Climate Change - The Multi-Trillion Dollar Scam

Brian Cox has let himself down - badly  Until not too long ago I was reasonably pro - Brian Cox (BC) as someone popularising science to the wider public. The shine on that was taken off  by a Twitter notification relating to BC attacking John Macdonald about the latter's broadcast on LBC saying he found it hard to be friends with Tories implementing savage welfare cuts via Universal credit. However on reviewing BC's Twitter feed and what he said while I really don't agree with BC's view - it betrays a deep lack of understanding of what's actually going on with Universal Credit - I do accept he's entitled to opinion. ( Plus he's still posting lots of good scientific stuff!!) However when making pronouncements about science and scientists BC needs first to check the basis for his claims. In this BBC YouTube Clip : https://youtu.be/sG8gLt4GChg?t=3 BC obviously thinks he's entitled to treat a climate sceptic as an irritating Flat-Earther. By claiming an abso...

HELL, Eternity, James Joyce, Large numbers and Climate Change Policy A piece of writing that made a great impression on me many years ago in respect of the agonies of Hell (despite not believing in it) and how long one would have to suffer them for i.e. eternity is from James Joyce. See below Quote by James Joyce: “What must it be, then, to bear the manifold tor...” | Goodreads Essential to get across the level of suffering for sinners in Hell is the need to convey how long eternity is i.e infinity in a time sense, and I think James Joyce did that extremely well. However unless you are of a mathematical bent which alas I am you probably won't have tried to estimate how long in years it would take the little bird to achieve its mindbogglingly difficult task. Using the wonders of modern software Excel and the web and some admittedly gross assumptions about "the number of leaves in forests" scales on fish etc one can come up with an estimate as below: 10.1E+324 YEARS that...

Where to Start  As a starter I suggest the following Presentation by a founding member of GreenPeace - Dr Patrick Moore https://youtu.be/dCrkqLaYjnc?t=67 A measured and reflective presentation by an ex-consensus supporter Dr Judith Curry. The presentation following hers contains - but its done quite cleverly - some of the techniques (*) used by a  mainstream supporter Dr David Titley of Penn State University also a US Navy Rear admiral to try and discredit their opponents while sycophantically (*) praising a co-mainstream supporter i.e in this case Prof. Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann who also happens to be a Director at Penn State..  https://youtu.be/pVXHaSqpsVg?t=929 Something to consider about the current, far less the future, consequences of supporting the climate change driven taxes “green” energy subsidy policies – here you can see who it is thats really benefiting from climate change  - those cashing in on massive green energy subsidies !!- and those who are losi...

The mainstream view There is a currently, I’ve simplified extensively, what may be termed a "mainstream" position on climate change some key elements of which are that : 97% or more scientists believe the Earth has recently been and is continuing to heat up - Global Warming (GW) GW is not the result of natural variations in the earth’s climate but a result of human activity i.e Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) primarily due to burning of fossil fuels - oil, coal resulting in increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the main culprit being carbon dioxide CO2  given such a huge consensus in the scientific community the existence of AGW is essentially a hard-scientific fact or as put by some “the science (on AGW) is settled”  In addition a further key element of the mainstream AGW position is that: AGW is essentially bad for everyone therefore all nations MUST implement polices to try to reverse it by :  reducing energy consumption  developing alt...

Sunday 6 th feb Thought I would just check in and see if the blog was still working... If you're reading this it must be. Interesting topic this week was "climate-gate" prompted by a television programme on climate sceptics. TV programme was a bit of a disappointment but at least it made me address some of my prejudices to see if a can convince myself that I have an informed position rather than one based on an irrational dislike of the whole carbon trading, "holier than thou" brigade and equally a dislike of the businesses who see increasing levels of pollution simply as a tradeable commodity on a balance sheet. What was crystal clear from the review in   http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf is that the Climate Research Unit CRU has been infected by non-scientific thinking i.e key CRU staff appear to believe they are on a mission to save the earth, or their research grants depending on your level of cy...