Monday, September 23, 2013

Forthcoming IPCC report: preemptive indoctrination

Alarmist journalists already know how everyone will react and should react to an unknown report

The almost final draft of the IPCC AR5 WG1 [physical basis] report will be handed to politicians tomorrow in Stockholm. It's my understanding that minor details may still change in the text, under the political pressure. Their summary for policymakers will be out on Friday and the whole report will be out on the immediately following Monday.

These documents have leaked – I don't have the final copies! – so many journalists already know what's inside. Despite claims that the document will acknowledge that the climate models have failed miserably (using a more diplomatic language, however), the warming trends for the previous 20 years were overstated by more than a factor of two or three, sensitivity by more than 50%, and that natural variability was neglected and shouldn't have been neglected in previous reports, it seems that the main point – screaming that a dangerous climate change is underway or around the corner – will be preserved or even strengthened, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

So the left-wing media act as if the report were already released. For example, the Guardian wrote an article on Saturday,
Climate change: IPCC issues stark warning over global warming
which tells us that the hysteria should be stronger than ever before and we should do everything we can to quickly dismantle the industrial civilization, and so on. You may read kilobytes of this junk but you won't learn anything because you have already seen and heard thousands of similar dishonest, vacuous, ideological, hysterical articles.

But another British article from Saturday, Will Hutton's rant in the Observer:

"To fight climate change, we must trust scientific truth and collective action"

has a new, quite incredible twist so I decided to share a few more words with you about that.

"To fight climate change, we must trust the scientific truth and the collective action", the title says. Well, even if there were a "climate threat we should wrestle with", it would be far from clear whether a collective action would be the "right" solution (only an ideologically biased person could be sure from the beginning). But a more important question is whether we should "fight climate change" i.e. whether the assumption of that verbal construction is satisfied. It's not. We shouldn't "fight climate change" because climate change is a law of Nature and fighting laws of Nature is... well, unwise.

But what I find amazing about Hutton's tirade is that he isn't even trying to hide that what he writes is pure propaganda – things readers are obliged to believe even though it is spectacularly clear that there isn't and there can't be any evidence to support it. The very subtitle says"

"Sceptics will rubbish a new report on climate change, dismissing calls for governmental action. Don't be swayed."

Nice. I understand that the documents have leaked so he may already know what will be inside (although I do think that changes may still be made for a few days). But how can he know what skeptics will say about the report? I don't know what I will say because I haven't really seen the report. When I was asked to write a summary, I insisted that my text just can't be released before the IPCC report is officially released (or at least its summary, for a shorter article) simply because I don't have the final text and all the knowledge from the previous drafts may turn out to be inaccurate.

Mr Hutton clearly faces no such hurdles. He doesn't need to see the final report or the skeptics' reactions to that report if and when he wants to write a long newspaper article about these so-far-non-existent texts.

Many other skeptics don't possess the final document, either. And even the skeptics who have the (almost) final document haven't really reacted to everything that is inside. So others simply can't know whether they will find themselves partially agreeing with the document, view it as a confirmation of some of the conclusions they have made themselves, or another step for the IPCC in the direction away from the science. We just don't know.

For this simple reason, the subtitle isn't trying to "disprove" any particular claim. What the subtitle – and most of the article, in fact – is saying is simply:

"Dear reader-sheep, you just mustn't listen to anything that would reduce your belief in the climate alarmism, whatever it is."

Mr Hutton is saying that he doesn't want the people to listen to the opinions or evidence whose impact on the ideology has a "wrong sign". It doesn't matter to him at all whether the evidence is right or wrong. It can't possibly matter because he can't know in advance what the skeptics' observations are actually going to be.

So he wants the readers to be exactly as biased and prejudiced – to be stubborn about scientifically indefensible misconceptions about a dangerous climate change – as he is.


British consumers face bill for power stations to be mothballed amid blackout fears

Another cost of the Warmist scare

Energy companies are to be paid ten of millions of pounds to keep old power stations on standby amid mounting fears of blackouts.

They will be paid to mothball, rather than demolish, power stations taken out of service.

The plans come as oil and coal plants are being closed due to European Union directives, which have been introduced to cut emissions that scientists have said lead to climate change.

The move is being planned after Ofgem, the energy regulator, warned of electricity shortages within the next three years.

Ofgem said the measure was needed because new wind farms and nuclear plants have not been built in time to replace the oil and coal power stations being phased out.

Critics of wind power said turbines were flawed because they do not generate electricity when there is little wind, while plans for nuclear power stations have yet to reach the construction stage.

Documents submitted to Ofgem’s consultation on the plans reveal that energy firms are expecting to receive as much as £120 million under the scheme, which would ultimately be added to consumer bills.

It is one of a series of schemes that National Grid believes will help keep the electricity system stable as Britain adopts more forms of renewable energy.

Under another scheme, companies are building diesel power stations to provide a reserve of energy in case of short-term drops in electricity.

National Grid has also published plans to pay factories and large businesses to switch off their power if electricity demand comes close to outstripping supply.

Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary, said the proposals to make use of mothballed plants were a “cost-effective” way to ensure Britain can “keep the lights on”.

National Grid, the body responsible for the electricity transmission network, said the plants would be used as a “last resort”. Energy firms would be paid annual rates to keep the plants on standby, in addition to any fees for generating electricity in the event that they are needed.

The proposals were set out by National Grid following talks with Ofgem and the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), aimed at ensuring a sufficient supply of electricity in the middle of the decade.

Six oil and coal power stations have been closed in the past five years, with a further three plants due to shut down by the end of 2015.

In June, Ofgem warned that the risk of blackouts in 2015 had risen to one in four, if energy demand continued at its current level.

Uncertainty around the amount of available electricity in 2015 and 2016 meant that it was “prudent” to consider keeping mothballed plants in reserve, it said.

GDF Suez, the energy company that has mothballed its Teesside gas power station, has estimated that keeping plants on standby could cost between £90 million and £120 million per year.

Responding to Ofgem’s consultation, it criticised the proposal for encouraging existing gas-fired plants to remain in reserve instead of producing power. GDF Suez was also among the energy companies, including SSE, to express concerns about the potential cost of the scheme.

SSE said it had not been shown that the scheme would provide better value for money than bringing forward the “capacity market”; a more permanent mechanism by the Government to pay gas-fired plants to be available when needed. It is not expected to take effect until 2018.

A spokesman for National Grid indicated the costs of the scheme would be in the “low tens of millions a year” and possibly less.

“The competition to provide this service, and a large uptake of our demand side product, could mean the cost could be far less. Because we are still consulting on these products, it’s too early to say for sure,” he said.

“In terms of what this cost would be for consumers, we’re talking less than 50p on their annual bills.”

According to figures published by National Grid in July, there are four large, mothballed power stations.

All of these plants are gas-fired and have stopped operating as a result of low profits for gas generation.

The stations – Keadby in North Lincs; Teesside, near Middlesbrough; Roosecote in Cumbria; and Barking in east London – could generate more than three gigawatts of electricity, which is enough to power about 2.4 million homes on average.

However, GDF Suez has indicated that Teesside is unlikely to take part in the scheme.

A spokesman for the DECC said: “The measures consulted on by National Grid and Ofgem would – if used – enable the procurement of the amount of capacity needed to ensure security of supply, allowing them to respond accordingly.

"National Grid’s proposals will also be designed to allow existing mothballed generation which meets environmental requirements to provide capacity.

“Bids would be assessed to ensure this is done at a cost that represents value for money for consumers.”

Separately, it has been suggested that several companies are building diesel generator plants to provide a backup for National Grid because of the unreliability of wind turbines.

Some companies are receiving payments for power more than 10 times above the wholesale price of electricity, as they benefit from a £100 million pot to ensure that an adequate supply of energy is being maintained.

The payments for diesel generators are made under the National Grid’s short term operating reserve system (Stor).

The scheme was designed to provide a reserve of additional power available at short notice in case power plants cut out due to faults.

But it is being seen by energy companies as a way of providing a reserve for wind farms when the wind is not blowing.

Green Frog Power, based in Birmingham, is building a dozen diesel plants across the country to provide electricity.

Its website states: “Wind power is currently the UK’s only viable source of large-scale green energy.

“It doesn’t work when the wind is too gentle or too strong. Green Frog Power uses the best available technology to provide backup for wind energy.

“Every megawatt of power we install provides cover for 10MW of wind power failure risk.”

In June, Fulcrum Power applied for permission to build a power station comprising 52 diesel generators in Plymouth, Devon.


The ice is not melting, yet still the scaremongers blunder on

The real global warming disaster: green taxes, a suicidal energy policy and wasting billions on useless windmills

The news that hundreds of scientists and officials from all over the world are this weekend converging on Stockholm to discuss the next 2,000-page report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) again highlights what is the most terrifying political conundrum facing our country today. Emerging in instalments over the next seven months, this report will try to convince the world, without a shred of hard evidence, that the prospect of catastrophic man-made global warming is “extremely likely”.

The air is already thick with familiar claims and counterclaims, President Obama quotes yet another laughably silly paper trying to make out that “97 per cent of scientists” support the IPCC “consensus”. Sceptics point out yet again that the lack of global warming over the past 17 years makes a nonsense of all those computer-model projections on which the IPCC has been basing its case for 23 years. And we can only look on this endlessly sterile non-debate with a suffocating sense of déjà vu.

In essence, the argument has not moved on an iota since 2009, when I published what is still the fullest historical account of this greatest scare story the world has known, in a book called The Real Global Warming Disaster. Even then, it was abundantly clear that the IPCC’s computer-model projections were being disproved by what was actually happening to world temperatures. It was already clear that not one of those predictions being made by Al Gore and others in the days when the warming hysteria was at its height was coming true.

This very weekend of September 2013, we were being told back in 2007, would be the moment when the Arctic was “ice-free”. Yet this summer’s ice-melt has been the smallest for nine years, and the global extent of polar sea ice is currently equal to its average over the past 34 years. Tuvalu and the Maldives are not vanishing beneath the waves. Far from hurricanes and tornadoes becoming more frequent and intense, their incidence is lower than it has been for decades. The Himalayan glaciers are not on course to have melted by 2035, as the IPCC’s last report predicted in 2007. Nothing has changed except that the IPCC itself, as the main driver of the scare, has been more comprehensively discredited than ever as no more than a one-sided pressure group, essentially run by a clique of scientific activists committed to their belief that rising CO2 levels threaten the world with an overheating which is not taking place.

But if the scientific case for their belief has disintegrated, the problem this leaves us with is the reason why I subtitled that book four years ago: “Is the obsession with climate change turning out to be the most costly scientific blunder in history?” The political leaders of the Western world, from President Obama to our own in the EU, are still as firmly locked into the alarmist paradigm as ever, quite impervious to all the evidence. As the EU’s “climate commissioner”, Connie Hedegaard, recently put it: “Let’s say that scientists several decades from now said, 'We were wrong, it’s not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of the things you have to do to combat climate change?”

In other words, even if those scientists eventually have to admit that their scare was all nonsense, it is still right that we should pile up green taxes, make a suicidally mad shambles of our energy policy and continue to pour hundreds of billions of pounds and euros into subsidising useless windmills (while China and India continue to build hundreds of coal-fired power stations chucking out more CO2 than we can hope to save). This is the “real global-warming disaster” we are left with. And listening to the vacuous drivel still pouring out of the likes of President Obama and Connie Hedegaard, let alone our own “climate ministers” Ed Davey and Greg Barker, we realise that the lunatics are still firmly in charge of the asylum which the rest of us unfortunately have to live in. As I say, just how we are to escape from this madness back into the real world is as intractable a political puzzle as any that faces us.


German industry in revolt as green dream causes cost spiral

Germany’s top economic adviser has called for a radical rethink of the country’s energy policies, warning that the green dream is going badly wrong as costs spiral out of control.

“We need a drastic policy shift,” said Christoph Schmidt, chairman of Germany’s Council of Economic Experts. “They haven’t paid any attention to costs. These are now huge.”

The government has vowed to break dependence on fossil fuels and source 50pc of all electricity from wind, solar and other renewables by 2030, and 80pc by mid-century. But cost estimates have reached €1 trillion (£840bn) over the next 25 years.

“It is a worthwhile goal, and the whole world is looking to see whether Germany can do it, so we can’t fail. But there have been so many mistakes,” Professor Schmidt told the Daily Telegraph.

He said Germany has no margin for error since its own growth "speed limit" has dropped to 1pc, and the country will face an acute aging crisis over the next decade.

The concerns were echoed by Germany’s powerful industry federation, the BDI, which said it can longer remain silent as green romanticism plays havoc with German power supply.

The rising surcharge placed on German household and SME bills to pay for renewable energy projects

The group said in a new report that the costs of the so-called "Energiewende" have already gone beyond tolerable limits. “The international competitiveness of German industry is in danger,” it said.

The report said feed-in tariffs for new wind and solar installations should be abolished, and demanded a “strategic reserve” of fossil fuels to ensure a dependable base of power stations for the German grid. “The government’s policy is not joined up,” said BDI chief Markus Kerber.

The group demands action from the government to address “urgent concerns” within 100 days of this week’s elections, according to Handelsblatt.

The "Energiewende" has already led to chaos, with surges of subsidised wind and solar power overwhelming the grid. Utilities E.ON and RWE have threatened to shut down plants producing 23,000 megawatts.

German electricity costs are ratcheting up faster than elsewhere in Europe, and are now twice US levels. Households and the "Mittlestand" backbone of the economy are carrying the burden, paying cross-subsidies to exempted sectors of heavy industry. “Spiralling energy costs will soon drive us into the wall. It has become dangerous,” said the German Chemical Industry Association.

Fears that power bills could cripple German industry combine with growing angst over US shale output, which has slashed American gas costs to a quarter of German levels. German chemical companies are switching plant to the US.

Günther Oettinger, the EU’s energy commissioner, has called for a complete shake-up of Germany’s strategy. “We need industry; we cannot be the good guys for the whole world, if no one follows suit,” he said.

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to phase out Germany’s nuclear power after Japan’s Fukushima disaster has vastly complicated the picture. Utilities have turned to coal and lignite to plug the gap, causing Germany’s CO2 gases to rise while US emissions are falling. The green agenda risks becoming self-defeating if pushed too hard.


Just 12 British homes get Green Deal energy savers

It was designed to vastly improve energy efficiency but the Government's flagship project is making "painfully slow progress" after nine months.

The Government’s flagship Green Deal scheme is making “painfully slow” progress, with just 12 homes installing energy saving measures since its launch in January.

The Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said 71,210 households had been assessed for Green Deal measures such as solar panels and insulation at the end of August, up from 58,124 in July.

But only 677 households have gone to the next stage and said they would like to proceed with the scheme. Of these, 12 houses have had measures installed, while 293 properties had quotes accepted on work and 372 properties had installations "pending".

The figures also showed the number of homes assessed for energy-saving measures fell in August. There were 13,086 properties assessed during the month, a 4pc fall from July.

Energy and Climate Change Minister Greg Barker said: “It is still early days for the new Green Deal market but encouragingly over 71,000 Green Deal assessments have now been completed.”

He said more than 80pc of households who had an assessment said they intended to install at least one energy saving measure.

A related programme called the energy company obligation, which provides free improvements for low-income families, has installed 194,751 energy saving measures in homes up to the end of July.

Loft insulation made up 40pc of the installed measures, followed by cavity wall insulation (34pc) and boiler upgrades (21pc).

Experts said more had to be done to encourage households to use the scheme.

“With the cold weather nearly upon us, it is hugely disappointing that these latest figures show painfully slow progress with the Green Deal, whilst the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) plods on with little to impress,” said Caroline Abrahams, charity director at Age UK.

“With projections showing that fuel poverty rates are likely to rise, the government must seriously explore using new carbon tax revenues to insulate fuel poor homes against the spiralling cost of energy.”

The UK Green Building Council also called for additional measures.

“Green Deal numbers are edging in the right direction but the scheme still needs a shot in the arm,” said director of policy John Alker. “If ever there was a time for Treasury to bring forward tax incentives to encourage energy efficiency, it is now.”

Philip Sellwood, chief executive of the Energy Saving Trust, said: “High levels of interest in Green Deal is evident, but there’s no easy answer or quick fix in terms of turning interest in action.

“However complex the inner workings of Green Deal might be, we need to make the consumer engagement part as straightforward as signing up for a satellite or cable television package. That has to be our long-term aspiration.”



Three current reports below

Companies to get protection from activists' boycotts

CONSERVATION groups seeking boycotts of products linked to alleged poor environmental practices may soon be liable for prosecution under consumer law.

The move, which could severely hamper market-based campaigns by groups such as Markets for Change and GetUp!, is to be pursued by the Abbott government.

Parliamentary secretary for agriculture Richard Colbeck told The Australian the move would prevent green groups from holding companies to ransom in their markets.

"We'll be looking at the way some of the environmental groups work because we are very concerned about some of the activities they conduct in the markets," Senator Colbeck said. "They have exemptions for secondary boycott activities under the Consumer and Competition Act. We are going to have a complete review of the act.

"And one of the things I'd be looking at would be to bring a level playing field back so that environment groups are required to comply with the same requirements as business and industry."

The move has strong backing within the Liberal and Nationals parties, as well as among sections of the ALP, concerned about groups targeting the customers of timber and agricultural products in campaigns against old-growth logging and live-animal exports.

Section 45D of the act prevents action to hinder or prevent a third person supplying goods to, or buying them from, another person. The law restrains business from unfair dealings and trade unions from dragging third parties into industrial disputes via sympathy strikes or trade boycotts. However, section 45DA exempts people from the secondary boycott provisions if their actions are "substantially related to environmental or consumer protection".

The timber industry has long complained about green groups organising boycotts and campaigns to pressure their customers not to accept products sourced from so-called high-conservation-value forests. The tactic has been used successfully in Australia and in Japan to pressure timber companies such as Gunns and Ta Ann to shift out of contentious forest areas and to adopt top-flight green certification. Senator Colbeck also told The Australian the Coalition would push ahead with its policy to ask UNESCO's World Heritage Committee to rescind the recent Gillard government listing of an additional 100,000ha of Tasmania's forests. "That was our commitment to the Tasmanian people and we intend to carry through with our commitments," he said.

"So we will sit down with our departments and work through processes, as far as that is concerned, and look to see how we go about doing it."

He was not swayed by calls from the timber industry - including the CFMEU forest union, Ta Ann and the Forest Industries Association of Tasmania - for the policy to be scrapped because it would jeopardise environmentalists' support for the sector.

The Tasmanian Forest Agreement - a landmark peace deal three years in the making - has seen the peak green groups join industry on joint trade missions to win back markets lost during the so-called forest wars. However, signatories to the deal fear seeking to unwind the World Heritage listing at the heart of the agreement would destroy it.


Coalition bid to cut green tape and fix project paralysis

MASTER plans for future development of the Great Barrier Reef and the nation's major coal, iron ore and gas regions have been fast-tracked to help deliver a Coalition promise to cut green tape and break the decision-making "paralysis" of the Rudd and Gillard governments.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt said 50 projects had been left stranded by the former government without a decision on whether they even needed to be assessed under bipartisan legislation to protect prime farmland and groundwater.

Mr Hunt has promised to act immediately on the projects and complete strategic plans for the Great Barrier Reef in Queensland, the Pilbara in Western Australia and the Hunter Valley in NSW.

Renewed urgency will be given to joint planning with state governments to manage bushfires in South Australia and development of north Queensland's major urban growth project at Mount Peter, 15km south of Cairns.

Mr Hunt said a master plan of environmental values and commonwealth concerns would enable the creation of a "one-stop shop" for environmental approvals promised by the Coalition.

Future projects would be measured against the strategic assessment template and state governments would be given the power to make assessments.

Writing in The Australian today, the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, Josh Frydenberg, says an "avalanche of green and red tape stifles investment and innovation, seriously hurting the economy".

Mr Frydenberg, who has responsibility for driving the government's deregulation agenda, has pledged a "paradigm shift" in tackling bureaucracy.

"Ministers will be required to include regulatory impact statements on their submissions as well as establishing their own ministerial advisory committees from which they will seek recommendations on cutting red and green tape," the Liberal MP writes today.

He says the performance of senior members of the public service "will be assessed in part according to their proven record in reducing regulation, with their remuneration calculated accordingly", and the Productivity Commission ordered to determine a framework for auditing the performance of regulatory agencies.

Business groups have lobbied hard for a review of the environmental review process, claiming it is delaying projects and threatening billions of dollars worth of investments.

Labor and the Greens had argued that state governments could not be trusted to make final environmental decisions on behalf of the commonwealth.

Environment groups have warned a full delegation of decision making to the states poses a risk to business of lengthy and expensive delays in the courts.

Mr Hunt said the strategic assessments were a "vital framework that has largely been missing".

Strategic assessments to date had focused on planning for major urban growth corridors rather than industrial projects, he said.

"It is a model where you really begin to look at the deep, long-term cumulative impacts."

Completing the strategic assessment of the Great Barrier Reef and onshore development in co-operation with the Queensland government was the Coalition government's priority.

"I think it is very important for our international commitments as well as to the future wellbeing of the Great Barrier Reef," Mr Hunt said. "The Great Barrier Reef is the No 1 environmental asset in Australia and you need to look at the reef as a whole."

Mr Hunt said he believed it would be possible to complete the strategic assessment of the Great Barrier Reef within two months.

The federal Environment Department has been instructed to have the remaining priority areas assessed and open for public exhibition in the first half of next year.

"The big picture is about achieving two things: a deep strategic assessment of the environment allows proper consideration of cumulative impacts and the connectedness of the region and it allows for a much more streamlined process," Mr Hunt said.

"If you know the environmental concerns of a region you don't have to reinvent them in every case. Everything is then seen against the grand strategic framework of the environment and the economy."

Mr Hunt said environmental decision making had become paralysed in the final months of the Gillard/Rudd government.

He said 50 projects had been left "in complete limbo" because the Labor government had been unable to make a decision on whether they should even be assessed under the new water trigger legislation.

"They didn't make a single decision after the legislation was passed," Mr Hunt said.

"It was not even whether projects should proceed but whether they should even be considered. From my perspective it is a legacy of complete chaos that 50 decisions are left in limbo. It is not right that the law is changed and there is then complete indecision about what you do about it.

"The dying months (of Labor) were a complete paralysis."


False prophet Tim Flannery sacked, Climate Commission dismantled by Coalition

PROFESSOR Tim Flannery has been sacked by the Abbott Government from his $180,000-a-year part-time Chief Climate Commissioner position, with the agency he runs to be dismantled immediately.
Environment Minister Greg Hunt called Prof Flannery this morning to tell him a letter formally ending his employment was in the mail.

Public service shake-up as heads go

In the letter, Mr Hunt tells Prof Flannery: "The Climate Commission does not have an ongoing role, and consequently I am writing to advise you that the Climate Commission has been dissolved, with effect from the date of this letter."

He thanked him for his personal contribution and then said "The Department of the Environment will soon write to you concerning administrative arrangements for finalising your engagement as Chief Climate Commissioner."

All other climate commissioners will also be sacked with the move to save more than $500,000 this financial year and $1.2 million next financial year.  The Coalition will now take advice on climate change from the Department of the Environment.

Five other commissioners were also told they were no longer needed.  Letters from Mr Hunt have been sent to each of the six Commissioners telling them their position has been terminated.

"The Coalition believes it is the role of the Department of Environment to provide independent advice and analysis on climate change and that the role of the Climate Commission was duplicating the work of the Department," a spokeswoman for Mr Hunt said.

Prof Flannery had travelled the country holding climate forums and produced academic work on climate change after being appointed in 2011.

Among his most alarmist forecasts was a warning in 2007 that "Even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems.  "In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months".

Brisbane later grappled with flooding and Warragamba Dam in Sydney spilt over.

Prof Flannery expressed disappointment yesterday after his Commission, which produced 27 reports and held more than 20 public forums, had been axed.

"The commission represents the idea that Australians deserve to be informed about climate change and the implications for our health, our economy, and our future," he said.

"I believe that Australians have a right to know. A right to authoritative, independent, accurate information on climate change."

"We've just seen one of the earliest ever start to bushfire season in Sydney following the hottest 12 months on record."

Greens Leader Christine Milne called it "a black day in the struggle against global warming."

"Future generations will look back on this day and remember it as the day Tony Abbott condemned them and their peers to climate chaos," she claimed.




Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here


No comments: