I’d heard on the Grapevine that the International Panel of Climate Clowns was about to write it’s obituary in the form of a report on extreme climate events.
So, I had a look to see when that was due and apparently there is a report on extreme events due for publication around 14-17 November (or whenever a handy bit of world news is available to “bury the bad news”) Continue reading →

I’ve just come across the most unusual article ever mentioning global warming. Apparently the author of the film: “the Day after tomorrow” which was a global warming propaganda film:

That information given to Strieber by the mystery man formed the basis of a book co-written in 2000 with legendary radio talk show personality Art Bell, “The Coming Global Superstorm,” which evolved into the 2004 apocalyptic film “The Day After Tomorrow.” (Huffington post)

Apparently, Strieber was visited by a stranger one night in a hotel. Who told he all kinds of strange and wondrous things from the dangers of artificial intelligence to the concept of Multiple Universes. Now I’ve got a friend like that, and when he’s drunk he does go on … but apparently Strieber

“… has never fully concluded who or what his 1998 visitor was. As hard as he tried to find the unusual man, Strieber never saw him again after that night. “It’s possible that this was no ordinary human being.”

In other words it was an alien!
See also: “Scientists” completely loose it … aliens to destroy earth

The University of East Anglia who were at the heart of climategate have apparently complained to a very pro-global warming paper because the paper stated in an article the University broke FOI law. Or as the tweet put it:

@newsbrooke Heather Brooke

The UEA have lost touch with reality. The fact is that the UK information commissioner stated that the evidence showed there was a breach of freedom of information law but they could not be prosecuted because it was over the six month time limit. Then the University have the gall to say they didn’t break the law … because they couldn’t be prosecuted, much in the same way as they “lost” the data which they said supported their assertion of warming. Or that following the inquiries that found wrong doing they were exonerated.
And to attack the Guardian!! Talk of biting the hand that feeds you. The UEA have scraped the bottom of the barrel. They are denying reality and they are starting to attack their only remaining support.

Looking at the news, it suddenly occurred to me how different the news coverage is now. Gone are the “global warming could …” End species/destroy civilisation/cause panic/cause extremes of whatever is your favourite fear. In comes: Editor Resigns Over Global Warming Paper, Blames Forbes‎, Gerald Warner: Inconvenient CLOUD rains on the global warming parade‎, Politics Overtaking Science in Global Warming Debate, and on a related subject: Environment policy reforms to add £300 to energy bills

Household energy bills will rise by more than £300 a year as a result of the Coalition’s green policies, a senior Downing Street adviser has told David Cameron.(Telegraph)
Continue reading →

I’ve been looking at Scottish history around the Maunder minimum (1645 – 1715) and the following is very interesting:
After a partial resolution of the English Civil war, Charles I negotiated a secret treaty with the Scots (1647), that they would invade England on Charles’ behalf and restore him to the throne. A series of uprisings led to a Scottish invasion in 1648. On Tuesday 30th January 1649 Charles I was taken to his execution in Whitehall. Outside there was frost and snow.
In the 1690s Scotland’s economy suffered from the “seven ill years“ which resulted in severe famine and depopulation and generally the economy suffered.
Attempts were made to compete with England in America, however the Darien Scheme on the Istmus of Panama suffered from devastating epidemics of disease, and increasing shortage of food and was abandoned in 1700. As the Darien company was backed by about a quarter of the money circulating in Scotland, its failure left the nobles and landowners – after the 1690s run of bad harvests – almost completely ruined and led directly to the 1707 the Act of Union with England.

I’ve been waiting for someone in the Main stream media to pick up the CERN/Svensmark story. I may have missed another one of the “Main Stream Media” picking up the story. The Mail has been pretty stalwart in support for the Sceptics. But, this is certainly the first big Newspaper, arguably the main paper in Scotland, Scotland home of the most pro GW politicians of all parties it can be any one’s unfortunate to have, we in Scotland can be proud that at least our journalists are leading the end of this scam.
I’m quite emotional!
http://www.scotsman.com/opinion/Gerald-Warner-Inconvenient-CLOUD-rains.6830479.jp

CERN may have failed to glimpse the elusive Higgs boson, but it has done something of greater immediate service to humanity by furnishing the first really serious laboratory-based challenge to the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) scam.
The signs are that CLOUD, as it progresses, will vindicate Svensmark. For the warmist nomenklatura this is their worst nightmare. It is a highly sophisticated experiment involving firing particle beams from CERN’s Proton Synchrotron accelerator into a gas-filled chamber, which they can hardly sneer down. It outranks the capers of the software masseurs and those who “hid the decline” at the University of East Anglia, let alone the “hockey stick” farce. So the warmists are trying to pretend it proves nothing adverse, while expressing admiration of techniques employed.
That can only be a temporary holding operation as experiments continue. (Scotsman)

I used to be fairly successful at getting letters published in the paper. Around 50% got in. These days I doubt it is one in ten. But the reality is, that’s its very much a numbers game. The more letters you send in, the more likely you are to hit the right note and add that “bit of interest” the editor wants.
After all, letter’s editors don’t like having to write their own letters, a situation that no doubt occurs from time to time, and if you are lucky and hit them on one of those days, your letter is going to get published.
Advice:

• SEND IT IN. It sounds obvious, but people forget that unless they send in a letter there is no chance it will be published.
• Read the letters that are already being published. Get to know the style. Most importantly get to know the length.
• Write in the style. “If it the SUN WHAT won it”, write that way. If it is: “anthropogenic synagolism secreted in juxtaposition to heliotheocracy” … tell me what it means – but write it like they want it!
• Start with a sentence that is interesting. Topical, ideally refers to an article already published by the paper and something that grabs the attention.
• Finish with a flurry. Finish with a call for something.
• Have an opinion. Never write a “on the one hand this, on the other hand that”. you are far more likely to get printed if you sound like a passionate fanatic than if you sound like a boring “sit on the fence”.
• The rule of threes: making three points in a row always sounds good:
• You must read it carefully (out loud is best – better get a friend to read it), spell check, and above all … a third point!!! (see point above)
• Ruthlessly cut down your letter. If in doubt, cut it out. If the argument can do without it, do without it.
• SEND IT IN PROMPTLY. … Sounds obvious, but despite all I have said, it is better to send in a lot of bad letters, than to send in one perfect letter a long time after people stop talking about it.
• Add your name and address. Editors want to know you are bona fides. And your name adds credibility.
• BLAME THE POLITICIANS NOT THE READERS OR THE JOURNALISTS. If you want to have someone dig into your mouth to check your teeth amongst the decay and rotten smells of your last meal, you go to a dentist. Dentists don’t complain that it’s an awful job – that’s what they get paid for. Likewise, politicians are paid to take the flak from the public on all types of issues, indeed, they need that public attention the flak gives them, so in a real sense you are doing them a favour!!! So, if you have to blame anyone don’t blame the journalists, because it stands much less chance of getting published, and DON’T BLAME THE READERS. You may as well write “NOT FOR PUBLICATION” at the top. When you blame someone, remember “it’s the politicians fault”, is short hand for “it is the fault of society and we want somone (politicians) to do something”.
• Don’t be afraid to add mild humour. Plays on words often go down well.

Libel
It isn’t a good idea to libel anyone because papers don’t like going to court. Even if you say: “criminal climate scientists” … think if you can back it up (Hansen was arrest for third time). Certainly don’t say “Hansen is a criminal”, it may be true, you may certainly believe it to be true, but the paper can’t publish it without checking the facts and consulting their lawyer, so it won’t get published. The safe rule is not to name names. Now even I am wondering if being arrest is the same as being criminal?

ABOVE ALL – SEND IT IN!!

Even if you don’t get published, the editor will see that they have a number of letters on the subject with a certain view and will tend to include one of those letters.

YOUR LETTER MAY NOT GET IN, BUT IT BOOSTS THE CASE FOR A SIMILAR SYMPATHETIC LETTER.

And, write in plain text, no highlights, no capitals, check the length by counting words – a bit too long may be OK, because many will cut it down.

Some minor editor has resigned. because a sceptic paper was printed in “his” journal. It is a classic and very humorous. This is how his argument goes:

• (I believe/have to say) paper should not be published
• I am therefore resigning
• I protest at the way people (56,000) read this paper and journalist wrote about it … in a journalistic way
• “the comparison of one particular observational satellite data set with model predictions is strictly impossible.”

{squeeling brakes sound} Hang on a gone darn moment!!
Here is a report of a paper from Scientific American  (2001):
 

More proof of warming

The researchers looked at the infrared spectrum of long-wave radiation from a region over the Pacific Ocean, as well as from the entire globe. … the team looked only at readings from the same three-month period of the year (April to June) and adjusted them to eliminate the effects of cloud cover. Continue reading →

In light of the compelling evidence on solar activity and the worrying suggestion that we may be entering a period of low sunspot, I decided that I should do all I could to warn our politicians that they need to start taking this issue seriously.
Please sign the petition: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/15656
Take seriously the risk of more extreme winters

“Following a succession of cold winters and cool summers (like the notorious BBQ summer), we now have corroboration by the CERN physics institute of the work of Svensmark and others which clearly indicates a link between climate and solar activity. Other scientists suggest that the recent drop in solar activity may herald a new Maunder minimum which was a period of low solar activity, few sunspots and extremely cold weather. In light of this evidence, we ask the government to ensure it is prepared for a sustained period of extreme cold and ask it to urgently undertake research to understand the effects of solar activity.”