Today I read in of all places the Guardian, a report suggesting anti-fracking groups are funded by Russia:
“I have met allies who can report that Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organisations – environmental organisations working against shale gas – to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas.”
What is most surprising is that it’s taken this long for people like NATO to realise that foreign governments have an interest in promoting scares like fracking and global warming.
It’s long been known that in the 28gate meeting, there was a Chinese delegate (supposedly from Chinese friends of the earth – and they believe that?).
I also found that the University of East Anglia at the heart of Climategate had strong links with some Chinese University.
With something like 25% of US and UK manufacturing relocating to China – it’s pretty obvious what the motive is for this “anti-industrial” culture that all these NGOs and Universities spread.
But the real news today, is that despite all the foreign “help”, Global Warming is dead as a serious subject in the news. Indeed, I wonder whether skeptics don’t treat the small rise expected more seriously than most of the public!
Because from my brief look at the top 100 or so stories toady, Global warming is now treated in pretty much the same way as “alien abductions” or “morris men”. Yes, it still features in many outlet, but it is obvious that it is now included as filler between the serious stuff. And from the way they write, the journalists don’t expect anyone (except those they write about) to take the stories seriously.
I was going to ask “what will the Chinese think of next … to undermine the west”, but of course, now they are a major exporter, they need the west to consume their goods and undermining us may be counter productive … which may go a long way to explaining why global warming is no longer a problem!

It occurred to me this evening listening to Donna, that some may wonder why I’ve stopped blogging. I think the answer is fairly simple: I tend to blog when I’m trying to work out something or thinking through an issue.
But except for the Donna lecture, there’s now little left for me to mull over on climate. Now I understand skeptics & those academics opposing them, I’m no longer curious about either side.
But even more odd, now I know skeptics will win, instead of being all the keener to see change, I’ve lost interest. I can only liken it to sneakily finishing the film when my wife goes to bed and then trying to pretend I’m interested the next evening.
How do I know skeptics will win?

1. I’ve worked out why climate models fail to model the climate. So, they are certainly wrong, I’m no longer interest in “what ifs”, because there is nothing left to work out.
2. I’ve refined my understanding of CO2 and how it has interacted with the planet in the past during the ice-ages. This largely removes any possibility of massive positive feedbacks from CO2.
3. I now  understand what makes skeptics tick – and I can only say I’m glad I’m not on the other side. Because for all their bluster – the alarmists haven’t a chance.
4. I’ve worked out why academics are so hostile to sceptics. And like someone with an annoying twitch, it is not easily changed, so it seems pointless trying to change them. Worse, trying to engage with academics now will just make them confused and angry.
5. And perhaps most ironic of all, I’m starting to feel sorry for our present politicians. Yes, the poor sods. It’s like watching lambs going down the ramp to the slaughterhouse oblivious to what awaits them. Why let them in on the secret?  – let them have this last interlude of tranquillity!

This is why I’ve stopped blogging. The subject is no longer a question, but is more like a timetable.
Addendum
In light of some comments, I should just mention, that this is in no way an end for me as I operate a number of other sites:

1. uClimate.com – I suppose the nearest thing to a “skeptic newspaper”. A lot of work is happening behind the scenes.
2. Scottish Independent People – This is a political blog focussed solely on Scotland.
3. uBurns.com  – (currently inactive) but will be to Scottish Politics what uClimate is to climate.
4. Lenzie.org.uk – my first major website. About two years of effort and then I realise that it could never be more than a hobby site. Now only kept online as the adverts cover the costs and there’s a few features I find handy.

In addition, I’ve got a few odd sites:

1. Haseler.net – which I own for the email (bought before .coms became fashionable!)
2. savelenziemoss.org.uk – an environmentalist site, in the best tradition trying, and hopefully succeeding at saving our local nature reserve from being turned into housing. (Not once did we hear anything from the greens or greenspins – these organisations are all mouth and no action)
3. Antoninewall.co.uk – it was going to be a site about Scottish archaeology, until I discovered that Scottish archaeology/history is so full of myth and other crap that it wasn’t going to be a pleasant past time away from the myth and crap of [consensus] climate science.
4. SCEF  – Scottish Climate & Energy Forum (I’m planning to join whatever Anthony Watts creates which should make this redundant).
5. uKipper – A site for linguistics – currently running a hastily put together page where I attempt to remove various letters of the alphabet hopefully with amusing results. (Originally planned as a social site for UKIP members. Then the Scottish party were shafted by England.)
6. Thelords.org.uk – where I plot the overthrow of the British establishment
7. etc.

I was recently pointed in the direction of a paper by Dr Stephen Schneider, perhaps the most media-exposed Greenhouse expert, having developed a charismatic speaking style, complemented by his 1970s good looks, and penchant for extravagant claims about impending environmental disaster. For example, in a TV interview in 1990 to Britain’s Channel 4, he remarked

“The rate of change is so fast that I don’t hesitate to call it potentially catastrophic for ecosystems.”

The quote that caught my eye was this:

… estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere. It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.
However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K.

Continue reading →

The Denier

Original: Pietro Perugino’s depiction of Mary at the Cross, 1482. (Now in National Gallery, Washington)