Seen elsewhere



Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace



Thanks for that.

imho the final paragraph is most damaging to Hellary:

“So, yes – Donald Trump is someone I could very easily see winning the support of the people. And I don’t think he would do that with his flammable rhetoric and negotiation skills – which are both things he’s known for – but with common sense and respect for his fellow countrymen. But, most of all – I think his relationship with the opposite sex would bring him the most political points. I think he respects women and treats them as equals and I also think that would bring him a significant lead over anyone unlucky enough to be running against him,” Hillary Clinton concluded in her 2013 speech.

I'm not holding my breath waiting to see this on BBC, Guardian, CNN and the rest of the Lugenpresse. I expect them to ignore this.

Oct 27, 2016 at 11:20 PM | Registered CommenterPcar


I've started a greening thread and transferred my 10.45 post.

Oct 27, 2016 at 11:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man


Notice that the part of Golkany's paper I criticised had nothing to do with Zhu et al.

I've been looking at Zhu et al and have noticed a couple of points.

Firstly, my suggestion that the net effect of extra CO2 in arid/ semi-arid areas is negative. Look at the maps in Figure 1.

The most well defined arid area, Australia, shows pale green or yellow in all maps and definitely yellow in GLAS. Leaf area has reduced. I think Matt Ridley is mistaken.

Now look at Figure 1d, the trend probability distributions. The modes, the maximum probability values, are what I am looking at.

Both GIMMS and GLOBEMAP show no trend at all. AVG shows a trend of 0.002. That is an increase of 20cm^2/m^2/year, two postage stamps.
Since a typical crop will have a leaf area around 10,000, that is an annual increase of 0.2%,

Only GLAS shows significant change, a trend of 0.025. This is an increase of, half a sheet of A4 paper, and an annual increase of 2.5%.

With two out of four sensors showing no trend and only one showing a significant change, Zhu et al is very weak evidence of greening. Goldany and Ridley are making a propoganda mountain out of a greening molehill.

Oct 27, 2016 at 10:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Crikey - that's got to sting

Hilary Clinton in 2013 speech to Goldman Sachs:

“I Would Like To See People Like Donald Trump Run For Office; They’re Honest And Can’t Be Bought”

oh dear ... considering her fee and who she was addressing ... oops

Oct 27, 2016 at 10:43 PM | Registered Commentertomo

@stewgreen, Oct 27, 2016 at 8:33 PM

Re: WWF vetebrates reduction

As this was aired today to coincide with WWF release, save the thick useless birds on Gough Island will be repeated ad infinitum.

BBC From Our Own Correspondent - Linguistic confusion and mass killers

More here:
Gough Island - In 2004, a team including Cuthbert and Hilton used infrared cameras to film groups of mice attacking large albatross chicks over several nights. The chicks were up to 300 times heavier than the mice, the team noted, but, astonishingly, this did not discourage the rodents.

Most birds are very defensive of their nests and children and attack predators much larger than themselves.

imho these birds are stupid. If after 100 years of mice eating their eggs and chicks they have not learned to defend their territory & children then extinction is justified. It's evolution.

Oct 27, 2016 at 10:14 PM | Registered CommenterPcar

@Pcar if you are still talking about Greening you could either put the posts in a new thread or use the Matt Ridley debate thread if that was the main topic ..

I've got another titbit ..
BBC bias : I see newswatch actually keep a whole set of transripts in their PDF studies of BBC bias
Their archive is here
I'm sure they'd have a job for Alex Cull

upto Oct 11th they'd been studying Brexit bias Blog introduces the Brexit report also introduced in a in a david-keighley blogpost

Oct 27, 2016 at 10:02 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen


What about the Zhu et al paper?

Where is it wrong? What errors does it contain?

Critiquing papers based on Zhu's without critiquing their source is mendacious.

Oct 27, 2016 at 9:21 PM | Registered CommenterPcar

BTW that BBC WWF species decline piece actually doubly debunks it's own headline
"World wildlife 'falls by 58% in 40 years'"
cos buried in the text is
"This analysis looked at 3,700 different species of birds, fish, mammals, amphibians and reptiles - about 6% of the total number of vertebrate species in the world."
#1 it's only vertebrates
#2 They didn't include 94% of vertebrates species in the survey..just 6%

Oct 27, 2016 at 8:33 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

"Share and Dismay" is the motto of the Guardian Facebook/Twitter page

Oct 27, 2016 at 8:13 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Stewgreen, yes, DECC are a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Oct 27, 2016 at 7:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>