Barack Obama Goes Full Stalin
Because I think it is important, I have "photocopied" the post below from Steve Goddard
The level of Soviet style criminal activity at the White House has reached spectacular new lows. On February 20, The White House sent out this E-mail announcing that they were going to start attacking individual scientists who dissented from the White House global warming agenda.
A few hours later, this E-mail was sent out to a large group of prominent skeptics. The author used a stolen identity of Harvard’s Dr. Willie Soon, and obtained the list of skeptic E-mails via hacking. The E-mail pre-announced an attack by the press on an individual scientist.
Today they sent out another E-mail using Dr. Soon’s stolen identity, pre-announcing newspaper attacks on other prominent skeptics.
This behavior by the White House, coordinated with the press corps, is straight out of the Stalin era Soviet Union.
It shouldn’t come as a surprise. The White House adopted Soviet era themes from day one.
Any time the White House starts talking about conspiracy theories, you know they are attempting to cover up something really bad they are doing.
They’re still grasping at myths and conspiracy theories, but deniers are on the run.
The White House is attempting to distract from their disastrous performance in the Middle East and elsewhere. So they are focused on imaginary problems and somehow imagining that engaging in criminal activity will alter scientific fact.
Totalitarian regimes around the planet are currently engaged in attacks on dissidents. Yesterday, Egypt sent blogger Alaa Abdel Fattah to jail for five years for being a dissident. Saudi Arabia also has dissident bloggers jailed.
This is 21st century America. We don’t do inquisitions of heretics any more. Unbelievable that this is going on in the US.
More huffing and puffing about donations to skeptics by business
But no huffing and puffing about donations to Greenies by business?
Rep. Grijalva -- who has a long history with the Communist Party, USA.
Note that the NYT accusations which started this mini-witchhunt had zero in them that was new. The same accusations were made almost word for word in 2011
A key Democratic lawmaker is seeking an expanded inquiry into whether fossil-fuel companies have been secretly underwriting the research of some of the country’s most prominent scientific skeptics of climate change.
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D- Ariz.), the ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, sent requests to seven universities asking for detailed records on the funding sources for affiliated researchers who have opposed the scientific consensus on man-made global warming. Grijalva cited concerns over possible conflicts of interest involving scientists who have sought to influence the public debate on climate.
“Companies with a direct financial interest in climate and air-quality standards are funding environmental research that influences state and federal regulation and shapes public understanding of climate scientists,” Grijalva wrote in letters addressed to the presidents of the seven universities. He asked for copies of the scientists’ financial disclosure forms as well as information about the sources of research grants.
The move follows the release of documents that shed new light on extensive financial links between fossil-fuel interests and prominent skeptic Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon, a Cambridge, Mass., aerospace engineer. Soon’s loud dissents on mainstream climate science have made him the champion of global-warming skeptics in Congress and around the country.
Soon, who is affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has for years promoted a controversial view that attributes recent warming not to carbon emissions but to fluctuations in solar intensity. But documents from his institute show that his research was underwritten almost entirely by fossil-fuel interests, including the Koch Foundation and the Southern Co. Soon did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
Grijalva said Soon failed to properly disclose Big Oil’s support for his work when he testified to Congress and at the state legislature of Kansas — testimony that downplayed the seriousness of man-made climate change. “My colleagues and I cannot perform our duties if research or testimony provided to us is influenced by undisclosed financial relationships,” Grijalva wrote.
The letters were addressed to the presidents of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Georgia Tech, Pepperdine, Arizona State and the universities of Alabama, Colorado and Delaware. Each cited a single affiliated researcher at each institution who has appeared before Congress to question whether man-made carbon pollution is contributing to a dangerous warming of the Earth’s atmosphere. In the Senate, Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey also called for an investigation, saying energy companies should disclose their support for climate research.
Smithsonian officials on Monday’s expressed concern over allegations that Soon failed to disclose sources of funding for his reseach. An internal investigation is underway, said a spokesman, adding that the institution “does not support” Soon’s climate conclusions.
Pachauri steps down over claims he sexually harassed a woman working at his office in Delhi
The head of the UN climate change panel has stepped down amid claims he sexually harassed a woman working at his office in Delhi.
India's Rajendra Pachauri pulled out of a meeting in Kenya this week after Indian police started an investigation into the complaint from a 29-year-old researcher.
The 74-year-old, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 2002, has denied the claims against him, according to a court order.
But today Mr Pachauri, who has also suffered cardiac problems, ended his 13 turbulent years in charge after announcing he was stepping down.
It has been reported that the woman claims the alleged harassment included unwanted emails, texts and phone messages.
His second term as IPCC chair had been due to end in October 2015.
In a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Mr Pachauri said that his inability to travel to Kenya showed he may be unable to ensure the 'strong leadership and dedication of time and full attention by the chair' needed by the panel.
'I have, therefore, taken the decision to step down from my position as chair of the IPCC some months before completion of my term,' he wrote.
He collected the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the IPCC in 2007, when the panel shared the award with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore.
Eco-warrior who placed home-made stinger devices on the road to take out patrol cars 'to give police taste of their own medicine' is jailed for two years
An eco-warrior who disabled three squad cars rushing to New Year Eve call-outs with homemade 'stingers' wanted to 'give the police a taste of their own medicine'.
Emma Sheppard, 33, of no-fixed-abode, left the lumps of wood, embedded with nails across the road from Emersons Green police station in Bristol.
The homemade devices were hidden inside takeaway boxes and covered with leaves on New Year's Eve last.
Bristol Crown Court heard that three police cars were damaged by the improvised devices as they responded to emergency call outs, destroying four tyres and causing £1,500 worth of damage.
Sheppard, who denied she was an anarchist, later said her actions were in protest at the death of a black teenager in America, police brutality in Greece and cuts to legal aid.
The carer, who admitted one charge of conspiracy to commit criminal damage being reckless as to whether life was endangered, remained emotionless as she was jailed.
Judge Neil Ford QC, the Recorder of Bristol, said that anarchists in the city had caused £20 million of damage to police, commercial buildings and mobile phone providers in the past four years.
'Responsibility in relation to these incidents has been claimed by what have been described as anarchist groups,' the judge told Sheppard.
'I must make it clear from the start that your offending cannot be linked to that course of conduct, although of course this forms a backdrop to the sentencing process in this case.'
The judge said Sheppard had been caught trying to flee the scene by police officers who spotted her acting suspiciously with another person, who has not been identified.
'This is particularly surprising for someone of your intelligence and behaviour. 'You targeted police officers who act to protect members of the public. 'This must be a demonstration to others that behaviour like this will be met with custodial sentences. 'Actions carried out as part of a campaign of deception will be met by very serious punishment.'
Bristol Crown Court heard how Sheppard built the devices in protest at officers using them around the UK and other police incidents.
The judge added: 'You have told the probation service that when you carried out this offence you had in mind a very well covered case in America of the police reaction to a black man.
'You said you had in mind police brutality in Greece and your own experiences with police at protests you had attended.
'What you have failed to take into account is who it is who it is that is there to protect the people who suffer from domestic abuse.
'The people who are there for the victims of serious violence, the people who arrive at emergency road collisions.
Officers called colleagues for back-up and the three police cars accelerated out of the police station at Concorde House, a building on an industrial estate.
The first driver passed over the debris but suffered a slow puncture and lost control of the vehicle as he approached a nearby dual carriageway, the court heard.
The second car immediately suffered two punctured tyres and had to stop, while the third vehicle had one of its tyres punctured by the stinger despite trying to avoid it.
'The devices which had been secreted under the debris were a number of handmade stingers, fashioned from blocks of wood,' the judge said.
'Each contained five large, prominent nails.'
Sheppard was arrested and taken to Keynsham station where officers found takeaway containers, a plastic bag and leaves in her pocket.
Prosecuting, Mark Hollier said officers called for back-up after seeing Sheppard and another person dressed in dark clothing with their faces covered.
He said anarchist groups in Bristol had carried out arson attacks on buildings including North Avon Magistrates Court and at a police centre in Portishead.
Mr Hollier said there was no evidence to link Sheppard to previous offences in the city but he pointed out that the stingers were also aimed against police.
'While it is a matter of fact that no harm was caused to any person the potential is manifest,' Mr Hollier said. 'Three police cars were taken out of action.'
Detective Inspector Andy Bevan of Avon and Somerset Police said: 'We have a long and proud history of facilitating peaceful protest and also supporting people who choose alternative lifestyles.
'We respect their right to lead their lives however they choose and the large majority do so in a safe and law-abiding manner.
'Where protest crosses the line into criminality, we'll take a tough stance in order to keep our communities safe and feeling safe.'
UK: Another clueless Greenie
Britain's Green party has been making some headway in recent months but their leader in a rank amateur
Green Party leader Natalie Bennett admitted she suffered an 'absolutely excruciating' radio interview this morning - after a 'mental brain fade' saw her forget how much a key policy pledge would cost.
In the toe-curling exchange, Miss Bennett was asked how much taxpayers would have to spend to meet the Green Party's pledge to build 500,000 new council houses.
Battling with a cough while failing to come up with an answer, she eventually admitted she did not know, before being handed a piece of paper which said it would cost just £2.7billion.
Miss Bennett insisted this could be funded by hiking taxes on private landlords - but then failed to say how much this would raise either.
The Green leader later claimed she had suffered a 'mental brain fade' and apologised to party activists.
The Australian-born politician had hoped to use a party event today to kickstart the Green campaign for the general election on May 7. But it has been overshadowed by her embarrassing struggle on live radio to spell out the details of a flagship policy.
As she floundered on LBC, she eventually claimed the 5000,000 homes would cost £60,000 each to build.
She said this meant the Green Party's mass house building programme would cost £6billion a year – not the £2.6billion she originally claimed. Over the course of the Parliament this would work out at £30billion.
Hours later at the party's general election campaign at the Royal Society of Arts in London on Tuesday morning, Miss Bennett was asked whether she was letting her party down with such car-crash performances.
The party's former deputy London mayor Jenny Jones leaped to the leader's defence, saying: 'She's not answering that.'
Miss Bennett thanked her for the intervention, but agreed that the interview had been 'excruciating'. She said that she had struggled due to a 'mind blank'.
She said colleagues had been supportive and insisted the costings of her party's housing policy were 'now in my head'.
Earlier, speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Miss Bennett admitted the Greens would not be able to bring in a 'citizen's income' of £72 for everybody before 2020 - despite unveiling it as flagship policy last month.
She also called for Britain and other Western powers to appease Russian leader Vladimir Putin by letting him 'walk away with something' to end the conflict in Ukraine.
Miss Bennett said the Greens would stick to their pledge to slash defence spending if they are in office, despite the increasing threat from Moscow.
She said the UK must understand that Mr Putin has to be able to show the Russian people that he has won something out of the conflict – 'things that we might not necessarily like'.
The Green leader, who revealed her party now had 54,500 members, also defended the policy of taxing wealth - from property to luxury cars - amid claims it would raise only a fraction of the £45 billion claimed by the party.
Ms Bennett told Today: 'What we are talking about is, we don't want to just tax property, because that excludes about two-thirds of wealth, we also want to tax pension pots, holdings in cash, Ferraris, whatever else it might be.'
WHAT DOES GREEN PARTY LEADER NATALIE BENNETT REALLY STAND FOR?
Border controls would be torn up because the 'concept of a British national is irrelevant and outdated,' the party says on its website. National borders are seen as instruments of oppression: 'Richer regions and communities do not have the right to use migration controls to protect privileges from others.'
Britain would leave Nato and pursue 'immediate and unconditional nuclear disarmament'. The Armed Forces would be 'severely reduced in number', personnel would be allowed to join trade unions and would have the 'right to refuse orders on the grounds of conscience'.
The party would introduce a 'citizens' income' of £72 a week for everybody – replacing all income tax allowances and benefits. Even the richest would receive the hand out - costing taxpayers was estimated at £280 billion — almost three times the budget for the NHS.
Sex and drugs
The sex industry would be decriminalised and 'sex workers' given workplace rights.
Anti-drugs laws would also be drastically relaxed. 'Possession and cultivation of cannabis would be immediately decriminalised,' while trade in the narcotic would be 'fully legalised, controlled and regulated'. On other drugs, 'small scale possession for personal use would be decriminalised'.
The Queen and the constitution
They plan to abolish the monarchy, evict the Queen and Prince Philip from Buckingham Palace and put them in a council house.
The same approach would be adopted with other members of the Royal Family, including the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, who would be served with an eviction notice from Kensington Palace.
Tax and economy
New taxes on wealth, 'environmental damage', air travel and 'superstar performances'— dubbed the 'Beyonce Tax' — would be introduced to raise funds for 'local cultural enterprises'.
Private schools would lose their charitable status and be forced to pay corporation tax. Inheritance tax would be extended to cover gifts passed on by benefactors while they are still alive, such as jewellery, furniture or antiques.
Private healthcare would be heavily taxed, and, in place of business rates and council tax, a new land tax would be brought in, based on the annual rental value of land.
Australia: Lies about wind turbine safety from Leftist public broadcaster
ACOUSTIC expert Steven Cooper is considering launching legal action against the ABC’s Media Watch program for its portrayal of him and his research on the effect of the Pacific Hydro wind turbines on local residents.
On the February 16 edition of Media Watch host Paul Barry dished out a stinging criticism of Mr Cooper’s seven-month study conducted at Cape Bridgewater in southwest Victoria — and the reporting of it by The Australian’s environment editor Graham Lloyd and Network Seven’s Today Tonight.
However, in damning the report, the Media Watch team hand- picked a group of pro-turbine “experts” — with no real expertise in the field — ignored submissions from genuine acoustic experts, misrepresented Mr Cooper, selectively and incorrectly quoted the National Health and Medical Research Council, ignored balancing quotes in the newspaper reports and made a number of factual mistakes.
Following his utter disbelief at Media Watch’s misrepresentation, as well as pending legal action, Mr Cooper has also sent a letter to the ABC demanding a retraction.
“Media Watch should be investigating themselves because in that very article they presented so much information that was incorrect and not factual,” Mr Cooper told The Australian.
Media Watch opened its attack on the first paragraph of Lloyd’s January 21 front-page story which states: “People living near wind farms face a greater risk of suffering health complaints caused by the low-frequency noise generated by turbines, a groundbreaking study has found.”
Barry said: “Well, not according to several eminent scientists we talked to and, remarkably, not according to Steven Cooper, the study’s author, who told Media Watch: ‘No, it’s not correct ... You can’t say that noise affects health from this study’.”
Media Watch’s blatant misrepresentation of Mr Cooper is one of the key reasons for his letter demanding a retraction and pending legal action.
Media Watch selectively quoted the Cape Bridgewater report author to give the impression he rejected certain things in both the Today Tonight report and The Australian’s article when in fact he does not.
Mr Cooper told The Australian his comments were completely taken out of context by Media Watch.
Mr Cooper said by giving his answer in isolation and not explaining the broader context, Media Watch had deliberately misrepresented the facts.
He said that when you looked at all the evidence — not just his report — Lloyd was completely right in his opening.
What the Cooper study found was that sensations, including sleep disturbance, were occurring with specific wind conditions leading to acoustic results.
So despite Media Watch’s nicely edited and manufactured contradiction between the pair, Mr Cooper actually believes Lloyd “is the best journalist writing about wind turbines in Australia”.
In a written response to The Australian, prior to the Media Watch episode, Mr Cooper said: “The study does shows a link between the operation of the wind farm and the disturbances reported by the residents. There is a trend not a correlation (because there is not enough data and that wasn’t the brief). However, one can take the reports of the residents who form the view there is a link to their health impacts.”
Media Watch next marched out it’s so called experts to the tune of, “So how come The Australian and Today Tonight got it so wrong?”
Today Tonight wasn’t given much of a chance to defend itself against that allegation as it was not contacted for comment by the show. Today Tonight Adelaide producer Graham Archer told The Australian he was disgusted at the way Media Watch conducted itself and the way it misled the public.
“They didn’t contact us and I would have thought that was the very minimum of journalistic ethics to call somebody to at least give them a chance to respond to whatever the allegations were, I thought that was pretty shoddy,’’ he said.
“Media Watch were taking a particular point of view that went beyond a critique of the media and they were actually pushing a particular barrow and I’m not sure that’s their role.”
Media Watch’s first “expert” was the head of medicine at Adelaide University, Professor Gary Wittert, who said: “The way The Australian reported this study was really the antithesis of good science reporting. I think a newspaper like The Australian should know better.”
Mr Cooper, and other properly qualified acoustics experts, have said The Australian’s reporting of the study was correct in every respect.
What Media Watch failed to report was that Professor Wittert has repeatedly given expert evidence to court cases stating that the nocebo effect rather than infrasound and low-frequency noise are directly causing the reported symptoms but Mr Cooper’s data from his acoustic investigation suggests Professor Wittert’s expert opinion is wrong.
Other experts lined up to slam the report included the Australian National University’s Jacqui Hoepner and Will Grant, who wrote about it for The Conversation. Grant has a PhD in politics and Hoepner is a journalist and neither has either acoustic or medical training.
Then came the most damning of them all, Sydney University’s professor of public health, Simon Chapman. Professor Chapman is also neither an acoustician nor a medical practitioner.
Professor Chapman has declined to ever directly investigate or visit people immediately affected by wind turbines and, despite this, is happy to refer to them very publicly on Twitter as “anti-wind farm wing nuts”.
He is, in fact, an expert on cigarette advertising, a sociologist and a vocal advocate for the wind industry.
And this is the supposedly unbiased “expert” Media Watch lined up to say: “Scientifically, it’s an absolutely atrocious piece of research and is entirely unpublishable other than on the front page of The Australian.”
When The Australian’s Gerard Henderson wrote to Media Watch to ask why it had chosen Professor Chapman in support of the view that “scientifically” there was no proven causal link between wind farms and illness, Media Watch producer Timothy Latham replied: “I am comfortable quoting a professor of public health on the matter, who has previously written on wind farms and health concerns and has, according to his CV, a PhD in medicine.”
Chapman is not a medical practitioner. He has previous told people his PhD is in sociology. It was on the topic of “Cigarette Advertising As Myth: A Re-Evaluation Of The Relationship Of Advertising To Smoking”.
When Henderson pointed this out to Latham he replied: “I outlined in my previous email as to why I believe Simon Chapman is qualified to talk about health and wind farms. Therefore no correction or clarification is required.”
The opinion of Media Watch’s “experts” is in stark contrast to those actually trained in the field who understand the significance of what the Cooper study found.
The Cooper study has been reviewed by some of the world’s most highly qualified acoustic experts who were quoted by The Australian.
Dr Bob Thorne, a psycho-acoustician who is qualified to assess health impacts from noise and is considered an expert witness in court, said in a written statement that the Cooper report was “groundbreaking” and had made a “unique contribution to science”.
US acoustics expert Robert Rand, the principal of US-based Rand Acoustics, said in a peer review of the Cooper study: “The correlation of sensation level to wind turbine signature tone level in the infrasonic and audible bands brings wind turbine acoustics right to the door of medical science.’’
And after the broadcast, in a line-by-line appraisal of The Australian story, Ray Tumney, principal acoustics engineer with RCA Acoustics, told Media Watch every aspect of it was “true and accurate”.
This is some of what he said: “None of the above in the Lloyd article is misleading or inaccurate nor is it overly emotive by comparison with current media practice.
“So the only reason for Media Watch to take this on is if Media Watch is simply unable to accept the outcomes of the (Cooper) study and presumably believes that the study is flawed and Mr Cooper is incompetent. This was certainly the impression given by the MW presentation.
“I submit that MW is not qualified to make such a judgment in such a complex technical area and has gotten carried away with itself in this instance because of its own paradigms and beliefs. My view is that for whatever reason MW has lost its objectivity in this case.”
But what is particularly alarming about the program was that Media Watch researcher Flint Duxfield deliberately ignored the large pool of positive reviews about Mr Cooper’s study.
The Australian has written evidence Duxfield was made aware of the significance of the Cooper report in direct interviews with Mr Rand, but did not make that information available to Media Watch viewers.
In an email to colleagues following the Media Watch program, Mr Rand said he had told Media Watch that after the Cooper findings: “It would be unethical of me as a member of Institute of Noise Control Engineering to wait for the years required for such careful medical research work to be completed. I have sufficient correlation already from the neighbours’ reports and affidavits and the measurements done thus far to inform others for designing properly to be good acoustic neighbours.” Media Watch did not disclose this information.
Media Watch ’s attempt to discredit the study — and prove why it should not have been headline news — was also riddled with errors.
Barry attacked the tiny sample — three households and six respondents. But in his peer review of the Cooper research, Dr Paul Schomer, director of acoustics standards and chairman of the American delegation to the International Standards Committee, said: “It only takes one example to prove that a broad assertion (that there are no impacts) is not true, and that is the case here.
“One person affected is a lot more than none; the existence of just one cause-and-effect pathway is a lot more than none. The important point here is that something is coming from the wind turbines to affect these people and that something increases or decreases as the power output of the turbine increases or decreases.”
Barry didn’t bother reporting Dr Schomer’s comments or professional qualifications but said there was what scientists call selection bias, because all those people already had health problems which they blamed on Pacific Hydro’s wind farm at Victoria’s Cape Bridgewater, 1.6km or less from their homes.
But the The Australian has written advice from a professor of epidemiology that selection bias was irrelevant when the study design is identical to a prospective case series with a crossover component, where people are their own controls, and what varies is their exposure to operating wind turbines.
Media Watch was advised of this but did not disclose it on air.
Barry said all those involved in the study knew if the wind farm was operating because they could see the blades. Here again he is wrong. Mr Cooper said the subjects could not see the blades — especially when they were inside their homes, in their beds, and woken up from a sleep.
This is at best a pointer to Barry and his team not reading the research and at worse false reporting to make a point. Duxfield has admitted to Mr Cooper he “skimmed” the report.
If misrepresentation, hand-picking evidence, dodgy reporting and industry-invested “experts” with no qualifications were not enough, the less than 10 minute segment was littered the errors.
Media Watch blankly asserted that Mr Cooper’s theories were dismissed by a Senate inquiry into wind farm noise in 2011.
Wrong — Mr Cooper didn’t give evidence in the 2011 inquiry.
He did give evidence to the 2012 inquiry chaired by Doug Cameron which had two dissenting reports.
Media Watch pointed out that Today Tonight and The Australian “also omitted to tell us that, as Professor Chapman puts it, there are 24 high-quality reviews about wind farms and health, and overwhelmingly they have been found to be safe”. Again any thorough research would find this is not true. Many of the reviews Professor Chapman cites state there is not a lot of scientific evidence.
The National Health and Medical Research Council recently reviewed 4000 pieces of literature and found only 13 were suitable for evaluation and said none could be considered high quality. As a result it said the impact of wind turbines on health remained an open scientific question and that it would call for targeted, high quality research. A priority area is low frequency and infrasound.
But to bend the facts even further to its cause, Media Watch then selectively quoted the NHMRC to give wind turbines a clean bill of health.
The program failed to tell viewers the NHMRC position is that the quality of existing research is poor and that it will fund more high-quality research.
The show chose only to say the NHMRC had declared: “There is no consistent evidence that noise from wind turbines ... is associated with self-reported human health effects.” In fact what the NHMRC statement said was “there is currently no consistent evidence that wind farms cause adverse health effects in humans”.
It is a subtle but very important difference and the NHMRC went on to conclude: “Given the poor quality of current evidence and the concern expressed by some members of the community, there is a need for high-quality research into possible health effects of wind farms, particularly within 1500 metres.”
NHMRC chief executive Warwick Anderson, in a conference call with journalists, said: “It is important to say no consistent evidence does not necessarily mean no effect on human health.
“From a scientific perspective I see the question as still open.’’
Media Watch admitted an error with its reporting of the NHMRC statement but “stands by it’s story and the expertise on those quotes”.
The program said the Pacific Hydro Cape Bridgewater wind farm acoustic study was just that, an acoustic study.
In its presentation Media Watch failed to make available relevant and available information that would have allowed viewers to arrive at a conclusion other than one predetermined by it.
It misquoted authorities, bent facts, wheeled out pro-industry experts and hand-picked evidence in a report full of mistakes.
For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.
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