliably. In contrast, the Germans tried “inventing” new solutions: rockets like the U2, Jet planes & the atomic weapon. Continue reading →

I was watching this video and thought Jo Nova said a really pertinent thing about Peer Review. We wouldn’t let a company trade on the stockmarket if it had been audited by two colleagues, yet they expect us to alter the whole global economy. (should auto start at 7:00)

I was going to make a bet with a prominent climate sceptic about whether the climate scam would end before or after the US presidential election (I think before, he thinks in the first term).
However, fundamentally, we have a problem which is what do we mean by “the end” of the scam. Because in some senses it has been over for years. For example, the Kyoto Commitment was time limited to … I think it was Dec 2012. That came and went without any replacement, so technically I’ve already won. Except, I can’t claim the bet because the climate extremists are constantly talking about “the next agreement” (in reality they are being led by the nose by politicians talking green with no intention of any replacement).
Likewise with “gullibles” policy. In the UK subsidy to new wind and other gullibles are coming to an end. Again, that could have been a great signal for the end, but it’s being marketed as “it’s about time gullibles stop on their own two feet”. Of course only gullible people think that gullibles could ever exist without taxpayer money.
The again, we could have had “when they accept the pause is real”. But now at the very heart of darkness of the climate extremists in wikipedia there is an article about the pause. So whilst they are clearly intending the article to “prove” the pause does not exist, the very fact they have to write the article proves it does.
I could use as an end point – when climate sensitivities are not longer extreme. But in reality, they are now coming in below 2C.
So, what is left?
We could say the end is when cynical politicians like Car Crash Clinton stop jumping on the climate extremists bandwagon … but there will always be desperate presidential wannabes like Clinton jumping on bandwagons (even ones with the wheels falling off).
I suppose, we could say when Steyn wins his case against Mann.
We couldn’t use “when the UK Royal Society admits they are wrong” … because it took nearly 300 years for them to admit they were wrong about the Longitude prize.
I could use when “global warming” on google trends falls below the noise – but it already has.
We could use when we’ve got an admission of “global cooling” – which may happen sooner than anyone likes and if it does, I doubt few of us will feel like celebrating.
We could use when the eco-fascists stop their freebie yearly meet at the “Conference of the Parties” (joke) – which must now have racked up enough air miles between them to fly out of the solar system.
We could say “global warming” is over when the next climate scam has taken over …
The problem we sceptics have, is that there isn’t much left to achieve demolishing this scam except perhaps discouraging a few grubby politicians or academics jumping on the wheel-less bandwagon (and then flying off somewhere).

I’ve started a simple sceptic dictionary and would welcome suggestions for climatic terms to include and/or other improvements.
The reason this is necessary is that any sceptic knows that the stuff written on Wikipedia about climate is dishonest and not worth reading. As such many people including me have attempted to create an honest climate wiki. However, the problem we face is that many of the people editing wikipedia are writing the articles and then “buddy reviewing” the journals so not only is wikipedia corrupt but so is the general academic literature.
So whilst I would love a project like ClimateWiki to succeed, I’ve decided to try getting something very simple off the ground and so have chosen to focus on producing a sceptic dictionary: http://scottishsceptic.uk/dictionary/
I’ve kicked off with a few common terms I use. But I expect to add a few more including but not exclusively:

• ECS
• AGW
• CAGW
• Positive Feedback
• Forcing
• Global temperature
• greenhouse gas
• Greenspin
• greenhouse effect
• Adiabatic warming
• Skydragon
• Climate change
• Global cooling
• Global cooling scare
• Milankovitch cycle
• Ice-age cycle
• NOAA
• RSS, GISS, NCEI, UAH
• HADCRUT UKMO
• Natural variation
• hind cast
• Water Vapor
• Climate/weather
• models
• GW (global warming)
• Scientific method
• straw man arguments
• Ad hominen
• Argument from authority
• Real science/ “science”
• confidence (as in 95% confidence)
• ET AL
• ENSO, El Nino, Sothern Oscillaiton, PDO, NAO, etc,
• SAT ( surface air temperature taken over land ) and SST ( ocean temperatures taken just beneath the surface)

 

After some thought I’ve decided the project would be better described as a  dictionary than a wiki (with collaboration if  there are people interested) so I’ve started a new page: http://scottishsceptic.uk/dictionary/
I happened across a page in Wikipedia last night on the global warming pause (or as Wikipedia always bastardises things on climate the “Hiaitus”). As I’ve been saying for a while I invented the term “The Pause” in order to try to get a section on the Wikipedia global warming page so that there was a place to discuss the failures of the predicted warming. (For obvious reasons that proposal was rudely rejected by the eco-academics who dominate Wikipedia). So, I was more than a little amused that the same people who denied the original request were now being forced by the more or less general acceptance of the existence of the pause to to find ways to simultaneously admit and deny the pause. (And I will leave them squirming as I’ve no wish to help them out of that dilemma!)
However, let me be honest, we sceptics owe a great deal to these guys, because their overt bias and  vindictive arrogant behaviour did more than anything else to galvanise the online sceptic community. Each time some professional engineer or scientist honestly tried to contribute to Wikipedia by correcting the obvious bias – and got a bloody nose – those eco-academics thought it was a great victory. But the reality was that they were upsetting very intelligent people, usually retired, with plenty of time, with a high social standing and a lifetime of dealing with such idiots in their own working lives.
And of course, they looked elsewhere, found places like Wikipedia, and the constant attacks on the various online forums galvanised this sceptic community into one of the most effective fighting forces for scientific truth and integrity which the world has ever seen and now we more or less dominate the internet in this area.
So, for obvious reasons, Wikipedia has been a gift to us sceptics! Because whilst it might have been influential a long time ago, the reality is that Wikipedia lost its credibility because of their obvious bias and now it is very much a backwater on climate (I bet only visited by school kids) and blogs like WUWT are now probably the world’s most read sites on climate (and I’ve seen people at the top of the Met Office reading WUWT !)

Wiki-Climate

But to be frank, I miss having a decent wiki on climate. Yes I do occaisionally find myself going there but I’m always disappointed, because even on totally neutral topics or even looking for data supporting the CO2 “warming”, I’ve found that Wikipedia just doesn’t have the facts to support sensible debate. It’s written by climate propagandists as fact-lite propaganda and as such it is pretty useless when writing technical articles – even when the data is uncontentious. Continue reading →

Cfact have yet again shown the true nature of the daft people who believe in “global warming”.  They are just cannon fodder for the BIG ENVIRONMENT sharks who use them to line their own pockets:

You’ve got to hand it to the Pope, his timing couldn’t have been better with the “Endafticle”. Because it now looks as if the Pope killed “Global Warming”!!
As the following graph shows, “Global warming” (Blue) a term almost exclusively used for climate, has been on the wane since even before Climategate and was heading below “Climate change” (red), a term very often used in other contexts other than climate such as economics or politics in the phrase “there’s been a change in climate concerning …”

It was almost inevitable that sooner or later Global warming would drop below the pretty steady chatter level of all things that have the phrase “climate change”, however, it ironic that the Pope appears to have delivered the final “coup de grace”.
Because rather than increasing support for Global warming extremism, the actual effect of the Pope’s intervention was a marked drop in support in the weeks afterwards. So almost by some act of god, the Pope (after a Sunday of news chit chat) gave “Global warming” that final push down below “Climate Change” whereby the term is now almost indistinguishable from the background noise (much like global warming itself I suppose  – how prosaic!)

On a more practical front
Because “Global warming” is now almost part of the background noise of the internet (and soon it will just be just noise), I’m less and less confident that any trends I see are specific to climate. And I can’t use “climate change” as easily because it both doesn’t have such clear trends because it is not specific to climate.
I’ve certainly noticed a drop in the number of “Global warming” stories on google news feeds. The result is that ratio of “signal to noise” is diminishing, so, I am struggling to keep tabs of the few stories on climate/global warming. That means  I’m going to be far less certain that any trends are real as “Global warming” sinks disgracefully down into the background noise.

 

As far as I’m concerned, the EPA in the US have clearly an unequivocally conspired with climate extremists not only to break the law but to destroy the vary foundation of US democracy.
Because under the EPA the president has stopped being an elected member of a republican government where Congress, Senate and President work together, but now the Senate and Congress have been bypassed by the institution of what is technically monarchy (power held by one person – from greek mono – one and arch- power).
Really the president should be impeached for usurping the constitution, but it sounds to me as if the Senate and Congress are spineless poodles who leave it up to outside groups to try to halt this monarchical power grab: