Wednesday, September 04, 2013

Peer-Reviewed Study Indicates Recent Warming Is Natural

Nature is responsible for most of the planet’s warming in recent decades, a newly published peer-reviewed study indicates.

Writing in the journal Nature, scientists studied sea surface temperature variations in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, which is the region generating El Nino and La Nina events. The scientists found a close correlation between natural variations in the region’s surface water temperatures and ensuing global cooling and warming events. Importantly, a global climate model developed to reflect the regional sea surface temperatures replicated the lack of recent global warming despite continued increases in anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.

The scientists reported “the current [warming] hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Nina-like decadal cooling.”

Even more importantly, the scientists’ climate model indicated these same natural forces account for most of the global warming during recent decades.

Climate scientist Judith Curry, who has generally been supportive of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change narrative, explained the importance of the newly published study.

“My mind has been blown,” Curry wrote on her website.  “No matter what, I am coming up with natural internal variability associated accounting for significantly MORE than half of the observed warming,” Curry wrote after studying the model results. (Emphasis in the original).

“Like I said, my mind is blown,” Curry continued. “I have long argued that the pause was associated with the climate shift in the Pacific Ocean circulation, characterized by the change to the cool phase of the PDO.  I have further argued that if this is the case, then the warming since 1976 was heavily juiced by the warm phase of the PDO. I didn’t know how to quantify this, but I thought that it might account for at least half of the observed warming, and hence my questioning of the IPCC’s highly confident attribution of ‘most’ to AGW."

“Although this was not a specific conclusion of the paper (they focused on the period 2002-2012), the conclusion jumps out from their Fig 1 (and my eyeball analysis),” Curry noted.

Curry further explained her conclusion:

"If you accept the following two premises:

•    climate models are useful for untangling natural from anthropogenic climate variability/change
•    the missing heat is being sequestered in the deep ocean for the past decade or so

then an inescapable corollary seems to be:

•    the same natural internal variability (primarily PDO) that is responsible for the pause is a major and likely dominant cause (at least at the 50% level) of the warming in the last quarter of the 20th century.

Does this explanation rule out contributions to the pause from stratospheric aerosols, solar cooling, etc.?  No, but I am not seeing the potential from these forcing mechanisms to dominate over the PDO given the ‘fingerprint’ evidence."


Green Prince of Darkness

Today we have a new Green Prince poised to plunge the western world into a self imposed darkness. This Prince first creates the fiction that Carbon causes climate change, then adds the fable that green energy exists which can dispel this nonexistent problem. The entire range of 'green solutions' are all nonsensical. We'll limit this discussion to just solar cells and batteries, saving bio-fuels and windmills for another time.

The Sun Gives Us Nothing for Free

As alluring as the premise may be, the promise of solar energy is not free. The first solar cell was created in 1883 by Charles Fritts using a sheet of Selenium with thin Gold facings. The Sun radiates approximately 1000 watts per square meter at maximum. The Fritts cell produced 10 watts per square meter or 1% efficiency. The Russell Ohl patent of 1946 is considered the first modern solar cell. Today's solar panels are high purity Silicon with a light doping of Phosphorus and Boron to provide breaks in the Silicone for electron movement. The Universe is a radiation chamber with EMR and particle emissions from all concentrated mass, and decay particles from individual atoms. Solar radiation strips protons from Nitrogen atoms, creating Carbon-14. Stripping exposed electrons is even easier. Silicon has four rather stable outer shell electrons in an orbit that can hold eight electrons. Boron has five outer-shell electrons, and Phosphorus has only three. Silicon forms a cubic crystal grid, and slightly impure Silicone matrix sheets can then be embedded with Boron and Phosphorus atoms. When exposed to sunlight, the Boron atom losses it's easily excited fifth electron, which travels the Silicon matrix using the Phosphorus "hole" to the conducting collection grids on both sides of the photovoltaic cell and permanently exits the cell.

Only segments of the solar spectrum activate this flow and it must be captured on both sides of the panel to create a circuit. The required capture grid blocks some of the incoming energy and the net result is 10% efficiency, or approximately 100 watts per square meter, and only within limited ambient temperature ranges which prohibit lenses or mirrors for simple amplification. Efficiencies as high as 40% are available with exotic materials, but then one must address the 'high cost of free', which applies to every 'green' technology. Silicon, Phosphorus and Boron are common elements, but to mine, refine and bring on line has a cost. That cost is reflected in 'cost payback' of 5 to 7 years depending on the system and level of government forced subsidy. But these costs are based on low cost carbon based energy systems providing these materials. Regardless, this is a ONE-TIME, ONE-WAY EROSION PROCESS with a total system life of less than 20 years.

Solar cells produce only Direct Current, which is electric power by the migration of electrons, and in typical PV cells is only 1.5 volts. Alternating Current creates a voltage, but transfers power as a wave, rapidly cycled between positive and negative, with little actual electron migration. The first municipal Edison power systems were DC, but transmission loss and multiple voltage issues prevented success, and the Tesla-Westinghouse developed three-phase AC system became the driving force for modernization. Converting DC to AC involves a conversion loss in an inverter, boosting to higher voltage and converting to more efficient three phase causes additional losses due to the Carnot Cycle. If you connect a hydro-turbine to a pump, you can only pump a portion of the water flowing from a dam into water pumped back to the dam. If you use the hydro-turbine to generate electricity, then use an electric pump to pump water back ablve the dam, then the losses are even greater. The combined losses converting 1.5 volt DC to usable 50 kV, three phase transmissible AC power is forever technically impossible.

Ignoring just these physical limitations, supposed science leading publications like Popular Science, Popular Mechanics and Discover, regularly show fanciful space based systems where vast arrays of solar panels, positioned around the planet, beam "sustainable" microwave energy back to Earth based antennas to provide 24 hour service. Never mind all the limitations above, now add the Carnot loss converting to microwaves on both ends of this system. Limitations to the field density of this transmission would require massive antennas, or large, "no fly zones" for humans, and instant on the fly cook zones for any stray birds. To overcome solar wind and lunar gravity changes, these microwave transmitters would require constant realignment, or the transmissions would wander off the receiving antenna. The fact that this science fiction is presented as anything other than TOTAL FICTION, is proof that these publications are all "pop" and no science.

Much like paying your Visa bill with your Master Card, this parasitic 'clean' energy cannot provide the 'spare' energy to avoid 'dirty' energy. There is a constant loss of electrons in this system and power production erodes over time until, at twenty years, they are useless. The Silicon sheets are protected with glass covers which require periodic cleaning and are subject to damage from hail and wind debris. Solar cells efficiency is also a function of azimuth angle and reduces with higher latitudes, and seasonal tilt angle. Systems with tracking ability have higher efficiency, but not recoverable installation costs. You get progressively less energy at the poles, precisely at the time when you need the MOST energy. To have usable power over extended periods requires a storage system. The most common of these is the battery, which is the heart of that 'other' planet saver.

Dream Green Machine

Soon Electric Vehicles, aka EVs, will replace the nasty internal combustion engine and humanity will be in harmony with the Universe. The transition technology in this race is the hybrid auto and the front runner is the Toyota Prius. This undeniable marvel has a 120 pound Nichol-Metal Hydride battery that costs $3500 to replace or approximately $20 per pound. There again, a cost based on carbon energy providing the material production.

The 'Metal Hydride' portion of these batteries includes the rare Earth elements of Lanthanum, Cerium and Neodymium. These required green components do not willingly join the green cult movement. To have your treasured EV, this planet must be mined and those elements must be extracted and refined.

Due to chemical erosion thru use, these batteries have an eight year or 100,000 mile warranty period. You can save $450 per year on gasoline if you spend $450 per year on a battery. You can walk forever up the down escalator and still get nowhere. There is no way to improve or even 'sustain' our carbon-based life forms without expending some geologically stored carbon energy.

To the blue-green Hollywood Eco-Smurfs and Na'vi wannabe's, we are NOT living on a green Pandora that needs rescue from the evil RDA mining company. Humanity will not be saved by mythical noble savages or a forced return to a primitive life style. It took most of the nineteenth century to formulate the Laws of Thermodynamics. It took most of the twentieth century to apply those laws to the benefit of society. There will be no solutions to problems in the twenty first century that do not comply with these laws.

Curiously missing from the Climatology degree plan is any mention of Thermodynamics. Avoidance of these Laws must give license to break these Laws. Thus clouds can have a negative factor during the day, with their pesky 'albedo' effect reflecting sunlight back into space and then just hours later have a positive effect by blanketing the warmth at night..a reflector or greenhouse at the whim of a Climatologist.

Climatologist can ignore the specific heat and thermal mass of the entire planet and provide a computer model PROVING that the trace human portion, of a trace gas, in the trace portion of the Earth mass that is the atmosphere, is the single greatest climate forcing factor. They can then empower this three atom molecule the unique ability to radiate in a reverse flow in opposition to all proven Thermodynamic Laws. This is lawless behavior, which is by definition, criminal behavior.

Lady Gaga's Underwear

If you don't know what color underwear this pop icon is displaying for us today, it is only due to your willful avoidance of the main stream media message. If you recognize the need to open our 'Pandora' and mine some 'Unobtainium' to improve life for all humanity, then we need your support. Awaken your friends and family to the futility of the Green Utopia.

This manufactured crisis and faux consensus has been brought to you with your tax dollars by your government officials. This has been a bi-partisan effort. Think of the RNC-DNC Crime Syndicate as the ultimate Costa Nostra upgrade. The IPCC, EPA, DOE, NSF and NAS are all guilt of lying, suborning scientific perjury and attempted tax collection fraud.

There have been five high profile whitewash attempts since Climate-Gate, the blessed Hadley hacking event of Nov 19, 2009 by Penn State University and the British government. But now the cherry picked science and the cherry picked whitewash inquires face a serious challenge.

If the 'Hockey Stick Maker Mann' did indeed knowingly delete conflicting data to force a curve match of proxy CO2 to match his proxy temperature, then he has no protection under academic freedom. Virginia Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, filed a Civil Investigation Demand and was rejected by Mann's former employer, the University of Virginia. In a hearing, July 13, 2010 the judge ruled that UVA must provide this material within one week and prepare for oral arguments in a month.

Now a jury of peers, who are NOT government paid academics, will hear evidence denied to skeptics by countless Freedom of Information Act requests. A legitimate inquiry will for the first time review the 'science' of this faux hypothesis. The evidence that will pour forth in this court will be the final death knell for the warmists and their elite handlers. Humanity does not need to be plunged back into the darkness of their green hell.

As America struggled to avoid the world conflict of the 1940's, then Prime Minister Winston Churchill made this observation, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." We do not need try everything else. We know science, we know what works and we know when our leaders are systematically lying to us. If you reject the green group think and feel true science, true debate and true democracy are humanity's best hope, then come join us. We are the anti-barbarians.


If warmists would only tell the truth...

by Barry Brill

Thousands of research papers are summarised by the IPCC’s WG1 into 14 chapters of about 100 pages each, which are further summarised into a 70-page technical report that is finally condensed into a Summary for Policymakers (SPM).

Recognising that even a 20-page SPM exceeds the attention span of most journalists, governments distil the politically-relevant essence down to a single soundbite – a meme which becomes the cultural motif of the entire report.

Here are the last three IPCC memes:

2001 TAR: “Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”.

2007 4AR: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

2013 5AR (leaked draft): “It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.”

The elephant in the room is that this metronomic ramping-up of asserted certainty takes no account of the global temperature standstill which has dominated the data since the mid-1990s. The IPCC has relied on its CIMP5 array of models, without a hint of curiosity as to why they have been so wrong for so long.

Hans von Storch[1] offers five possible explanations for the delinquency of the models:

(1)   an underestimation of the natural climate variability;
(2)   the climate sensitivity of models may be too large;
(3)   there is a missing component in the CMIP5 simulations (eg solar activity)
(4)    The last 15 years may have been an outlier.
(5)   GHGs play a minor or no noteworthy role in ongoing and expected future climate change.

Warmist von Storch dismisses (5) as being contrary to basic physics. His recent paper[2] finds that the likelihood of (4) is vanishingly small Poimnt (3) refers to natural forcings, which for our purposes can combine with natural variance in (1) as a ‘natural cause’.


Overestimation of climate sensitivity is almost certainly part of the explanation, with numerous recent papers[3] showing that it needs to be reduced by at least 30%. But sensitivity would need to be close to zero, as in (5) above, to account for the entire standstill.

If that low sensitivity were established, the meme would be: “It is very unlikely that the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations had any material effect on the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2013.”

This would not apply if sensitivity is close to 2°C. In round figures, assuming sensitivity of 3°C, the IPCC estimates that each 1ppm of CO2 will add about 1°C (at current saturation levels). As CO2 has accumulated at 2ppm/decade, temperatures should have risen by about 3°C during the last 15 years. So a reduction of 30% would still leave 2°C of “missing heat”.

Natural causes

If the IPCC hypothesis is right and 2°C of heat really was created by CO2 radiation, it must have been offset by 2°C of natural cooling.

This produces a different meme: “Most of the observed plateau in global average temperatures since the mid-1990s is very likely due to natural cooling being offset by the presumed heat from the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

Offsetting a natural global cooling trend is the very antithesis of climate change. It is climate stabilization. Far from leading to eventual danger through warming, it rescues the globe from the much greater dangers of cooling – perhaps another Little Ice Age.


Obama Administration Researching the Ocean As An Energy Source

No harm in research, I suppose -- JR

The U.S. Energy Department is  spending $16 million in an attempt to harness energy from ocean waves and tides.

But just as wind turbines kill birds, wave- and tide-generated energy may harm fish. So more than half of the projects announced on Thursday -- nine out of 17 -- will examine environmental concerns, including how wave and tidal devices may affect fish and other marine life.

The Obama administration believes that wave and tidal energy is a "large, untapped resource for the United States" and that "responsible development of this clean, renewable energy source is an important part of our all-of-the-above energy strategy,” said Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy David Danielson.

Of the $16 million total, $13.5 million is going to eight projects that aim to develop new  and efficient drive-train, generator and structural components as well as software that predicts ocean conditions and adjusts device settings to capture the most energy possible.

The taxpayer money is supposed to help companies find "affordable" ways to tap into the movement of large volumes of water and convert mechanical energy into electricity.

Another $2.4 million is going to "responsible and sustainable energy development." This means fish and other marine life.

For example, the University of Maine at Orono will study the interaction of fish with turbines "to predict the probability of fish encountering marine and hydrokinetic devices."

A company in Palo Alto, Calif., will measure how electromagnetic fields generated by undersea electricity transmission may affect marine species.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, will "quantify the distribution, behavioral response, and general patterns of fish movement around an operating tidal energy turbine."

And the University of Washington in Seattle will study the "behavioral responses" of killer whales, harbor porpoises, and other marine mammals to the sounds produced by tidal turbines.

A 2011 report by the Electrical Power Research Institute found that the total potential electric generation from ocean waves is approximately 1,170 terawatt-hours a year, which is almost one third of the 4,000 TWh of electricity used in the United States each year.

"Developing just a small fraction of the available wave energy resource could allow for millions of American homes to be powered with this clean, reliable form of energy," the DOE says on its website.


The merits of ocean fertilisation

I've written here and elsewhere before about the potential merits of ocean fertilisation. Assume that climate change is a true problem (as I do) and that we'd like to do something about it (as I do). The question then becomes what should we do? And we know that there are certain areas of the ocean (quite a lot of them actually) where there is insufficient iron in the water to allow algae to grow. Add iron to these areas (as winds blowing Saharan dust sometimes do, as volcanoes sometimes do) and we get an algal bloom. This increases the supply of fish, which is nice, and some portion of those algae, when they die, fall to the ocean floor and end up as the next layer of chalk. We're thus extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and incorporating it into rock, this is true carbon sequestration.

We know all of this, we know all of this is true. The bit we don't know is quite how effective or efficient it is. Just not sure how much of that CO2 ends up in rock and how much just gets recycled around through the circle of life. Here's one claim from someone who has tried to perform the experiment: "estimates that its experiment absorbed 5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide."

That experiment costs $2.5 million to perform. We've thus the claim that sequestration of a tonne of CO2 costs 50 cents. Which is a pretty reasonable price when you think about it. Lord Stern told us that the social costs of one tonne of CO2 is $80. We're thus $79.50 better off for each tonne we turn into chalk in this manner.

Now it is true that others dispute these costs. But we've only had a couple of tests. This particular, not very well monitored, one and one other recently in the Southern Ocean. Given the claims being made here this would seem to be an obvious no brainer to test further. It's possibly extraordinarily cheap to do and it's certainly extraordinarily cheap to test it to see whether it is cheap. Compared to spending $100 billion on the bloody windmills at least.

So governments and scientists are rushing to perform those tests aren't they? We've matelots hurling iron powder over the bulwarks all over the place?

No, no we don't:

"They wanted to see if the iron would cause a bloom of algae that could promote fish numbers and absorb the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Instead, in March, they were raided by Canadian officials for illegal dumping at sea."


"Environment Canada, the nation's environment ministry, said the experiment was illegal under Canadian law and violated the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the London Convention, which governs dumping at sea. World leaders at a U.N. Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro last year urged "utmost caution" in ocean fertilization due to worries that it could disrupt marine life. Many scientists remain skeptical about whether any form of geoengineering will solve climate change. Allowing research, they argue, may detract from efforts to reduce emissions from cars, power plants and factories."

You what?

"The ETC Group, a Canada-based non-governmental organization opposed to geoengineering, said even research is risky. "The moment you accept that geoengineering is a Plan B it will become Plan A for some governments," executive director Pat Mooney said."

Shouldn't we try to find out whether Plan B is going to be better and cheaper than Plan A?

"Criticism of HSRC included a statement of "grave concern" last November by the 87 nations in the London Convention, which regulates dumping at sea. "Ocean fertilization has the potential to have widespread, long-lasting and severe impacts on the marine environment, with implications for human health," it said."

Err, yes, that's what we're trying to find out. If it doesn't have large effects then it won't be worth doing. If it does then we've solved our largest environmental problem.

"The draft report by the U.N. panel of scientists says ocean fertilization can have unknown effects. Added iron might create algae locally but rob nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, from other areas. Extra iron could also produce greenhouse gases such as methane in the sea and increase acid levels in the deep oceans as the waste decays."

So, err, shouldn't we do the experiments and find out?

But as you can see, that's not the way that many, including officialdom, are working. It's not just that it might not work out the way we'd like it to. It's that if it does work out as a cheap way to sequester CO2 then that in itself would be a bad thing. As would lots of cheap fish presumably.

I've long said that there is indeed a climate change conspiracy. But it isn't about its existence, not about the science at all. It's about what is the correct response to that science. There's a definite blocking off of the various technologies and policies that could in theory deal with the problem for us: we're not even allowed to do the research to find out whether it's actually necessary to stop using fossil fuels or not. Because it seems that it's already been decided that that is the only possible manner of dealing with the problem, the elimination of the use of fossil fuels. Even if that's not the best way to deal with the basic underlying problem.

And if I'm honest about it that makes me extremely angry. I don't know whether ocean fertilisation will work or not. I've had emails from researchers arguing both sides of it. But I'm incandescent with rage at the argument that we shouldn't go and find out the truth because said truth might be that it does indeed work.


Despite Cooling, Warmists Haven’t Cooled on Global Warming

Perhaps we could say that old mistaken theories never die — they just keep pace with government funding. A case in point is the vaunted scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They cannot explain why the Earth, defying their climate models, hasn’t warmed now in 15 years, but they’re still “‘95% sure’ humans are to blame for climate change,” writes the Daily Mail.

Theorizing about why they (the IPCC scientists) were all wrong, the Mail quotes environment reporter Alister Doyle, who said, “‘Scientists believe causes [of the lower temperatures] could include: greater-than-expected quantities of ash from volcanoes, which dims sunlight; a decline in heat from the sun during a current 11-year solar cycle; more heat being absorbed by the deep oceans; or the possibility that the climate may be less sensitive than expected to a build-up of carbon dioxide.’”

The scientists didn’t say how sure they were of these explanations. But word has it that when the confidence level drops below 82 percent, the government checks stop coming.

Now, there’s much we could say here about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory. There’s the fact that atmospheric CO2 in the age of the dinosaurs was five to 10 times current levels and that the gas is basically steroids for plants, which is why T. rex’s world was so lush and why botanists today pump carbon dioxide into greenhouses. It has been said that CO2-level changes don’t precede temperature changes, but follow them. It’s also true that global temperatures dropped between 1940 and 1975 even as man continued industrializing and creating “greenhouse gases”; thus were my elementary school classmates and I warned of an impending ice age (which scared the heck out of us). And then there was the U.K.’s Climategate Scandal, in which it was revealed that the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit had advanced AGW theory via scientific fraud. But all that has been done to death. Besides, there’s still scientific “consensus” that AGW theory is valid, right?

Of course, we could ask if it really is consensus or just agreement among cherry-picked, government-grant-drunk researchers. But there’s a larger question here: What does “consensus” really mean, anyway? Author Michael Crichton tackled this very topic in a 2003 Caltech speech curiously entitled “Aliens Cause Global Warming” — and it’s a must-read.

Crichton likens AGW’s climate models to the Drake equation, which purports to be able to predict all sorts of probabilities with respect to extraterrestrial life; and a “TTAPS report” equation which supposedly could predict the severity of a nuclear winter. Crichton points out a similarity between climate models and these two equations: None of the variables they depend on can be determined. None.

Yet they all were lent credibility via the imprimatur of scientific “consensus.”

And here’s what Crichton had to say about that:

"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is [sic] reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus."

“Science … requires only one investigator who happens to be right.” And how often throughout history did consensus damn such an individual as a fool? Crichton provides many such examples, such as how even though a few “skeptics” proved that puerperal fever (the post-partum fever once the greatest killer of women) was an infectious process, it took the scientific community 125 years to cede the point. And what — aside from allowing the unnecessary death of women — did the vaunted consensus builders do in the meantime? They took Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, who had “virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management […,] said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post,” writes Crichton.

And I’d like to expand on one point. Pick whatever field you like — physics, biology, philosophy, music, etc. — and you’ll find most within it quite mediocre. Just along for the ride, these people never become the great innovators and inventors. It’s that rare exceptional person who shakes the world. Yet the also-rans can do one thing the genius cannot: give you consensus.

And how many exceptional people are within the IPCC? One? Two?


The IPCC’s consensus is quite simply this: the averaged out opinions of average minds — in at best an average organization. And the kicker is that they’re greased with an above average amount of taxpayer money.

Getting back to Crichton, the four most important lines in his speech just may be the following:

"Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked.… Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

… Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough."

Digest that for a moment. It is undeniable: If the warmists really had evidence for their AGW theory, they wouldn’t be talking about consensus. They’d present the evidence.

Consensus is simply the power of the mob. But environmentalists do have good reason to activate their Greenshirts.

The mob is all they’ve got.




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: