Wednesday, October 14, 2015

The ghostly machine of the Warmist imagination

Because they don't listen to anybody else but themselves, Leftists have no clue why conservatives say and do what they do. They can only attribute conservative opposition to their febrile dreams as due to evil conspiracies.  So Shelly Whitehouse below invokes a "Vast right-wing conspiracy" to explain criticism of global warming theory. No Leftist has however produced evidence of such a conspiracy.  All they can do is to see evil in the occasional funding of climate skeptics, quite ignoring the huge funding of climate alarmists.  The money is clearly on the side of Warmism.  

Like most skeptics, I have never received a cent for my writings, nor am I "sponsored" by anyone.  Most active skeptics are in fact retired academics who can speak without fear or favour.  I am one. I would enjoy a RICO investigation.  It would show Whitehouse to be either a fool or delusional

In recent weeks the right-wing attack machine has been up in arms regarding a letter sent by a group of 20 climate scientists to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and White House science adviser John Holdren requesting that the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigate fossil-fuel companies that appear to have lied about the effects of their products on our world's climate. This week, the Wall Street Journal joined the fray, writing that "[a]dvocates of climate regulation are urging the Obama Administration to investigate people who don't share their views... they want the feds to use a law created to prosecute the mafia against lawful businesses and scientists."

As the Wall Street Journal and others have noted, and as the scientists' letter acknowledges, I myself raised the possibility of an investigation along these lines in a Washington Post op-ed earlier this year. The connection prompted the Journal to quote Georgia Tech's Judith Curry - a prominent climate denier - attacking both me and the scientists. "The demand by Senator Whitehouse and the 20 climate scientists for legal persecution of people whose research on science and policy they disagree with represents a new low in the politicization of science," she said.

I'm sure the Wall Street Journal and their cohorts in the right-wing echo chamber are having fun twisting this whole concept around in service to their fossil-fuel friends, but let's take a step back. The genesis of this idea for DOJ to investigate fossil fuel companies lies in the comparison between the actions of the fossil fuel industry and the actions of other industries known to have intentionally misled the public about the nature of their products, including the tobacco and lead paint industries. Entire books have been written about the subject, including "Merchants of Doubt," "Doubt is Their Product," "Deceit and Denial," and "Lead Wars." In the case of the tobacco industry in particular, a federal judge found in 2006 that its efforts amounted to a racketeering enterprise after DOJ filed a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuit.

Here's how Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia described the actions of the industry in her decision: "Defendants coordinated significant aspects of their public relations, scientific, legal, and marketing activity in furtherance of a shared objective -- to . . . maximize industry profits by preserving and expanding the market for cigarettes through a scheme to deceive the public."

The bottom line is this: A private company and/or its industry allies should not knowingly lie to the American people about the harms that are caused by its product. No one went to jail in the tobacco case. No one was prosecuted criminally. This was a civil RICO case. All a civil lawsuit does is get people to have to actually tell the truth, under oath, in front of an actual impartial judge or jury, with the ability to cross-examine -- which the Supreme Court has described as "the greatest legal invention ever invented for the discovery of truth."

The Wall Street Journal piece also notes that my previous Washington Post op-ed "cited Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who has published politically inconvenient research on changes in solar radiation." Not noted by the Journal: Dr. Soon reportedly received more than half of his funding from big fossil fuel interests like Exxon-Mobile and the Charles G. Koch Foundation, to the tune of $1.2 million. Some of Dr. Soon's research contracts gave his industry backers a chance to see what he was doing "for comment and input" before he published it. The New York Times reported that in correspondence with his fossil fuel funders, Dr. Soon referred to the scientific papers he produced as "deliverables." And he apparently failed to note his funding sources -- which constitute a clear conflict of interest -- when publishing his research, prompting his employers at the Smithsonian to conduct an internal review of his conduct.

Of course, none of that seems to matter to the Wall Street Journal. They'd rather believe that Dr. Soon is being attacked for espousing "politically inconvenient" views. Please.

Sadly, Dr. Soon is just a small cog in a massive climate-denial machine, which rivals that of the tobacco industry in size, scope, and complexity. Its purpose is to cast doubt about the reality of climate change in order to forestall a move toward cleaner fuels and allow the Kochs and Exxons of the world to continue reaping profits at our expense. In fact, thanks to an investigative report by Inside Climate News, we now know that Exxon indeed knew about the effect of its carbon pollution as far back as the late 1970s, but ultimately chose to fund a massive misinformation campaign rather than tell the truth. As famed author and Harvard professor Naomi Oreskes wrote this weekend in a piece for the New York Times, "As one of the most profitable companies in the world, Exxon could have acted as a corporate leader, helping to explain to political leaders, to shareholders and institutional investors, and to the public what it knew about climate change... Instead -- like the tobacco industry -- Exxon chose the path of disinformation, denial and delay."

Now, the big question is: Why is the Wall Street Journal so eager to fill their editorial pages with articles defending such mischievous misdirection and attacking those who dare to fight back? Maybe that the tobacco case could in fact be successfully replicated against the climate denial scheme they so shamelessly and one-sidedly tout. And wouldn't that be embarrassing.

Whatever the motivation of the Wall Street Journal and other right-wing publications, it is clearly long past time for the climate denial scheme to come in from the talk shows and the blogosphere and have to face the kind of an audience that a civil RICO investigation could provide. No more spin and deception. It's time to let the facts shine through.


How global warming could cause an ice age

Global warming causes EVERYTHING, even truly paradoxical things -- if you plug unlikely assumptions into models with no known predictive skill -- as below

The oceans crash against skyscrapers, making aquatic tunnels of Manhattan streets. Heavy layers of snow pile on endlessly, burying entire civilizations in canopies of white. Eventually, liquid turns to ice, and life as we know it is threatened by an eternal freeze.

This is the harrowing disaster scenario of “The Day After Tomorrow,” a 2004 science fiction film directed by Roland Emmerich and starring Jake Gyllenhaal. Based on an imagined future of accelerated global warming, the movie was a major box office hit — it grossed over $500 million worldwide — but climatologists quickly took aim at its scientific value.

Patrick J. Michaels, a noted climate change skeptic, wrote in USA Today after the film’s release, “As a scientist, I bristle when lies dressed up as ‘science’ are used to influence political discourse. … Each one of these phenomena is physically impossible.”

He joined a chorus of critics who deemed the film wildly counterfactual. Yahoo featured “The Day After Tomorrow” in a top 10 list of scientifically inaccurate movies, while Duke University paleoclimatologist William Hyde declared, “This movie is to climate science as Frankenstein is to heart transplant surgery.”

The extreme cooling trends depicted are caused by a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC, a North Atlantic ocean water circulation system that moderates temperatures north of the equator. When the movie was released, however, there had yet to be research examining such an event’s potential aftermath.

Now, a University of Southampton climate study published in Nature Scientific Reports indicates that we were naive to feel safe from “The Day After Tomorrow”-esque realities.

“The basic scenario of the AMOC as a result of global warming is not completely out of the blue or unthinkable,” the study’s author, Sybren Drijfhout, told The Washington Post.

According to the oceanography and climate physics professor, current warming patterns not only indicate that a collapse of the AMOC is possible, but also that resulting consequences would resemble “The Day After Tomorrow,” though not to the same extremes.

In a properly functioning circulatory system, the AMOC produces a milder climate downstream of the North Atlantic by bringing warm, salty surface water from the Indian Ocean and the South Atlantic to the northern hemisphere.

But this system depends on the connection of surface waters flowing to the north and deeper waters flowing to the south — imagine a “global conveyor belt” — that can occur within just a few sinking ranges in the North Atlantic. These ranges exist only where water on the surface sufficiently nears the freezing point such that it becomes dense and heavy enough to sink to the bottom.

With the Greenland ice sheet melting as a result of climate change, the AMOC’s essential process is slowing down. If we’re not careful, Drijfhout said, it may produce an effect comparable to “The Day After Tomorrow.”

While the climate sequence in the movie is certainly sped up and exaggerated, scientist noted, the real-life consequences of an AMOC collapse would be no less cause for worry.

The cold would hit Western Europe the hardest, while Americans would have to contend with floods. The United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Denmark would likely to experience 5-degree temperature drops; sea levels on the U.S. East Coast could could rise more than three feet.

“This would affect hundreds of millions of people,” Drijfhout said, “At least temporarily, Europe would suffer conditions that would look like the Little Ice Age of the Middle Ages.”

The collapse of the AMOC would be accompanied by a continuation of global warming conditions. These would ultimately offset and overtake the cooling trends in about 40 years, though in some places near the eastern boundary of the North Atlantic, the reversal could take more than a century.


Climate Change, Radiation, Logic and Mathematics

Written by Hans Schreuder, one of the "Slayers", who reject ANY influence of CO2 on climate

“The essence of mathematics lies in its freedom.” – Georg Cantor

That "freedom" apparently allows mathematicians to calculate whatever they like in an energy budget, so long as they maintain input = output; hence they see no issue with giving the atmosphere the "power" to radiate more energy into the system than the Sun does, so long as they can "prove" that the earth's surface is kept warmer by this illusionary "greenhouse effect" in order to balance the books and maintain input = output.

Let's analyse this view for example: "One instance is attributing the high surface temperature of Venus to a "runaway greenhouse effect" - when that temperature is perfectly well explained by basic adiabatic processes - as the outcome of the pressure exerted by the huge Venusian atmosphere.  And just basic logic seems often to be overlooked."

Let's look at Venus' adiabatic process then, as that is the secondary reason for its atmosphere being as hot as it is at the base of the atmospheric column.

Most important question to ask at all times is this: "Where does the heat come from in the first place?"

Pressure alone does not create heat; pump a tyre up all you want, it will have cooled to ambient temperature if left alone.

So, whilst the adiabatic process will help maintain a temperature within an atmosphere, there is still the need to add "new" heat to the system to prevent the gas column from cooling down. If Venus' surface was not as volcanic as it has been proven to be, the entire atmosphere would by now have cooled down and with it the surface.

If there is no "new" heat added at the bottom of the adiabatic process then the entire gas column has no option but to cool, considering that the gas column radiates heat into space at all times, so heat is lost all the time and without a source of heat at the base of the column, the whole column will have to cool, by definition.

Adding radiative heat to the top of the gas column has no effect on the bottom of the column, unless the column is so thin as to not have a noticeable adiabatic and external heat from above the column directly reaches the bottom of the column, thus warming the surface directly via radiative transfer of energy; there is no way at all that a more buoyant gas molecule can sink down into a more dense collection of gas molecules. Radiatively transferring energy downwards presents the problem of an equilibrium temperature being reached long before the bottom of the column is reached, especially so if the column is the size of Venus or even in a column of radiatively reactive water as in our own earthly oceans.

The surface temperature with a transparent atmosphere would end up as direct consequence of the solar energy reaching that surface; in Venus' case, where no solar energy reaches the surface due to its dense atmosphere, the surface would continue cooling until somewhere along the gas column an equilibrium was reached between solar radiative energy input and gas column's radiative energy output.

Thus, on Venus, as on Earth, it is the surface that warms the gas column whilst the adiabatic process recycles this heat, losing at the top of the gas column and gaining at the surface not just by being compressed but by taking energy off the surface, provided of course that the surface is warmer than the gas! It's gravity versus specific gravity that drives the adiabatic process, which in itself does not create heat, it merely recycles it by expanding and contracting the same gas mass.

The surface of Venus has been shown to be mostly smooth, caused by recent and active volcanism; that activity means that the surface is constantly renewed and is thus close to the temperature of molten rock, yet well below the measured surface temperature. This process is in turn driven by the gravitational forces which in turn are driven by its proximity to the Sun; same as on Earth but to a lesser degree, thankfully.

The surface of Venus will be hot due to the underlying active volcanism at the surface of the planet and not due to its hot atmosphere. The cart does not pull the horse, not in the case of Venus and not in the case of Earth.

Additionally, the formula for adiabatic "heating" on a rocky planet with a gaseous atmosphere is looking at the phenomenon in a mirror. The atmosphere cools with increasing altitude, it does not warm with decreasing altitude. Same result, different way of looking at the reality. Where is the source of the gas column's energy - top or bottom?

On earth, as on Venus, it all starts and finishes with the presence of our Sun, the main driver of our climate, either directly as on Earth or indirectly through the volcanic activity as on Venus. All other influences are secondary and a consequence of the solar influence in the first place, including the amount of gamma rays reaching Earth.

Carbon dioxide or any other gas has no function in making Earth or Venus "warmer than it should be", these gases in fact help to remove heat off the surface and take it to higher altitudes, i.e. they cool the surface. Comparisons with our Moon are plenty, but a 14-day lunar day or night do not bear comparison with terrestrial day or night! See below for an essay on the Moon; Earth without an atmosphere would be substantially warmer than it is now, not cooler!

If you follow-through any kind of "greenhouse effect" version, it all comes down to counting the same energy twice over.

Given the convective cycling in the air column, then the column will have a temperature gradient as per the adiabat.  If this air column is then to be characterized with an average temperature, that average temperature will therefore physically be found near the middle altitudes of the column, and the bottom will be necessarily warmer than that average.  Very simple mathematics and incontestable logic here: the bottom has to be warmer than the average - no GHE required.

In short, ANY mention of ANY kind of GHE in ANY kind of open-to-space atmosphere is not valid.

Why is there so much resistance to abandoning the notion that there is a "greenhouse effect" in our atmosphere that "makes earth warmer than it would otherwise be?" Such an effect has never ever been proven to exist, yet the lack of it has been proven over and over again.


Global Cooling Discovery May Scupper Paris Climate Talks

Written by James Delingpole

Scientists have discovered a hitherto unknown cooling process which may pose a serious threat to man-made global warming theory. 350 org

According to a study by the Institute of Catalysis and Environment in Lyon (IRCELYON, CNRS / University Lyon 1) and the Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research (TROPOS), the oceans are producing unexpectedly large quantities of isoprene – a volatile organic compound (VOC) – which is known to have a cooling effect on climate.

    "Isoprene is a gas that is formed by both the vegetation and the oceans. It is very important for the climate because this gas can form particles that can become clouds and then later affect temperature and precipitation. Previously it was assumed that isoprene is primarily caused by biological processes from plankton in the sea water. The atmospheric chemists from France and Germany, however, could now show that isoprene could also be formed without biological sources in surface film of the oceans by sunlight and so explain the large discrepancy between field measurements and models. The new identified photochemical reaction is therefore important to improve the climate models.

    The oceans not only take up heat and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, they are also sources of various gaseous compounds, thereby affecting the global climate. A key role is played by the so-called surface microlayer (SML),  especially at low wind speed. In these few micrometers thin layer different organic substances such as dissolved organic matter, fat and amino acids, proteins, lipids are accumulating as well as trace metals, dust and microorganisms."

Though the cooling effects of isoprene are well known, what is new is the discovery that the oceans are producing much more of it than has been accounted for in the alarmists’ climate models.

The computer models assume that the total quantity of isoprene produced by trees, plants and plankton amounts to 1.9 megatons per year. But what researchers have discovered is a process whereby isoprene is also produced in far greater quantities abiotically (ie not from plant or animal life) from the action of sunlight on chemicals in the ocean, possibly as much as 3.5 megatons more per year.

    “We were able for the first time trace back the production of this important aerosol precursor  to abiotic sources, so far  global calculations consider only biological sources,” explains Dr. Christian George from IRCELYON.

    Thus, it is now possible to estimate more closely the total amounts of isoprene, which are  emitted. So far, however, local measurements indicated levels of about 0.3 megatonnes per year, global simulations of around 1.9 megatons per year. But the team of Lyon and Leipzig estimates that the newly discovered photochemical pathway alone contribute 0.2 to 3.5 megatons per year additionally and could explain the recent disagreements. “The existence of the organic films at the ocean surface due to biological activities therefore influences the exchange processes between air and sea in a unexpected strong way. The photochemical processes at this interface could be a very significant source of isoprene”, summarizes Prof. Hartmut Herrmann from TROPOS."

Climate skeptics have, of course, long argued that the models used by alarmists to predict future climate change are fatally flawed because they exaggerate the influence of man-made carbon dioxide and fail to take into account other unknown or ill-understood factors.

This discovery presents further proof that the skeptics are right: the reason that all that predicted “global warming” has failed to materialize is that it has been countered by the planet’s natural cooling effects.

“Here is more evidence of what we have known for some time: that climate models simply do not mirror the reality of a chaotic system – and that they should never have been trusted in the first place,” says Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

The news could scarcely have come at a worse time for the global climate alarmist community which has been ramping up the scaremongering message in the run up to the latest round of UN climate talks in Paris this December.

Everyone from the Pope to the Prince of Wales to the Governor of the Bank of England has been roped into pushing the UN’s alarmist agenda.

What this new study shows is that in the unlikely event of any agreement being reached on “climate change” by world leaders in Paris, it will do so in defiance of “the Science” and not because of it.


Global Cooling? Satellite Data Confirms 10 Years of Arctic Ice Increase

Written by Dr Klaus L.E. Kaiser

Arctic sea ice extent has increased over the last decade.  Satellite data confirms opposite of what global warming alarmists claim.

Listening to the latest “climate doom” you’d think that the Arctic must just about be squeaky clean, not a drink-sized ice cube in sight anymore.  Well, I’ve some news that must be disconcerting to the warmists: The sea-ice extent is actually quite stable, perhaps even growing and the polar bears are just fine as well.

Sea-Ice in the Arctic

The sea-ice in the Arctic waxes and wanes in a regular fashion, sort of like the phases of the Moon.

At the height of the seasonal minimum (around mid-September) the Arctic sea-ice extent is in the order of 4-5 million square kilometers (SKM). That’s quite different from the maximum extent in the Arctic winter that is typically in the 14-15 million SKM range; in other words, its common seasonal range is approximately threefold or more.

For example, the number of days with air temperature above freezing (0 C) at latitude 80 N and higher have been recorded for 55 years now.  These data are readily available from theDanish Meteorological Institute (DMI). On the basis of such observations, they have also calculated a 50-year mean of temperatures above freezing. It has not changed in that time and you can follow it daily as well as all daily records over the past, year by year. What’s important in these data is the number of days above freezing each year. Except for 2013, where that number was one half of the long-term mean of 90 days, it hardly changed from year to year.

These data not only show a very stable climate up north, they also indicate that the claims of a “thinning” ice-cover must be false. You cannot possibly have the ice thinning and the air warming and the ice-cover being unaffected decade after decade. If the ice were getting thinner, it would melt earlier, the number of days above freezing would increase and the re-freezing would happen later in the season; none of which is happening. Now let’s look at the ice cover itself.

Minimum Sea-Ice Extent

What everyone is watching with beady eyes is the seasonal MINIMUM sea-ice extent. That occurs around mid-September and, obviously, varies more strongly as it’s influenced by a variety of natural and man-made effects than at the time of maximum extent when there isn’t much activity. For example, the brief Arctic summer is the time when submarines tend to surface near the Pole, when research vessels try to explore the Arctic, when commercial vessels may attempt to cross the Northwest or Northeast Passages, when companies are exploring for natural resources, whenbuccaneers try to reach the North Pole by foot, when cruise ships go on Arctic voyages, when you can go hot-air-ballooning there, and more.

Much of that brief seasonal activity still requires the accompaniment (and, frequently, rescue) by ice-breakers from the Arctic riparian countries. For example, Russia alone has about 50 of such vessels, including nuclear-powered Class-4 or higher ice-breakers. The U.S. Coast Guard Icebreaker Healy made it to the North Pole just earlier this month (see photo from Sep. 7, 2015).

Although that photo shows the North Pole covered with solid ice, there have been other times when open water was seen right there. For example, the USS Skate surfaced there in 1958 and had repeatedly observed open water in the high Arctic.
Maximum Sea-Ice Extent

To begin with, hardly a soul ever mentions the MAXIMUM seasonal sea-ice extent in the Arctic. In truth, it hasn’t changed much for many decades. The reasons are easy to understand. With most of the year (see Air Temperatures, above) being well below freezing, the annual ice build-up is affected more by wind and currents than anything else. Therefore, it reaches a maximum at around mid-March that barely varies between years. In that context, it should also be noted that, by most accounts, the “Arctic” sea-ice count extends south to latitude 45 N, or even further towards the equator. Still, the maximum ice extent barely changes, so, no need to mention it further.

Also, there are few visitors to the high Arctic in winter. Not only is it dark for many days then, the temperatures aren’t exactly suited for frolicking either. At MINUS 40 C, even the (male) polar bears that are not hibernating are beginning to shiver.  In my humble opinion, it’s a pity that the many famous climate modellers from PIK and other institutions don’t want to visit then. The local government may even provide free accommodation then (with a minimum stay of four-weeks) in tents or igloos, visitors’ choice. What could be more relaxing than a few weeks in an igloo when a blizzard rages on the outside? If need be, they can bring along a portable windmill to charge their i-thing or laptop.

As you can imagine, any daily measurement of that is only possible with sophisticated instrumentation and associated software from a long distance away. Satellite recognisance is what is deployed for that purpose.

There are the widely used daily satellite surveys of Arctic sea-ice published by the Nansen Environmental & Remote Sensing Center at Bergen, Norway. These satellite observations have changed repeatedly in terms of instrumentation and computer algorithms used. Therefore earlier measurement series (i.e. before 2000 or so) are not fully compatible with later ones.

Another widely used series of measurements is that of sea-ice in the northern hemisphere by theNational Snow & Ice Data Center at Boulder, CO.  In addition, the DMI also provides daily graphs on the Arctic sea-ice extent.

As the graphs produced by each institute have their own spatial resolution and/or definition of what constitutes “sea-ice” versus water, they give different absolute numbers; by and large though the graphs show similar trends.

There is one ice measurement that has yet to see widespread use, namely the annual sea-ice average as computed from all daily data (from one source). Such an analysis is available from theScience Matters website. It has just published that for the last ten years. That graph actually shows a slightly increasing trend of the Arctic ice extent in that period

In short, no matter what measurement you use to look at ice in the North, it shows no sign of going the way of the dodo bird, rather the opposite. The doomsayers’ claims about the ice disappearing are false—and you’ll still need your winter woollies!


Russian swans don't expect global warming!

Swooping in with the brisk Arctic winds, the Bewick’s swan traditionally heralds the beginning of winter.  And now the Russian bird has made its earliest-ever arrival in Britain – bearing an icy omen for a long, cold winter ahead.

Migrating 2,500 miles from the depths of Siberia, the first swan touched down on Sunday at the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust reserve at Slimbridge, Gloucestershire.

But while the magnificent bird was probably relieved to reach the warmer climes of the UK, its arrival – the earliest in 50 years – may well usher in a particularly harsh and unforgiving winter.

The swan – which has been named Record Breaker – has flown in a week earlier than the first arrivals in 2010, a year which saw swathes of Britain numbed by heavy snowfall. Before then, the earliest migration was in 2003 – another winter which saw a particularly frosty December and snow in January and February.

According to the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, the climate phenomenon known as ‘El Nino’ is responsible for pushing the colder than usual weather towards Britain. Migration patterns of the birds are also determined by such weather patterns, with wind direction a crucial factor.

This year, abnormally cold weather in the west of Russia and the east of Europe has seen temperatures plunge to between 5C and 10C below average.

Experts believe the cold is encouraging the birds to press on with westward migration – and so their early presence suggests an early, bitter winter is also on its way. Julia Newth, of the trust, said: ‘Apparently there’s a Russian saying, “The swan brings snow on its bill,” because they tend to move just ahead of the cold weather. ‘Of course, we can’t infer much from the arrival of a single swan but it’s certainly exciting this bird has arrived so early.

‘It’s only a year old and because it has made it all the way here on its own, we assume that it must have come to Slimbridge last year with its parents.’ The trust began studying Bewick’s swans at the nature reserve in 1963, recording each bird by its striking black and yellow beak pattern – unique to each swan – and giving it a name.

The birds normally arrive at Slimbridge in a steady stream between October and January, before departing in March as the climate in their native Siberia warms up.

They have migrated here every winter for at least 60 years and adult birds teach their cygnets the route. Before the arrival of this year’s first swan, the record holders for the earliest arrivals were a couple called Tomato and Ketchup who arrived on October 12 in 1980.

As well as Slimbridge, the birds can be spotted around the Severn estuary and in Lancashire. The Ouse and Nene Washes, Cambridgeshire, and Martin Mere, Lancashire, are also good places to see them.



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


No comments: