Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

November, 2011:

Roger Harrabin, BBC and Tyndall

Many thanks for your very helpful comments. Essentially I agree on all counts, and indeed the "sceptics ask, scientists answer" web-page that you have set up is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind as a possible minimal response that we (Tyndall et al, and even maybe the Royal Society if it wants to get involved) might undrertake. Wherever possible this could/should refer to other reputable sites (incl IPCC, Hadley Centre, the ones you mention, etc etc) rather than duplicating the material. I would envisage that such a site could be maintained by a consortium of the willing, in this case involving (say) Tyndall, Hadley & PIK. We could then asked the RS (et al) to mention it and link to it on some sort of "sound science" page on their own web-site(s) (Rachel, do you think that this might fly ?).

We had an interesting debate on this at the Tyndall Advisory Board last week, and the consensus was very much in line with your views, except for the journalist present (Roger Horobin), who wanted something more pro-active. I am more sympathetic to his view than most of you, I think, but the question is what more would be useful, effective, and not too burdensome ?

Email 2974 (Tuesday, December 02, 2003)

Journalist? Taking part in policy discussions? Is Roger Harrabin really anything more than an embedded propagandist? Note, they couldn’t even get his name right, so much for treating their tools with respect…..

H/T Global Warming Policy Foundation

Eventually, sanity spreads

The latest release of 5,000 emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) reconfirms what the 2009’s “Climategate” files established: Global warming is more fiction than science.


Warmists dismiss the leaked emails or complain they have been taken out of context. Not so. Collectively, the emails provide evidence of various crimes against the scientific method, such as concealed or destroyed source data, selective measurement, predetermined conclusions, hidden funding sources and bowing to government influence. They knew they were doing wrong and sought to hide the evidence. “One way to cover yourself,” wrote professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU, “would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. Hard to do, as not everybody will remember to do it.” Fortunately for science, Mr. Jones was, for once, correct.

Editorial, Washington Times

Quote of the day

I have just stumbled across the daftest and most nebulous article on climate change ever.

Comment is Free, of course.

H/T Tim Blair

AGW Redux

Louise Gray contines to spew her climate science ignorance in the face of the barely twitching corpse that is the AGW fraud.  She does this by riding to David Attenborough’s defence.

That awful Lord Lawson of the Global Warming Policy Foundation has accused rabid warmist and Malthusian thoroughly decent bloke, Sir David, of over egging the AGW pudding in the yet to be aired final episode of his latest wildlife documentary series, Frozen Planet.

In the final episode of the popular series, which will be broadcast on BBC One on December 7th, Sir David claims that the Arctic could be ice free in summer by 2020 and polar bears are already dying due to a lack of ice.

Oh, really?  Then how come it’s called Frozen Planet and not Melting Arctic Ice That’s Killing Polar Bears Planet?  I’ve been watching this programme which has been wonderfully and dramatically shot by a team of talented, wildlife cameramen.  Four of the episodes concentrate on the polar seasons.  It’s hard not to notice: a) it’s bloody cold and well below freezing no matter what the season and: b) polar bears suffer greatly in the winter because the sea freezes over making it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to hunt their staple food – seals.

That’s right.  Bears are at risk of starving to death during the winter due to a lack of open water making seals scarce yet strangely we’re told it’s open water and melting sea ice that poses the greatest threat even though hunting seals is much easier as witnessed and filmed by those marvellous cameramen.  Weird and ironic, eh?

Already the programme has caused controversy after it was revealed that the BBC is offering broadcasters in countries like the US, where there is more scepticism about global warming, the option of buying the series without the ‘climate change episode’ at the end.

Maybe that’s because a number of countries, including the US, prefer to air a balanced view of the AGW controversy, something the BBC seems incapable of producing.  The Discovery Channel refused outright to purchase and air the final Frozen Planet episode, On Thin IceQuelle horreur!  How can that be?

Writing in the Radio Times, Lord Lawson points out that certain populations of polar bears are rising and that sea ice cover is in fact increasing in Antarctica.

“Sir David Attenborough is one of our finest journalists and a great expert on animal life. Unfortunately, however, when it comes to global warming he seems to prefer sensation to objectivity,” he said.

Well Lawson is correct.  As for objectivity, what can one expect when crap like this passes for BBC impartiality?

However Cambridge University scientists questioned whether Lord Lawson understands or is even aware of the wider context of the latest peer-reviewed research on global warming.

I question whether not those same Cambridge scientists understand or are even aware of the wider context of the now authenticated Climategate 2.0 emails.

For example Lord Lawson claims that polar bear populations are increasing in certain areas, although many people believe this is because the animals are spotted more around human settlements because they are hungry.

Belief is NOT evidence you stupid woman!

But Sir David makes clear that the under-nourished polar bears he is seen with on the television is from just one population.

Under-nourished isn’t the same as dead or in decline.  So far, on Frozen Planet, I’ve seen penguins and ducks that have frozen to death.  What has been conspicuously absent are scenes of polar bears that have died from lack of ice.   If their populations are so sensitive to sea ice extent how come the Arctic seas don’t turn white with the drowned corpses of polar bears every time the sea ice melts sufficiently to allow the opening of the North West Passsage?

Also, the programme makes clear that certain animals such as the killer whale will actually benefit from less sea ice in the summer.

Gosh, there’s an upside to annual Arctic sea ice reduction.  Who knew?

According to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) most populations of polar bears are declining as the animals struggle to hunt when there is less sea ice.

IUCN actually expect people to believe that no polar bear, in the long history of the species, ever adapted to climate change?  How on earth did they survive the end of the last ice age or the Holocene Climatic Optimum?  Yet Attenborough’s team still managed to find enough bears to star in his documentary series.  Lucky or what?  But I’m confused.  Who are we non-scientific plebs expected to believe?  Is it the NGO AGW advocates who claim polar bear populations are in terminal decline, basing this opinion on three or four polar bears (glimpsed from an aircraft in 2006) who drowned at sea after a storm, cause of death unknown since the bodies weren’t retrieved and examined but attributed to AGW anyway.   Or do we believe a scientific study (deliberately ignored by warmists) that concludes polar bear populations, far from being endangered, are actually thriving?

Lord Lawson says that that an ‘objective’ point of view would have pointed out that Antarctic sea ice has expanded over the last 30 years.

He also claimed that evaporation from the melting ice is countering the warming effect by providing cloud cover.

Dr Ian Willis, a senior researcher at the Cambridge University Scott Polar Research Institute, said neither of these points counteract the overall loss of sea ice.

“It is indeed the case that while total sea ice extent in Antarctica over the last three decades has increased slightly, the total sea ice extent in the Northern hemisphere has decreased more substantially. So there is now less sea ice on the planet than there was 30 years ago,” he said.

Lord Lawson quite rightly points out that Antarctic sea ice has expanded over the last three decades.  Dr. Willis agrees and then throws in a straw man argument about Arctic sea ice.   Thirty years ago there was a lot less ice than there was 12,000 years ago.  Scientists have recently postulated that there may have been a total absence of summer Arctic sea ice during the warmest part of the Holocene Climatic Optimum.  Should we be worried?  Do polar bears shit in Antarctic woods?

I do not know of one sensible AGW sceptic that disputes the 2007  summer Arctic sea ice minimum.  There are plenty of warmists that dispute the post 2007 recovery of summer sea ice though.  Arctic ice death spiral anyone?  The major  disagreement between sceptics and warmists is the cause of the 2007 summer Arctic sea ice decline which, by the way, isn’t unprecedented or proven to be caused by rising levels of CO2 no matter what the warmists or their deeply flawed global climate models claim.

Sir David admitted that much of the science is in the early stages but having visited the Poles, he is convinced of man-made global warming and warned of the “devastating effects”, especially in coastal communities due to sea level rise.

The science is in the early stages yet for Attenborough, like Al Gore, the science is settled.  Perhaps he’d like to explain why we’re not seeing any of the alarming, global warming driven “devastating effects”, especially of sea level rise, on our screens?  Maybe it’s because there’s a “complete lack of evidence” .

As the world meets in Durban for the latest round of UN climate talks, he urged all countries to cut emissions.

I’m all for cutting emissions too.  That’s why I won’t be watching the eco-flatulence entitled On Thin Ice.  It’s troubling that telly licence payers were forced to pay for this blatant propaganda whether we believe in it or not.  I’d like to know how Attenborough travelled from pole to pole.  I’m pretty certain dog sleds, bicycles and ocean-going sail boats didn’t feature highly.  I’d also like to know the production cost and the size of Frozen Planet’s carbon footprint that has given Attenborough yet another platform from which to preach his sanctimonious Church of AGW doctrine to us.

“I don’t think anyone can seriously deny it is happening,” he said.

Climate change is real.  Anyone who seriously denies that climate change is real is a moron.

“What the controversy is about is whether mankind has been a factor in that.”

The real controversy is wheather or not the warmist climatologists fudged the data and perpetrated a fraud in favour of AGW in order to blame mankind thereby handing politicians an excuse to tax a vital, non-polluting, naturally occurring trace gas.  It seems this is precisely what the bastards did.

“I personally think we have and it would be surprising if we hadn’t given what we have been doing for the last 125 years.”

What Attenborough personally thinks is irrelevant.  Personal opinion that is not underpinned by falsifiable evidence is not science.

“But in the way it is irrelevant given temperatures are increasing and we know that is potentially doing a lot of damage and if we can we should try and stop that happening.”

The average global temperature stopped increasing in 1998.  The only damage being done is the obscene and totally unnecessary cost of “climate mitigation” based upon fraudulent science that is evidentially harming the poor while enriching corporations and wealthy people.  Atmospheric CO2 is rising.  The temperature isn’t rising.  Even warmists are finally acknowledging that temperature has flatlined for the last ten years or so.  Maybe they should share their epiphanies with Attenborough and the BBC.

“Whether it is caused by us or not, we can bring down carbon emissions and that could stop temperatures rising.”

Wow!  That’s one hell of a WTF money quote.

That’s right.  Attenborough believes that even if mankind isn’t to blame he’s still up for redistributing wealth from the poor to the rich


encouraging brown people to continue dying from treatable diseases through lack of refridgerated medicine and/or inhaling smoke from dung fires


taxing people into energy poverty in a cooling climate and allowing a growing number of vulnerable people to freeze to death for no good reason


ensuring that polar bears have greater difficulty hunting seals in the summer


As if forcing people to pay huge taxes for natural emissions of a trace gas they have no control over (natural CO2 outstrips emissions from human industry by magnitudes), will magically reduce global temperatures that are falling due to natural, multidecadal cycles anyway.

All because cretins like Attenborough hate people and would like to see billions of them disappear.  For the sake of the chiiiildren and the grandchiiiildren of course.

How times change…

In 1997 the BBC telethon “Children in Need” released this charity single that went straight to #1 and stayed there for three weeks – the song was everywhere. My mother even bought the CD single.

Yup, Lou Reed’s song “Perfect Day”. These are the opening lyrics…

Just A Perfect Day,
Drink Sangria In The Park,

Try drinking sangria in the park these days and see what happens if there is a PCSO about (and God help you if there are kids in a paddling-pool – do they still have them? – and you have a camera). Yes, even if it’s a couple having a picnic. But think of the children! What message does that song send out to the kiddies as a charity single for deprived kids!

But wait it gets worse…

The song has a sombre vocal delivery and slow, piano-based instrumental backing balancing tones of sweet nostalgia (“it’s such a perfect day, I’m glad I spent it with you”) with an undercurrent of menace (“you’re gonna reap just what you sow”)…

The song’s lyrics are often considered to suggest simple, conventional romantic devotion, possibly alluding to Reed’s relationship with Bettye Kronstadt (soon to become his first wife) and Reed’s own conflicts with his sexuality, drug use, and ego.

Some commentators have further seen the lyrical subtext as displaying Reed’s romanticized attitude towards a period of his own addiction to heroin; this popular understanding of the song as an ode to addiction led to its inclusion in the soundtrack for Trainspotting, a film about the lives of heroin users.

- Wikipedia

A movie released not that long before the single. But flash forward to 2011 and…

An X Factor contestant has come under fire for performing a song about heroin abuse during the family show. But with so many narcotic references in popular music, is it possible to insist on drug-free cover versions?

When wholesome would-be popster Janet Devlin trilled Under the Bridge by the Red Hot Chili Peppers on reality television programme The X Factor, the Saturday peak-time setting was somewhat removed from the track’s lyrical message of degradation, squalor and despair.

I dunno. Somehow I suspect “degradation, squalor and despair” descibes ITV1′s Saturday vile crap-fest to a T.

Devlin and the show’s producers were attacked for exposing family audiences to a song about heroin abuse.

The horror, the horror!

This is the original of the song…

It can hardly be said to romanticise heroin addiction can it? Anyway, if we are to excise from the cannon of popular music any references to drugs then I suspect you’ve got very little left. Perhaps my colleague RAB might chip in here…

Charity Kidscape called the song choice “disturbing and irresponsible” while counselling service Focus 12 warned producers that their duty to protect young people from the horrors of addiction was “not something that should be taken lightly”.

Fourteen years is a short time in bansturbation is it not?

Guess who else joined in…

The Daily Mail attacked the show’s lack of concern over “troubling lyrics about heroin needles drawing blood”. In fact, during her performance Devlin – who was subsequently voted out of the contest – omitted the song’s final verse, the only part of it to deal directly with intravenous drug use.

Classic Daily Fail.

The same paper that has this on the front page of it’s website today. A tawdry and vile attempt to disguise showing pictures of scantily clad lasses out clubbing in Britain for the purpose of titilation by serving up a side-order of moral outrage. It is moral hypocrisy of the sort that would have the sterotypical Victorian of popular imagination reach for the smelling salts (which are probably illegal now anyway). If he wasn’t also having a crafty Barclay’s…

Just read the whole thing if you can. It’s foul – I dunno the word – “slutsploitain”?

Welcome to the new moral hectoring, same as it always has been. Welcome to Iran or The Republic of Gilead.

I’m not even going to mention a certain shift in British politics that happened in 1997 but you might think it.

Quote of the day

The European Union faces financial collapse in the near future. It is a good thing that they have devoted the last decade or so to destroying the economy by taxing  an essential trace atmospheric gas.

This is what happens when millions of people collectively stick their heads up a NASA scientist’s rear end.

Global warming fraud is not a  victimless crime.

Professor Keith Biffra

Email 5189

it seems we got the balance between realism and hype about right.

Anyone care to comment on the appropriateness of a scientist writing this?

H/T Tom Nelson

CCIZ quote of 1922

Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz

(“The common good before self-interest”)

– Rudolf Jung, Der Nationale Sozialismus (1922). It became Hitler’s favoured slogan for his philosophy.

It’s a measure of the success of the Left in disowning National Socialism that it’s still something of a surprise to come across nuggets like this. It would fit right in at the Occupy protests. In fact, I’m tempted to troll some Lefty sites with it (omitting the title of the book of course) to see how many of them spot who Jung was. Not many, I’d bet.* Part of that success lies in equating the ideology with the madness of its most successful proponent, ignoring the fact that it had an almost-respectable intellectual history (on the Left) before Crazy Adolf had even heard of it.

Dangerous ideas are dangerous ideas, no matter who advocates them.

(There should be a hat-tip to someone here, but I followed so many links on the way to the quote and after finding it that I’ve forgotten where I first saw it. I think the chain started with David Thompson.)

*I wonder how many would mistake him for Carl…

Aarggh – Disaster

Global Warming causes smaller tits……

If WWII happened now…

…I think we’d hear about it like this.

H/T Infidel753

Gary Speed MBE (1969-2011)

It is rare that I find the death of a famous person shocking but when I heard of Gary Speed’s death today I was shocked.

A fine player for many clubs (he holds the appearances record for an outfield player in the Premiership) and a great player for his national team (but can I be forgiven for recalling mainly his time at Newcastle) and his current job as the manager Wales seemed to be going very well (Wales had leap-frogged about fifty places in the FIFA rankings). He was also by all accounts a thoroughly decent bloke. It would appear he hung himself.

I shall leave the final words to his Newcastle team-mate Alan Shearer.

Alan Shearer, who played alongside Speed at Newcastle for six years between 1998 and 2004, said: “Gary was a magnificent person, bright, fun and a wonderful family man – he lit up every room he walked into.

“I am proud to have been his friend and will miss him dreadfully.”

If you have followed football at all over the last twenty years you will appreciate that from the notoriously taciturn Mr Shearer.

Jo Nova nails it

Pointman analyzes the ClimateGate whistleblower’s tactics and explains why he, she or they probably released those other 200,000 emails but kept them hidden behind the 4000-8000 character almost unbreakable password. He points out there are no emails released yet between key scientists and people in power, hence the worst, most damaging emails may be kept under a ” dead man’s hand detonator”. If politicians are afraid of what might be in those released-but-hidden emails, they may not want to expose or attack the whistleblower for fear of unleashing the other emails. The hidden emails buy the whistleblower protection.

Read the posting.

An Open Letter to Dr. Phil Jones of the UEA CRU

As savage an indictment as you are likely to see anywhere……

I must be dreaming…

“It’s a wonder I’m here at all, you know. My pussy got soakin’ wet. I had to dry it out in front of the fire before I left.”

This of course is from the truly puerile ’70s BBC sitcom “Are you being served?” Is it offensive? Well it’s bloody stupid and silly and the only women I know with a pussy are cat owners. None of these females reside in the UAE though…

Shrek spin-off Puss in Boots will be renamed “Cat in Boots” in the United Arab Emirates. The state’s film censorship committee pulled the P-word amid fears that a “Puss” could cause offence.

The censors’ claws will apparently close around all publicity for the children’s film, with Arabian Business magazine reporting that Antonio Banderas, who voices the titular feline, was asked not to refer to the original title or his character’s name during promotional duties at the recent Doha Tribeca film festival.

Now the word “pussy” is interesting. The Wikipedia article certainly is but what I find interesting is that “pussy” as used about female genitals seems a very odd word because it combines the qualities of being both vulgar and euphemistic. It certainly ain’t the linguistic “C-bomb” but in a sense it’s almost more offensive because of that in much the same way it’s descendant, the appalling Oprah-ism “Vajayjay” is. Can’t we in this day and age use words like “vagina” or “vulva”? Seeing as sex is an adult activity surely we are being ridiculous by resorting to such baby-talk! And the UAE is being utterly ridiculous too but I can’t help but feel our silliness at some level is behind this.

OK, just one more pussy joke (and an old one)…

The double entendre has been used for over a hundred years by performers, including the late-19th-century vaudeville act the Barrison Sisters, who performed the notorious routine “Do You Want To See My Pussy?” (see entry for more).

Oh you evil folks at Wikipedia! “See entry for more”. Behave. Anyway these are the Barrison sisters…

…who at the climax of their “act” lifted their skirts to reveal a kitten.

No wonder we had to invent CGI animations because that is not my definition of entertainment.

Truly going Galt

I will not, under any circumstance, consider reforming and re-opening Barnhardt Capital Management, or any other iteration of a brokerage business, until Barack Obama has been removed from office AND the government of the United States has been sufficiently reformed and repopulated so as to engender my total and complete confidence in the government, its adherence to and enforcement of the rule of law, and in its competent and just regulatory oversight of any commodities markets that may reform. So long as the government remains criminal, it would serve no purpose whatsoever to attempt to rebuild the futures industry or my firm, because in a lawless environment, the same thievery and fraud would simply happen again, and the criminals would go unpunished, sheltered by the criminal oligarchy.

%d bloggers like this: