Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > The Moral and Intellectual Poverty of Climate Alarm

Feb 11, 2017 at 3:01 PM | Unregistered Commenter Mark Hodgson

The picture in this article of a future housing development must have helped sales. :)

desirable not

Feb 12, 2017 at 12:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterMick J

Desirable building lots, with electricity, gas and running water?
Flood plains have always done what it says on the tin.
Even Neolithic man had houses with stilts!

Feb 12, 2017 at 2:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Mick J

From that Telegraph article:

"Lord Krebs, head of the CCC's adaptation sub-committee, said: “We are building faster in the flood plain than anywhere else.
“If the planning system is going to allow people to carry on building in the flood plain, we have to be aware we are storing up problems for the future because flooding is going to get more frequent.
“So you are locked into cycle of building and having to defend, and then having to build bigger defences because the flood risk has increased.”"

Krebs neatly avoids the fact that (as Supertroll points out) the clue is in the name - FLOOD plain - and these areas have always flooded, and then tries to blame climate change - "the flood risk has increased."

I'd like to see the report into Cumbrian flooding widely reported to put the record straight - but it won't be.

Feb 13, 2017 at 8:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Many towns have properties 100+ years old that will flood when the adjacent river bursts its banks. Historically, these houses would have flooded, and occupants moved up stairs, until the flood waters receded. It was part of life, and many of the houses were rented, having been built by a local employer. Those houses remain vulnerable to flooding, but are now privately owned, with more expensive fixtures fittings and finishes, and mod cons like electricity etc.

Profit, need and greed, have caused far more houses to be built on flood plains in the last 30 years. "The powers that be" have all been lulled into a false sense of security, or simply turned a blind eye, to the risk of flooding to new developments, as it has allowed them to tick boxes, meet targets, and achieve their short term aims and goals. Flood defences and relief schemes may solve the problems of one area, but they tend to move larger amounts of water, even faster, downstream somewhere else.

Feb 13, 2017 at 12:23 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Feb 13, 2017 at 12:23 PM | golf charlie

Forgot to add that blaming flooding, particularly of newish houses on Global Warming, is so much easier than blaming a mix of greed, need, and incompetence.

Blaming Global Warming for everything "bad" that happens, has been Politically Correct for 20 years, and the most inept corrupt and guilty have transferred blame away from themselves.

Feb 13, 2017 at 3:19 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Even Neolithic man had houses with stilts!

Feb 12, 2017 at 2:07 PM | Supertroll

That may have been due to a simple measurement error, having built their houses too far from the ground.

Feb 13, 2017 at 3:27 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Measure twice, cut once. CAGW in a nutshell, it's not measured, either meteorologically, or politically.

Feb 13, 2017 at 5:01 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Probably covered hereabouts at the time but probably worth a mention again. From Paul Homewoods site.

"He told BBC Wales Natural Resources Wales (NRW) is failing to use all historical data to predict the risks.

A NRW spokesman said its flood maps were not underestimating the problem but it was considering using the data.

Prof Macklin, who heads the university's river dynamics and hydrology research group, questioned why NRW uses river gauges from the past 50 years only to predict flood risk.

He told Week In Week Out his researchers had found "evidence of much larger and more frequent floods" in the 18th century, which were between 20% and 30% larger.

Among areas most at risk, Prof Macklin said parts of the upper River Severn in Powys could see flood magnitudes between 20% and 40% greater than what had been experienced since 1980.

"We will need to rethink and re-map our flood plains to look at changing flood risks. If we don't, we're going to put more properties and livelihoods at risk," he said."


Feb 13, 2017 at 8:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterMick J

129 Climate Scandals logged at No Tricks Zone:

So many '-Gates' and the list is already running behind on the new ones. What a sorry display of junk science and shoddy, shameless opportunism is to be found there, as well as barbarity, hypocrisy, and much else besides in the general region of 'despicable'.

Feb 14, 2017 at 5:07 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

Interesting podcast with the unspoken about (but hinted at) elephant in the room.

Expert: What You Need To Know About The Oroville Dam Crisis

Feb 16, 2017 at 1:07 AM | Unregistered Commenterclipe

Interesting podcast about the unspoken (but hinted at) elephant in the room.

Feb 16, 2017 at 1:11 AM | Unregistered Commenterclipe

Interesting discussion.

Instant mass communication through social media seems to provide a vehicle for magnifying group think and behaviour. Individual emotive reactions, comments or throw away statements can energise others and instantly create a movement with organised activism.

Previously, such thoughts would remain personal, or shared by a few individuals, soon to fade away and become an irrelevant part of history.

I am thinking of Snowflake behaviour at our universities where immature students appear to be traumatised by things like statues, speeches and even paintings of former kings. Then we have the Luvvies of screen and stage horrified by Brexit, migrants and every aspect of Trump. We have seen thousand march in protest at just about everything.

Virtue signalling has entered our vocabulary. Saving the planet must surely rank alongside all these good causes. Doing one’s bit to reduce one’s carbon footprint no doubt exists as a topic in some circles. (Not in mine, thank goodness.) Those who voted for Trump, voted for Brexit or question climate change are regarded as the deplorables like some sort of sub-human creature that inhabits the sewers.

I hesitate to politicise this discussion but there does seem to be a connection with the liberal Left. This is the elitist left, not the working man who used to vote Labour. The deplorables, by the way, probably vote for UKIP and are totally uneducated.

There seems to be a politically active, fashionable, reasonably well to do class of like minded liberals who collectively set standards of groupthink. Those outside of the club are the deplorables who are ant-science, racist, misogynist and worst of all, they read the Daily Mail.

Feb 16, 2017 at 4:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

"The deplorables, by the way, probably vote for UKIP and are totally uneducated.

Those outside of the club are the deplorables who are ant-science, racist, misogynist and worst of all, they read the Daily Mail."

I take offense sir!

What leads you to write the above drivel?

An unusually high value of oneself?
No friends to talk with?
A Rolf Harris outlook on life?
On a spectrum of some sort?
Embarrassment at using ones own name?
Beaten at school?

Some people, when called out on an internet chat forum sometimes say they forgot to add the /sarc but I suspect not in this case.

Feb 17, 2017 at 11:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterSteve Richards

Love ya Steve, but read it again.

Feb 17, 2017 at 12:31 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Don’t ya just hate typos! I have spent an enjoyable few minutes picturing ant-science; tiny arthropods in white coats and glasses, holding teeny-weeny test-tubes over miniscule Bunsen burners. Probably not what the Cat had in mind…

Feb 17, 2017 at 12:58 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

My understanding is that ant science is not quite formulaic, rather, formic.

Feb 17, 2017 at 3:38 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Steve, I was quoting the trendy folks.

Feb 18, 2017 at 10:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

Sorry if my comments were misinterpreted. It was supposed to be a slightly tongue in cheek look at how social media has enabled the trendy left to launch lots of protests against things that they don't like, such as Trump supporters, Brexit and people who think global warming is exaggerated. Guardian reader comments (if you can stomach looking at them) are an education on these matters. Apparently, reading the Daily Mail (which I do, along with several other newspapers) is the greatest sin of all.

Feb 18, 2017 at 10:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

Busy Bee Schemers Exposed for Abuse of Science, Abuse of Reason, Abuse of Power (h/tip GWPF)

This is only partly an illustration of the low moral and intellectual levels of climate activists. They get a mention:

Almost ten years ago, when there were indications of stresses on honeybee populations (known as colony collapse disorder – CCD), different activists were jockeying for the right to claim this crisis for their campaigns. Climate activists wanted to show bees were suffering because of warmer weather; biodiversity campaigners saw land-use issues as the source for the crisis; anti-GMO stalwarts wanted us to know there was something unknown in the pollen; anti-EMF fear-mongers wanted to highlight the confusion bees suffered due to our love of mobile technology. Nobody mentioned the main causes (cold winters and Varroa mite) … seriously, who would donate to that???

But it does illustrate what seems to be all ll but universal turpitude in eco-campaigners in general:

This is the story of BeeGate – how activist scientists and seasoned campaigners used Age of Stupid tactics to trick policymakers, seduce the media and terrify the public – litigious liars and lamentable fear-mongers have caused incomprehensible damage to the public trust in dialogue, science and policy. Winning might be everything to these activists, but destroying food security and trust in policy and science hardly merits such hypocrisy!

These are awful people, these activists.

Feb 20, 2017 at 5:11 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

That generally temperate, civil man, Anthony Watts has been provoked by a new revelation of the rotten heart of Greenpeace:

Dr. Patrick Moore was right: @Greenpeace IS full of sh*t

It seems that a company abused by Greenpeace hooligans (desk-top faction, producing leaflets etc) took them to court to challenge the veracity of their claims. The Greenpeace defence? Merely that their claims were not factual, were merely hyperbole, and therefore they cannot be held legally responsible for them.


Mar 4, 2017 at 9:40 AM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

John Shade,

Fake news is so fashionable now, and Greenpeace should be given credit for getting away with it for such a long time. It is interesting that they should admit it now, as a defence against financial destruction, which is what they have been trying to achieve for others.

Faking Greenpeace liars.

Mar 4, 2017 at 10:10 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Paul Homewood highlights a penetrating article by Rupert Darwall (author of the outstanding book 'The Age of Global Warming') in The Telegraph. The article begins:

The Committee on Climate Change was established by the 2008 Climate Change Act to act as the climate policy equivalent of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee. Ministers and Parliament are required by law to rely on its advice. Arguably this role gives the committee more influence over Britain’s long-term prosperity than anyone else. A public body, funded by the taxpayer to the tune of £3.8m a year, discharging such a crucial role requires competence, honesty and objectivity.

The committee’s recent report on energy prices is deficient in all three, instead displaying similar ethical standards to Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth.

That's not just low ethical standards. That's no ethical standards at all. Read the post. Read the article for the evidence.

Mar 24, 2017 at 1:18 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

As 'The Left' transitioned from caring about the proletariat to caring about the environment and other faddish things, the CO2 Scare was too good to resist. They could attack the West, the wealthy, their own societies, increase poverty, and wreck the prospects of the poor to their hearts' content. And they did, and with arrogance and ignorance that beggar belief. A few examples have just been posted at The Blackboard for discussion:

My experience in commenting on mostly climate blogs since about 2008 is that the Left is remarkably stupid, dishonest, and intolerant. Additionally, the Left has an almost total lack of self-awareness of how superficial its knowledge of important issues is.

The point of this blog post is to hit the Left directly in order to provoke strong responses by those who disagree and to, hopefully, receive the best shot of those who disagree with me.

What follows are multiple examples of easily disproved positions or simply stupid behavior by people advocating for the Left. Notwithstanding, these simple and easily provable examples of gross stupidity or dishonesty, the Left arrogantly asserts that it is the repository of comparatively high levels of morality and competence. (See the silly New York Times advertising slogans dealing with “truth”) Additionally, the people of the Left making the stupid statements or acting incompetently suffer very little for their faults.

Worth a read:

Mar 31, 2017 at 8:37 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

By their actions ye shall know them.

Well, the actions brought to us by climate alarmism are both stupid and destructive, and hence morally dubious at best. There are only a few genuine journalists left in the UK, and Christopher Booker is one of them. Here he is in good form pointing out how disastrous all the green initiatives have been:

Stupid, ill-informed, arrogant, destructive people - that's what Greenies means.

Apr 8, 2017 at 10:06 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

Another sorry case of someone out of their intellectual depth, and of low moral calibre, going overboard with an attack on someone who is superior in each of these respects:

"Trip is now calling my house, dropping F bombs and launching insulting rants."

Go to the link at WUWT to see what triggered him. His ignorance was crucial. What can be done to help people like Trip? Has the scaremongering about CO2 distorted his personality, and closed his mind? How many like him are out there poisoning the discourse?

Apr 13, 2017 at 10:30 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade