Monday, April 5, 2010

Greepeace threat: "We know where you live"

This seems to be a real threat from the Greenpeace blog:
We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.
And we be many, but you be few.
 What is next? "We know where your children go to school"? It is such a small step.

The context:

Emerging battle-bruised from the disaster zone of Copenhagen, but ever-hopeful, a rider on horseback brought news of darkness and light: "The politicians have failed. Now it's up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It's not working. We need an army of climate outlaws."
The proper channels have failed. It's time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.
If you're one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let's talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like.
If you're one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:
We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.
And we be many, but you be few.
Now, the response is the author, Gene, is non-violent, and that these are not threats of violence. I have issues with that. I personally have never heard the words "We know where you live" an not believed them to be a threat. Nor it seems have the commenters to this post.

I expect, and indeed hope, that Greenpeace will lose a lot of donation because of this. Vote with your wallets, people, and stop supporting any organisation that refuses to condemn such language.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See

That is not an exaggeration.

As a born mathematician (we are born, not made) the argument is so obvious I am gobsmacked that I had not seen it before. It matters not a jot if fossil fuel deposits are actually increasing. Once we find out they are not, once we realise the finite resource is really finite, we have a really, really, short time before it ends.

The argument is that say we put some bacteria in a bottle at 11:00, and it is full at 12:00, when did the bottle ’seem’ crowded? at 11:56 it was ‘almost empty’. At 11:59 it was still half empty.

The same is true of any finite resource. At 7% increase in consumption (and I think China will make that a joke), we use the same amount every decade as has EVER been used before. Once we hit 50% of all the fossil fuels, we have 10 more years and then no more at all. None. That is just at a mere 7% increase a year.

This seriously call for a really hard look at some kind of resource that is not finite. What’s that word again? Oh yes, “renewable”.

Now that is an argument I can take on board. Forget CO2!

Sunday, December 20, 2009

USHCN adjustments seem to show the increase is entirely made of adjustments?
The best bit is the final graph:
If you look at it, it looks very much like the increase in temps we have been told is going on. But it’s not. It is the changes made to the raw data sets to produce the ‘adjusted’ data sets.
Conspiracy? Where’s my working? Well, this is their graph, not an independent one! It comes from itself.
So this tells us, in no uncertain terms, and completely unambiguously as far as I can see, that the increase of 0.6C is entirely fabricated. True I have not searched for a justification of that fabrication – it may be valid, but it should be reported as such!

Maldives and Tuvalu are no longer in any danger of flooding

UK Parliament memo:

in reference to:

"It is true that sea level rose in the order of 10-11 cm from 1850 to 1940 as a function of Solar variability and related changes in global temperature and glacial volume. From 1940 to 1970, it stopped rising, maybe even fell a little. In the last 10-15 years, we see no true signs of any rise or, especially, accelerating rise (as claimed by IPCC), only a variability around zero. This is illustrated in Fig 3.   With the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite mission in 1992, we now have new means of recording actual sea level changes. The record from 1992 to early 2000 (Fig 4) lacks any sign of a sea level rise; it records variability around zero plus a major ENSO even in year 1997."
- House of Lords - Economic Affairs - Written Evidence (view on Google Sidewiki)

Saturday, December 19, 2009

An Inconvenient Turn - Gordon Brown leads Al Gore into a closet at Copenhagem

So Gordon Brown, with his unerring sense of direction (not) leads Al Gore astray. Makes a chane from Al leading everyone else astray, I suppose!

But what is it with the jackets? Both jackets are buttoned when the enter, and both are unbuttoned when they leave. Make you wonder, but I'm not sure about what.....