The Great Climate Crunch Of 2010 « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE

We have the BBC’s Richard Black severely reprimanded by the illiberals at Climate Progress. The UK Government might get rid of its Climate Department and doesn’t want to keep foraging the solar power industry no more. The New Statesman, no less, forces itself into recognising the importance of Stephen McIntyre. There’s Scientific American stating that “the leaked “Climategate” e-mails painted researchers as censorious”, whilst Lord Turnbull is allowed to write in the pages of the Financial Times that “a climate overhaul is needed to win back public trust”

Of course Obama wants no solar panels for the White House, Revkin gives up on the climate fight. Keith Kloor finds out some people want to censor what they don’t perfectly like.  [see the post for links]

Is Windpower the Ethanol of Electricity? (Part II: Environmental Issues) — MasterResource

The gulf between hype and reality is perhaps greatest when it comes to environmental performance.

- Bishop Hill blog - Bob wants Benny to break law

This has actually been explained to Bob before. He knows that GWPF vets donors to ensure that they have no connections with energy companies. But more significantly, he also knows that a charity cannot just reveal the identities of its donors without their permission. This would be a breach of the Data Protection Act.

What we see here is an employee of LSE - a civil servant paid for with our taxes - knowingly calling for someone to break the law in the pages of a national newspaper.

Global Warming or Global Farce?

The NOAA (widely cited in the IPCC report) craftily uses graphs showing past PPM (parts per million) Co2 from 800,000 years ago- but why 800,000 years ? Why not 1,000,000 or 5,000,000 years ? Why 800,000 years ? In fact, 1,000,000 years or 800,000 years or 10,000,000 years is a BLIP in the life span of the earth- being approximately 4,540,000,000 (FOUR point FIVE BILLION) years old. Global warmers pick the 800k figure- which comes from NOAA-Dept. of Climatic Data because it "masks" the fact that if you pick dates "earlier" than 800k you would see that present Co2 levels are, on average, much LOWER historically, and for the fact that before 800k time period, the earth's Co2 levels were much higher than the present time. Obviously the IPCC is "cherry-picking" the dates from which to measure graphs in order to show that we are in some "extra-ordinary" Co2 level change- which MUST be attributable to man-made Co2.