Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Human carbon emissions could put OFF a lethal new ice age, say scientists

There is no evidence that CO2 causes warming and a lot of evidence against it but it is fun when Warmists admit that warming could be beneficial: Rather a case of being hoist with their own petard

Cambridge University paleoclimatologist Luke Skinner says that even if carbon emissions stopped today, levels would remain elevated for at least 1,000 years, and stored heat could prevent the next Ice Age from happening

Cambridge university scientists say that a new Ice Age is due to start within 1,500 years. But due to human carbon emissions, the lethal 'big freeze' could be put off.

Levels of CO2 in the atmosphere could actually insulate against a catastrophic ice age which would see glaciers advance over Europe and north America.

The scientists admit that we would be 'better off' in a warmer world - but caution that this is 'missing the point'.

In a paper published in Nature Geoscience, Cambridge University paleoclimatologist Luke Skinner says that even if carbon emissions stopped today, levels would remain elevated for at least 1,000 years, and stored heat could prevent the next Ice Age from happening. Instead, things would cool down, but not quite so severely.

Thanks to elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the earth would not experience 'glaciation' - periods of severe cold where glaciers advance.

The current level of carbon dioxide is 390 parts per million. Scientists believe that level would need to drop to 240 parts per million to allow glaciation to take place. 'It's an interesting philosophical discussion. Would we better off in a warm world rather than a glaciation? Probably we would,' says Dr Skinner.

'At current levels of CO2, even if emissions stopped now, we'd probably have a long interglacial period,' says Dr Skinner.

'Interglacial' periods are warmer periods between periods of glaciation. The last ice age ended 11,500 years ago, and scientists debate over when the next one is 'due'. The cycle is dictated by tiny variations in Earth's orbit around the sun.

Ice ages are marked by glaciers advancing over continents. At the peak of the last ice age, large areas of Europe, Asia and North America were covered in ice. The effects on human civilisation would be catastrophic.

He says, 'This is missing the point, because where we're going is not maintaining our currently warm climate but heating it much further, and adding CO2 to a warm climate is very different from adding it to a cold climate.'


Insects Outwit French Scientist
Global warming: European species lag in habitat shift

PARIS — Fast-track warming in Europe is making butterflies and birds fall behind in the move to cooler habitats and prompting a worrying turnover in alpine plant species, studies published Sunday said.

The papers, both published by the journal Nature Climate Change, are the biggest endeavour yet to pinpoint impacts on European biodiversity from accelerating global temperatures.

A team led by Vincent Devictor of France’s National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) found that from 1990 to 2008, average temperatures in Europe rose by one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit).

ROFL Even Hansen doesn’t believe that merde. He doesn’t show anywhere in Europe which warmed 1C from 1990-2008.

In order to live at the same temperature, species would have to shift northward by 249 kilometres (155 miles), they calculated.

But during this period, butterlies moved only 114 kms (71 miles), and birds by just 37 kms (23 miles).

Apparently the insects don’t believe the monsieur’s BS. Instead of checking his numbers, he decided that it was the insects who were confused.

In case you are wondering why the good scientist ended his temperature analysis in 2008, have a look at the full 1990-2011 map below. No place in Europe has warmed even half a degree.

SOURCE (See the original for links)

Wind power is expensive and ineffective at cutting CO2 says British think tank

Wind power could actually produce more CO2 than gas and increase domestic fuel bills because of the need for "back up" power stations, a think tank has warned.

A study in the Netherlands found that turning back-up gas power stations on and off to cover spells when there is little wind actually produces more carbon than a steady supply of energy from an efficient modern gas station.

The research is cited in a new report by the Civitas think tank which warns that Britain is in danger of producing more carbon dioxide (CO2) than necessary if the grid relies too much on wind.

Wind turbines only produce energy around 30 per cent of the time. When the wind is not blowing - or even blowing too fast as in the recent storms - other sources of electricity have to be used, mostly gas and coal.

However it takes a surge of electricity to power up the fossil fuel stations every time they are needed, meaning more carbon emissions are released.

“You keep having to switch these gas fired power stations on and off, whereas if you just have highly efficient modern gas turbines and let it run all the time, it will use less gas,” said Ruth Lea, an economic adviser to Arbuthnot Banking Group and the author of the Civitas report.

“If you use less gas in a highly efficient gas turbine you use less carbon dioxide than having wind backed up by gas.”

The Dutch report, published at the end of last year by retired physicist Dr C le Pair, also points to the carbon emissions produced in building wind farms, that last a relatively short period of time compared to conventional power stations.

It concludes: “The wind projects do not fulfill 'sustainable' objectives. They cost more fuel than they save and they cause no CO2 saving, in the contrary they increase our environmental 'foot print'.”

The UK Government want to build up to 32,000 wind turbines over the next 20 years, of which at least 6,000 could be onshore.

The report also found that wind is “horrendously expensive”, especially offshore wind, because of the cost of taking the turbines out to sea and installing the structures. The fact that the power source always has to be backed up by fossil fuel stations also increases the cost.

Civitas cite official Government figures that warn green policies will add up to £400 to electricity bills over the next two decades.

The report concludes: “The most cost-effective technologies are nuclear and gas-fired. Onshore, and especially offshore, wind technologies are inordinately expensive.”

But Dr Gordon Edge, Director of policy at the lobby group RenewableUK, said much of the information was gathered from “anti-wind farm cranks”.

He explained that modern gas plants are not required to provide back-up for wind. Instead, wind is "integrated" into the existing system [And how does he think that happens?] to act as a fuel saver, enabling the UK harness a free electricity source from the weather when it’s available. Some additional investment is required, but Dr Edge said “credible analysis” makes clear it will cost less for consumers than relying on fossil fuels, that are rising in price all the time.

“It is surprising that a think tank such as Civitas has published a report based on the work of anti-wind cranks, repeating the same discredited assertions. The UK’s energy policy over the next ten years will play a critical part in our economic success – offshore wind in particular has the potential to revitalise our manufacturing sector, with the promise of over 70,000 jobs," he said. "This report, based on outdated and inaccurate information, does nothing to advance the debate.”


Costly green jobs in Germany

Optimistic predictions that Germany's decision to turn its back on nuclear energy will lead to the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the renewable energy sector have met with scepticism.

While renewable energy lobbyists as well as the German government argue one of the upsides of Germany's planned abandonment of nuclear energy by 2022 will be a rosier employment picture, some experts are unconvinced.

Chancellor Angela Merkel defended the so-called 'Energiewende,' the term used to describe both the end of nuclear power and the promotion of renewable energy sources, on being asked about nuclear industry job losses.

"All in all, the new energy policy will create more jobs than will be lost," she told reporters last month after French nuclear giant Areva became the latest of several big energy companies to announce it was axing posts.

But the very same day also saw the first case in Germany of a solar panel manufacturer, Solon, announcing it was going into liquidation, threatening the loss of some 500 jobs.

The company, established in 1998, was the first victim of Germany's crisis-racked solar energy industry, hurting due to a cut in government subsidies and from foreign competition.

Since Berlin decided in March to permanently switch off Germany's eight oldest nuclear reactors and to close by 2022 nine others currently online, job loss announcements have mounted.

The government's surprise about-turn in its nuclear policy came in the wake of Japan's massive March 11 Fukushima nuclear disaster, the worst since Chernobyl in 1986.

Partly as a result, Germany's biggest power supplier, EON, plans to cut up to 11,000 jobs worldwide while its rival RWE will shed 8,000, according to press reports.

Both groups however also face profitability problems with their gas- and coal-fired plants as well as with subsidiaries abroad while restructuring by France's Areva will cost at least 1,200 jobs at its German subsidiary.

Opponents of nuclear energy respond to such bleak predictions by pointing to the huge potential for new jobs in renewable energy.

Given that the sector in Germany is still relatively immature, lobbyists from the renewable energy association predict its workforce will swell to 500,000 as a result of the policy change.

DIW economic research institute eyes up to one million jobs, while the government puts the figure at 400,000 by 2020 compared to 300,000 in 2009.

"Just for show," Manuel Frondel, a researcher at RWI institute, said dismissively, arguing the figures did not take into account jobs lost because of the shift to renewable energy. "Renewable energies demand a lot of capital but less manpower" than conventional energy sources, he said.

Hundreds of personnel are needed for the operation of a nuclear or coal-powered plant, while very few are required for the running of a wind or solar park.

Frondel in particular points the finger at "blatant (political) mistakes" in the solar energy sector.

While the installation of solar panels in Germany has jumped in recent years, it is down to a subsidy system financed through levying a surcharge on consumers' energy bills, he said.

At the same time, the system has proved particularly beneficial for Asian producers of solar panels which are less costly than those produced in Germany.

"Every job (in Germany) in the solar (sector) costs 250,000 euros ($318,000)" to electricity consumers, meaning they are "doomed" or already lost jobs, Frondel commented.

According to a study last year by Stuttgart University's Institute for Energy Industry and Efficient Energy Use, the end of nuclear energy by 2022 will have a limited negative impact on jobs in the short term. "But by 2025 job losses of about 185,000 people will be recorded here too," it said.

Additionally some research institutes believe the expected rise in the cost of electricity in Germany will hold back growth and neutralise in the short term any employment benefits reaped from the move to renewable energy.

One recent example underscores their fears -- German company SGL Carbon announced it would build a carbon fibre factory in the United States rather than in Germany since electricity there is cheaper.


Make-believe from official Britain

The Government's latest report on our future energy supply is a tissue of unproved assumptions and wishful thinking

If a ministry were to publish a completely dotty and misleading 220-page report on an issue of the highest national importance, one might at least raise an eyebrow. If it appeared under the names of David Cameron and Nick Clegg, one might even be rather worried. But if one then saw that it was also signed by Chris Huhne, as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, one could become seriously alarmed.

At the beginning of last month, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) published two documents purporting to solve the riddle of how Britain will meet its obligation, under the Climate Change Act, to cut CO2 emissions by 80 per cent before 2050 (the UK being the only country in the world committed by law to do this). One document was a lengthy report entitled Carbon Plan: Delivering Our Low-Carbon Future. The other was an interactive computer model on the DECC website called 2050 Pathway Calculator, produced under the aegis of the DECC’s chief scientific adviser, David Mackay (and with a puff from Friends of the Earth).

After Christmas, various newspapers showed some belated interest in these publications. It was shown, from Government figures, that to meet the statutory target would cost every household in Britain nearly £5,000 every year until 2050. Other analysts then made rather more detailed critiques, led by the blogger Tim Worstall who, under the heading “Lying with numbers”, pointed out what seems a fundamental flaw in DECC’s toy computer model.

Worstall was startled to discover that relying on “renewables” to generate our electricity would, according to DECC, be significantly cheaper than relying on conventional power sources, such as nuclear and fossil fuels. As everyone knows, renewable sources such as wind farms are far more expensive than conventional ones, hence their need for massive subsidies. But the model had been designed on the assumption that, with wind power, Britain would require much less energy, because we would have become more “energy efficient”, by insulating our homes and so forth. Using conventional electricity, on the other hand, would be much more expensive because we would be less “energy efficient” and would therefore need more power. As Worstall put it, the model thus contrives to show that renewables, instead of being twice as expensive as conventional power, would mysteriously cost only half as much.

Another flaw Worstall noticed was that the model nowhere seems to allow for the dramatic effect on the cost of gas already evident in America thanks to the “shale gas revolution” – the new technology that is enabling vast quantities of cheap gas to be extracted from shale and coal beds.

What emerges from reading the DECC report in full is how heavily almost every page of it relies on wishful thinking and unproven assumptions. The report babbles on, for instance, about how we will have “zero carbon homes” and a “zero carbon waste economy” and how we will build “33 gigawatts” of zero carbon nuclear power and “45 gigawatts” of wind power (without, of course, pointing out that 45GW refers to the capacity of the windmills, not the 15GW or less they might actually produce, due to the intermittency of the wind).

The report does recognise that we would still need 28GW of the fossil-fuel electricity which currently supplies nearly 80 per cent of our needs. But this brings us to perhaps the most glaring example of wishful thinking that runs right through the report: its insistence that gas and coal-fired power stations can only be allowed if they are fitted with “carbon capture and storage” (CCS), the immensely costly equipment that is supposed to pipe away CO2 and bury it in the ground.

It cannot be stated too forcefully that, as yet, the technology to do this has not been commercially developed, for the simple reason that, as various scientific studies have shown, it cannot work. There is no way in which vast quantities of CO2 can be injected into rock at the high pressures necessary without fracturing the rock to the point where no more can be injected. Yet it is on this make-believe that the dreams of Cameron, Clegg and Huhne ultimately rest.

It is ironic that the shale gas bonanza, now offering the world its greatest energy revolution since nuclear power, depends on a rock-fracturing process that does work – indeed, it already provides 25 per cent of all America’s gas, cutting its cost to the lowest winter level in a decade. In Poland, the first homes will be heated by shale gas this winter.

Britain too, it seems, is sitting on huge potential reserves of shale gas, which could supply us with cheap energy for centuries to come. Yet because it is a fossil fuel, our Government refuses to take it seriously. When I asked DECC, last week, why all its projections ignore shale gas, I was given the truly astounding reply that, even if we do begin to produce gas from shale, “it will all be exported”.

Nothing in the DECC report is so forlorn as the way its final pages list the hundreds of bureaucratic steps that our Government plans to take in the years ahead – its Green Deal, its Green Investment Bank, its work with our EU partners on “establishing standards for a smart grid”, and how a UK Climate Security Envoy will “engage with the US, Canada, Japan, the African Union and Australia on national and global security risks of climate change”.

I was reminded, after reading the report, of the closing scene of the Marx Brothers’ film At the Circus, where a symphony orchestra is sitting on a raft moored at the end of a Big Top at the seaside. The brothers cut the moorings and the raft begins to drift gently out to sea, with the orchestra playing on regardless.

Messrs Cameron, Clegg, Huhne, Mackay, and their subordinates, blithely saw away at their violins while the raft of our national energy policy is carried away into the sunset. For anyone wondering how we are going to keep Britain’s lights on and our economy running, make-believe on such a scale is truly terrifying.

Does Letwin really hold the all-time regulation record?

There was a time when, if we wanted to know what those who rule us had planned for the year ahead, we would read the Queen’s Speech to Parliament. Nowadays, however, we should attend to the European Commission, which announced, on the day after Boxing Day and quite unreported, 129 “initiatives” it is planning for 2012.

A huge proportion of our legislation now comes, as we know, from this strange system of government centred in Brussels, and is turned into UK law by means of “statutory instruments” (SIs), over which our own elected politicians have no control. There was a time when this column used regularly to report on the rising numbers of SIs. Just over 20 years ago they began to grow inexorably, from an average of 2,600 a year in the 1980s to well over 3,000 a year in the 1990s and more than 4,000 a year in the Blair era. This coincided with a dramatic drop in the number of Acts of Parliament, reflecting just how much of our law was coming from the EU.

Last week, when I checked on the latest figures at the National Archives website, I was startled to see that the whole system has changed. The totals given for SIs issued in earlier years have been revised very drastically downwards – as have the numbers given for Acts of Parliament. When I asked for an explanation of a change which has made it impossible to make historical comparisons, National Archives told me that, since 2010, the figures now show only “those SIs which are published on our website” – so that many of those formerly included in the totals for earlier years have vanished.

They conceded that this change in methodology should perhaps have been explained, and that a statement to this effect may be added to their website. But I also pointed out, as an unfortunate consequence of the change, that the new figures seem to show the numbers of SIs issued in 2010 and 2011 as very much higher than those for any years previously.

Whether Oliver Letwin, our “red-tape czar”, would wish it to be thought that his Government has been responsible for issuing far more regulations than any in history, I doubt. But such is the misleading impression given by the peculiar way in which these statistics are now presented. Perhaps he should look into it.


Reply to an unethical ethicist

Donald A. Brown at Penn State writing in his blog here did the “Climate Skeptics” a big favor by gathering “The Hockey-Stick Team’s” arguments into one article. I am sure that Professor Brown was certain that no skeptic would have the temerity to actually challenge his assertions.

But his assertions beg for challenge. One of his techniques is to make claims about the skeptic side that are in fact much more true for the Team side. These techniques include:


One example of the Team’s use of lying is the assertion that “97% of Climate Scientists agree” that AGW is true. This figure is based on an on-line poll sent to over 10,000 “earth scientists” where the participants were self selected, and the actual numbers were 75 out of 79 answering the poll describing themselves as “peer-reviewed climate scientists”. See here. The actual questions on that poll were:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Nearly all skeptics would answer “have generally risen” to Question 1, and most would answer “yes” to Question 2. This loaded poll proves nothing. The whole argument revolves around “how much”. We don’t know if the above 79 participants were actually “climate scientists” or not. They could just as well have been kids down at the neighborhood Starbucks with laptops. But this assertion has been repeated countless times on the Internet as if it were Holy Writ and Peer Reviewed. (It was not.) The principle used here is that “If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth”. this according to one of history’s most infamous propagandist.

Professor Brown says that:

"Some of the claims made by some of those engaged in the disinformation campaign have been outright lies about such things as the claim that the entire scientific basis for human-induced climate change is a hoax or that there is no evidence of human causation of climate change.”

This statement itself is not true. Most skeptics think that there is some human causation, just not the catastrophic kind claimed by the Team. In answer to Professor Brown’s citation of six books for his side, here’s my citation of six books for the skeptic’s side:

1. Evidence Based Climate Science, Dr. Don Easterbrook
2. The Hockey Stick Illusion, A. W. Montford
3. Climategate, The CRUtape Letters, Steven Mosher and Thomas W. Fuller
4. The Great Global Warming Blunder, Dr. Roy W. Spencer
5. The Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming, Patrick J.Michaels (Editor), Dr. Sallie L. Baliunas, Dr. Robert C. Balling Jr , Dr. Randall S. Cerveny, Dr. John Christy, Dr. Robert E. Davis, Dr. Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Dr. Ross McKitrick, Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Dr. Eric S. Posmentier, Dr. Willie Soon (Contributors)
6. Die Kalte Sonne, (The Cold Sun, Why the Climate Catastrophe is Not Taking Place) Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Luñing (In Press) For more on this one, read here

Focusing On An Unknown While Ignoring the Known.

The amount of the unknown on climate science is far greater than what is known, and thus impacts the known at every level. For example: although climate sensitivity, (the temperature rise due to CO2 doubling) has yet to be established, a number is used in all the general climate models. The IPCC “consensus” is that it is somewhere between 1.5°C to 4.5°C (IPCC, 2007, pp.798-799). Where do those numbers come from? They come from guesses by Michael Mann and Syukuro Manabe.

Here is the story (from Wikipedia):

"The standard modern estimate of climate sensitivity – 3 °C, plus or minus 1.5 °C – originates with a committee on anthropogenic global warming convened in 1979 by the National Academy of Sciences and chaired by Jule Charney. Only two sets of models were available; one, due to Syukuro Manabe, exhibited a climate sensitivity of 2 °C, the other, due to James E. Hansen, exhibited a climate sensitivity of 4 °C. “According to Manabe, Charney chose 0.5 °C as a not-unreasonable margin of error, subtracted it from Manabe’s number, and added it to Hansen’s. Thus was born the 1.5 °C-to-4.5 °C range of likely climate sensitivity that has appeared in every greenhouse assessment since…”

Many people have tried to develop more accurate estimates. The current range is anything from zero to 10°C, though the latter number is usually dismissed. As time goes by, the number seems to be dropping. Recent ice-age studies don’t change the old estimates by very much, but give a median value of 2.3°C. Even more recently, there have been efforts to calculate climate sensitivity from thermodynamic principles. Find the papers here, here, and here. These all suggest that the climate sensitivity is zero. Measurements from above the atmosphere all suggest that climate sensitivity is less than 0.6°C. See here, here, and here.

Specious Claims of Bad Science

In Dr. Brown’s paragraph here he cites no specific examples; this is a general childish name-calling type of attack. This list is offered as a rebuttal. Tom Nelson offers 250 examples of bad science, or scientists behaving badly, gleaned from the Climategate 2 emails in the Team’s own words.

Creation of Front Groups

Both sides have created “front groups”. What is the IPCC, if not a “front group”? The Center for American Progress is a front group. This is a label intended to denigrate. For the figures on money spent by organizations on both sides see here. A summary is quoted:

"Figure 1.1, I compare the spending of climate action opponents and advocates. As the figure displays, the combined program spending of environmental organizations ($1.4 billion) is almost twice as much as the combined program spending of conservative organizations and industry associations ($787 million). Specific to climate change and energy-related activities, environmental groups appear to have outspent conservative groups and their industry association allies $394 million to $259 million.”

Creation of Misleading Lists of Climate Sceptics [sic]

From Brown’s point of view, any skeptic will have questionable credentials. That’s part of the Team’s tactics to denigrate and marginalize any skeptic. There is a problem though. One of the better-known lists is the Oregon Petition. It currently has 31,487 signatories, over 9,000 of those with PhDs. Contrast this with the poll cited above with 75 anonymous positive poll responders. Also keep in mind that “The Team” has less than 50 people as core members. The Oregon Petition is simply too large to be dismissed. In the end, it only takes a single skeptic scientist.

PR Campaigns to Convince the Public There’s No Scientific Basis

Both sides have used PR firms. This is what you do when billions of dollars are at stake. The University of East Anglia used (and is still using) the BBC to convince the public of the opposite. What larger PR firm could they have used? It is very difficult for skeptics to match these large megaphones. That’s why so many are blogging.

Astroturf Groups

This is right out of the Nancy Pelosi playbook. I’m surprised he used the term. Notice that none are named. It is another dubious attempt to denigrate. His use of the terms “disinformation campaign” is also a handy term for denigration. Without investigation, anything written by a skeptic automatically gets labeled as disinformation, and any conversation between three or more skeptics will be labeled as an Astroturf Group. For Dr. Brown’s information, I am myself a group of one, funded by Social Security.

Cyber-Bullying Scientists and Journalists

Both of these groups have made themselves public figures. James Hansen, for just one example, delights in getting himself arrested on camera in front of the White House. Michael Mann regularly appears on TV talk-shows and news programs making claims that beg a response. When public scientists step outside of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, they are asking for trouble. When their public claims are demonstrably not true, they must be refuted. Here is a link to predictions made in the 1980’s by James Hansen.

Dr. Brown then gives skeptics some advice:
"A few things we are not saying. We are not against skepticism in [sic] but skeptics must play by certain rules of science. That is skeptics should:

a) Publish conclusions in peer-reviewed literature.

b. Stop claiming that anything that is not fully proven is bad science.

c. Not lie about or overstate their scientific conclusions.

d. Not cherry-pick scientific evidence by focusing on what is not known while ignoring what is known.

e. Not repeat scientific arguments that have been fully refuted.

f. Publicly condemn cyber-bullying of journalists and scientists.”

For no. a, Dr. Brown may not realize that peer review has been tightly controlled by the Team. It has been difficult, and in some cases impossible, to get papers published in certain journals with conclusions that the Team does not approve, whether or not those conclusions are scientifically valid. Some discussion of the problem here, here, here, and here.

For no. b: “Stop claiming that anything not fully proven is bad science.” For it to be good science, define “fully”. As Einstein said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” The skeptic effort must be encouraged; the alternative is totalitarianism.

As for no. c, lies are easily detected. No skeptic knowingly lies. It is too easily found out. This statement is just another bogus denigration attempt.

No. d: “Not cherry-pick scientific evidence by focusing on what is not known…” This is a strange statement. All scientists focus on the unknown… and should. Only by focusing on the unknown can anything new be learned. New knowledge can overturn what we thought we knew. See Einstein, above.

No. e: “Not repeat scientific arguments that have been fully refuted.” See Einstein, above.

No. f: “Publicly condemn…” This cuts both ways. Stop condemning (cyber-bullying) skeptics. Also stop characterizing any critique of public statements by the Team as cyber-bullying. It all takes place in cyber-space as a matter of course. This is just another attempt to limit free-speech and discourse.

Calling this discourse an ethics problem is suspicious. I would ask Dr Brown to examine his own ethics in writing his piece. Who or what is he trying to protect? Both sides think they are saving the earth. Both sides have their extremists. Neither side has a lock on “the truth”.

Part of the problem is that the public loves a disaster, particularly the media, and the Team has played on that for political and funding reasons. If they are proved alarmist, the money dries up instantly. Here is the first blog article this author wrote on the subject. (Chicken Little was a Calamitologist.)

SOURCE (See the original for links)


For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here


No comments: