Google analytics

Sunday 31 January 2010

Who said this?


In any area of new knowledge, historically the world has witnessed a number of people who remain sceptics and resistant to change in conventional ways and customs. Today, the power of sceptics has become extremely high because economic interests which resist change support them on a substantial scale. The Center for Public Integrity in Washington D.C. issued a report in March 2009, in which it reported that 770 companies had hired an estimated 2304 lobbyists to influence federal policy on climate change. That represented a 300 per cent increase in numbers in just five years, amounting to four climate lobbyists for every member of Congress. As it happens, this enormous economic power and manifestation of vested interest is not confined to Washington alone, and the lobbyists and the sceptics are flexing their muscles right from Australia to Britain to North America. The current situation is reminiscent of the brutal no-holds-barred campaign carried out by the tobacco lobby when scientific evidence on the link between smoking and cancer became overwhelming and was seen as a threat to their profits.

Of course it was our old friend Dr. R.K. Pachauri.

It would appear, that he  thinks that there is a concerted act, by vested interests such as "Big Oil", to scupper his religious crusade.

He might be advised to have a look around the Blogosphere and then he might appreciate that there is a groundswell of individual criticism of the bogus science pedaled by the IPCC.

Just look at the comments to articles in the MSM concerning AGW. It usually is, 95% against and a meager 5% for. And that includes the Guardian.


Is it legal?

Ed Miliband declares war on climate change sceptics.

Hope you've got a UN resolution on this one Ed?

Saturday 30 January 2010

The BBC's environmental analysist is wriggling now.

I give you Roger Harrabin.

In his article about the so called Amazongate scandal, where it was reported that the IPCC had declared that the Amazonian rain forests were in imminent danger of dying due to a lack of rainfall, due to Global warming, he now appears to distance himself from it.

After the usual bluster he concludes with this:

I have tried to contact the lead author of Working Group II to ask why his team cited WWF not the journals - but without success so far.

My guess is that NGO reports often offer an easy synthesis of already-published evidence.

In my experience, NGO papers are often both accessible and accurate - though clearly written from a point of view.

But it is obvious that the next IPCC report will have to be much more meticulous about flagging up the provenance of its sources.

There will need to be more clarification of what is known as "grey" literature (not peer-reviewed) and IPCC panel participation.

It all points to the need for much greater transparency, though that will throw up issues of its own for a body striving to offer a coherent view to policymakers of an issue dominated by risk, uncertainty and values, rather that unambiguous science.

Just this week, for instance, there were two pieces of published research in Science and Nature suggesting that the very worse effects of climate change may have been overestimated.

The researchers of both papers say they are still concerned about man-made climate change, though.

The unfinished science of climate change goes on.

Full article here At the BBC


mr happy

· If Laura, Kate and Sarah go out for lunch, they will call each other Laura, Kate and Sarah.
· If Mike, Dave and John go out, they will affectionately refer to each other as Fat Boy, Godzilla and Four-eyes.

· When the bill arrives, Mike, Dave and John will each throw in £20, even though it's only for £32.50. None of them will have anything smaller and none will actually admit they want change back.
· When the girls get their bill, out come the pocket calculators..

· A man will pay £2 for a £1 item he needs.
· A woman will pay £1 for a £2 item that she doesn't need but it's on sale.

· A man has six items in his bathroom: toothbrush and toothpaste, shaving cream, razor, a bar of soap, and a towel ..
· The average number of items in the typical woman's bathroom is 337. A man would not be able to identify more than 20 of these items.

· A woman has the last word in any argument.
· Anything a man says after that is the beginning of a new argument.

· A woman worries about the future until she gets a husband.
· A man never worries about the future until he gets a wife.

· A successful man is one who makes more money than his wife can spend.
· A successful woman is one who can find such a man.

· A woman marries a man expecting he will change, but he doesn't.
· A man marries a woman expecting that she won't change, but she does.

· A woman will dress up to go shopping, water the plants, empty the trash, answer the phone, read a book, and get the mail.
· A man will dress up for weddings and funerals.

· Men wake up as good-looking as they went to bed..
· Women somehow deteriorate during the night.

· Ah, children. A woman knows all about her children. She knows about dentist appointments and romances, best friends, favourite foods, secret fears and hopes and dreams.
· A man is vaguely aware of some short people living in the house.

A married man should forget his mistakes. There's no use in two people remembering the same thing!

So he hoped it wouldn't be noticed, I suppose?



It really takes the biscuit.

Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.

The IPCC’s report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.

It makes you wonder what else he hasn't been telling us.

And the article ends with this bit of bluster.

“And within three or four days, we were able to come up with a clear and a very honest and objective assessment of what had happened. So I think this presumption on your part or on the part of any others is totally wrong. We are certainly never — and I can say this categorically — ever going to do anything other than what is truthful and what upholds the veracity of science.”

Dr Pacharui has also been accused of using the error to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Bring it on.

Full article in The Times

Friday 29 January 2010

Women look away now.

In 1912, the world famous Austrian gynecologist, Dr. Hermann Otto Kloepneckler, M.D. Ph.D. published the following:

"The best engine in the world is the vagina. It can be started with one finger. It is self-lubricating. It takes any size piston. And it changes its own oil every four weeks. It is only a pity that the management system is so temperamental."

Health and safety trumps commonsense again.

police car


A while ago we had the story of the two PCSOs' who allowed a man to drown because they hadn't had the "Necessary" training.

Now we have another entirely preventable death caused by blind obedience to "The Rules".

A drunk who was killed after stumbling along a motorway was seen by two police officers who decided not to stop and help him because of safety rules, an inquest heard today.

Now, when they first saw him:

"was walking down the embankment"

Surely they could have pulled over onto the hard shoulder and then bundled him into their Police vehicle? No, and it gets worse.

Instead, they radioed in to the control room at 00.19 and asked for a motorway patrol to be deployed to the spot near Aintree.

But 'crucially' the officer reporting Mr Fairbrother provided inaccurate information - saying he was near junction one.

The car hire worker was actually at the opposite end of the 14-mile M57, close to junction seven.

Bloody hell. They didn't know which end of the motorway they were on. IMHO that would be an open and shut case for careless driving.

The drunk was most certainly doomed it would seem.

To make matters worse, the control room operator rated the call as Grade 3, 'any other police response', then downgraded it to Grade 4, passing it to the Highways Agency.

Well I could go on but you can see my point. "Commonsense is now being overruled by " The Rules".

I give up.

Read the whole story in the Mail.

Thursday 28 January 2010

I'm back. For the moment


Bloody Microsoft. I've just spent all afternoon trying to upgrade to Windows 7. Now I've done it before, but that was a clean install. This time I decided to just carry out an upgrade. Mistake.

I've had 6 blue screens of death, but eventually have managed to sort it. I think my next computer is going to be a Mac.


I maybe some time......

I'm taking the plunge and going to attempt to Upgrade to Windows 7. Bearing in mind that it took 3 days to sort out my Laptop when I did this before, you can see that I might be incommunicado for a while.

Mean while here below is the message you must always keep in mind.


Wednesday 27 January 2010

They really are leaving the good ship IPCC in droves, aren't they?



Now we have a leading Canadian climate scientist distancing himself from the IPCC.

A catastrophic heat wave appears to be closing in on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. How hot is it getting in the scientific kitchen where they've been cooking the books and spicing up the stew pots? So hot, apparently, that Andrew Weaver, probably Canada's leading climate scientist, is calling for replacement of IPCC leadership and institutional reform.

It must be serious:

For him to say, as he told Canwest News yesterday, that there has been some "dangerous crossing" of the line between climate advocacy and science at the IPCC is stunning in itself.

Not only is Mr. Weaver an IPCC insider. He has also, over the years, generated his own volume of climate advocacy that often seemed to have crossed that dangerous line between hype and science.

However he has only just changed his spots as when the CRU hack/leak occurred this was hi considered opinion.

When Climategate broke as a story last November, Mr. Weaver dismissed it as unimportant and appeared in the media with a cockamamie story about how his offices had also been broken into and that the fossil-fuel industry might be responsible for both Climategate and his office break-in.

The whole article is here in the National Post.

How unreliable do you have to be to get a job?

I couldn't believe the article that I read this morning. It would seem that it is non PC to advertise for a "reliable" worker.

When it comes to hiring staff, there are plenty of legal pitfalls employers need to watch out for these days.

So recruitment agency boss Nicole Mamo was especially careful to ensure her advert for hospital workers did not offend on grounds of race, age or sexual orientation.

However, she hadn't reckoned on discriminating against a wholly different section of the community - the completely useless.

Is your mind boggling yet? If not read on.

When she ran the ad past a job centre, she was told she couldn't ask for 'reliable' and 'hard-working' applicants because it could be offensive to unreliable people.

I feel sorry for the people who have such idiocy to put up with.

'Even the woman at the jobcentre agreed it was ridiculous but explained it was policy because they could get sued for being discriminatory against unreliable people.'

The advert is here.


And of course we have the usual weasel words:

Yesterday the Department for Work and Pensions said it could not comment on the conversation Mrs Mamo had with the member of staff at Thetford.

Read the whole article here in the Mail

Dr David Kelly files to be released.

I'm glad that they've seen some sense over this highly contentious issue. I think that his family and the wider public have a right to know how this man died.

Confidential medical evidence about the death of David Kelly, the expert in biological warfare, is to be released.

Lord Hutton, the retired law lord who chaired the inquiry into Dr Kelly’s death, has indicated that he will release to a group of doctors the medical records and results of the post-mortem examination that have to date remained unpublished. His 2004 report, commissioned by Tony Blair, concluded that Dr Kelly killed himself by cutting his wrist with a blunt gardening knife.

Commenter's at the time said that this was a very improbable cause of his death.

Last year they published a medical dossier saying that Lord Hutton’s conclusion that Dr Kelly killed himself by severing the ulnar artery in his left wrist after taking an overdose of prescription painkillers was untenable because the artery is small and hard to access; and severing it would not in any case cause death.

Read the entire article here.

Tuesday 26 January 2010

They're Human, so they Err.



Not while they're pissing my money down the drain.

More and more of the MSM (Except the BEEB naturally. Although Andrew Neil in the politics section has a cracking good pop at it.) are picking up on all the falsehoods in the IPCC report. But now come the weasel word excuses, trotted out as if it wasn't important.

However Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice chairman of the IPCC, told the BBC it was simply a "human mistake".

"Aren't mistakes human? Even the IPCC is a human institution and I do not know of any human institution that does not make mistakes, so of course it is a regrettable incident that we published that wrong description of the Himalayan glacier," he said.

Utter Tosh. They've had years to produce that report and Millions of our money thrown willy nilly at them in the process. Have we heard any of our Political class questioning AGW? I'm waiting with bated breath to see if one of the parties will break ranks.

From the Telegraph. Read the whole article here.

Hair driers are the new terrorist weapon.



Well not quite. But our idiot Police "Service" seem to think so.

Anna Williamson and Jamie Rickersr, from hit show Toonattik, were filming London's South Bank wearing combat gear and armed with children's walkie-talkies and hairdryers.

But the fake fatigues aroused the suspicions of patrolling police, who stopped them and took down their details under terrorism laws.

I mean really. Are they just plain stupid or more likely trying to up their stop and search score?

Would real terrorists be going around like this in full view?

"Jamie and I were kitted out in fake utility belts, we had the whole bulletproof flakjacket thing, we've got hairdryers in our belt, a kids' £1.99 walkie-talkie, hairbrushes and all that kind of stuff, and we were being followed by a camera crew and a boom mike and we get literally pulled over by four policemen and we were issued with a warning 'under the act of terrorism'."

And how laughable

'we are holding you under the Anti-Terrorism Act because you're running around in flak jackets and a utility belt', and I said 'and please put spangly blue hairdryer' and he was, like, 'all right'." (Emphasis mine).

What has our country come to? Aaaaagh

From the Metro

Monday 25 January 2010

Disaster in California


WARNING: This video has some nudity and swearing. Not to be viewed before the Watershed. (Whenever that may be)

VH1 Reality Show Bus Crashes In California Causing Major Slut Spill

H/T to the G.O.T

And they came for the Motorist...... (Again)


In today's Telegraph there is an article about how it would be good for us to have average speed cameras all over our Motorway Network.

The first weasel words are:

In a report published today, the Sustainable Development Commission has called on ministers to bring in the cameras to ensure that motorists stick to the 70 mph limit.

This alone would achieve a reduction of of 1.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, the Commission says.

I knew the word "Carbon" would be in there somewhere.


Their introduction both on motorways and in urban areas, the Commission says, would encourage smoother more environmentally-friendly driving.

Yup. "Environment's" in there as well.

And bordering on the dangerous is this gem:

Other recommendations in the Commission's report include a call for all cars to be fitted with speed limiters to cut carbon emissions.

Yes that really will help when you find that the only way of trouble is to put your foot down. Result. Death and carnage.

I really, really, despair.

UPDATE: Of the 80 comments, there is only one fuckwit that thinks this is a good thing.

That interview by the Defence Secretary.

Mmm. Maybe I'm wrong. I've listened to the below video several times. For the most part, Comrade Bob speaks fairly quickly. However at the end where he utters the fatal words, he slows down and becomes very deliberate. I just wonder if they are going to call an election early, and by keeping up the thought in everyone's mind of May 6th, they will hope to prevent the Conservative campaign machine from being used effectively. After all the Labour party has no money in their coffers for a protracted campaign.




Probably wrong, but worth mulling over.

Sunday 24 January 2010

WWF and the IPCC.


I've just been reading a blog by Donna Laframboise, where she has found out how much the IPCC has been influenced by The World Wide fund for nature. I quote her here:

Many of those associated with the WWF are lovely human beings. But that doesn't change the fact that the WWF is not a neutral, disinterested party. It has an agenda, an ax to grind, a definite point-of-view. Rather than being a scientific organization, it is a political one. In the UK, the media aptly calls the WWF a "pressure-group."


The IPCC, on the other hand describes itself as "a scientific body" that provides "the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change" by assessing "the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information." [bold added]
Many people would consider it improper for a science-focused organization to rely on a document created by an oil company, since the oil company can't be counted on to provide the whole story. Surely, therefore, it is equally improper for the IPCC to consider a statement to be true solely because an activist group says it is.

Seems a bit of dodgy dealing here. Could we have another glaciergate in the making?

Read her blog at

H/T to

Bishop Hill

My Plumbing is killing me. Oh what Now!



It would appear from a study that I'm in grave danger from the pipes in my house. I always knew the buggers were out to get me when I plumbed in the down stairs toilet.

Scientists have claimed people should remove old copper pipes from their homes or install special filters because the metal has been shown to build up in their bodies and cause serious health problems.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do about it though, apart from rip it all out and renew it in stainless steel, thus bankrupting me, due to the cost. I know I'll renew it in lead. That's much easier to work. Oh, I seem to remember that, that will kill me even faster. In that case I'll take my chances with copper.

Dr George Brewer, lead researcher, said the study in mice had wide ranging implications for health authorities.

That's all right then, cos I'm not a mouse.

At least they haven't published bogus statistics yet.



Norman Tebbit in his blog, comments on piracy.


Another example of a labour government when being confronted with something out of their comfort zone. Going into blind panic.

Here he lays it out:

On 11 November 2008, the frigate HMS Cumberland intercepted a suspected pirate dhow. Eight suspected pirates were arrested.

It all sounded a rather well conducted operation, but curiously the Government spinmasters were not out telling us all of this NuLab triumph. I tried to find out more from the private office of the relevant Defence Minister, but was passed from one telephone extension to another, finishing up at one stage with the security guard at the main door.

That was the start. Next comes the killer:

Eventually I found a friendly official who told me that there was a problem because the Home and Foreign Offices were in a state of (I think she used the word “concern”, but “panic” seemed closer to the truth) over the possibilty that if the suspect pirates were brought here for trial they might claim political asylum.

The whole article is here and vindicates me in my article I wrote last year.

Saturday 23 January 2010

Give the Government more of my data? You have to be joking.


It seems that there is a move afoot to force us to hand over more data to your local council. The excuse is "To prevent electoral fraud".

After July electoral registration officers will be able to ask all householders to hand over three “personal identifiers “ - their signatures, dates of birth and NI numbers - as part of a new "individual elector registration" (IER) scheme, along with names and addresses.

I for one, will have nothing to do with it. I'll just stop voting. I'm not having more of my personal data sold on to anyone who wants it.

The Ministry of Justice said admitted that it was aware there was a risk that fewer people might register to vote because of the onerous requirements to hand over more personal data.

Just another attempt at bringing in ID cards via the back door. The excuse being that "We've already got the data, so you might as well pay for an ID card as well."

Friday 22 January 2010

Privatisation of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary?

RFA Fort George CH

I have just retired from the RFA and consider this a very bad idea. The article in the Times a few days ago spells it out. However although it may save money it will weaken our defence.

This paragraph would on the surface make sense:

The MoD is also considering outsourcing the management of the RFA fleet. This could be given the go-ahead as part of a review into the RFA fleet or it could be introduced solely for the six new vessels. Several groups including James Fisher, the UK’s largest ship broker, Maersk, Serco and VT Group are understood to be interested in managing such a contract.

And this is what these companies will try to bamboozle the government to allow:

More money could be saved if the RFA followed standard commercial practice and hired foreign crew members.

Yes they could do that, but it would be a disaster in many ways.

1) Security: RFA seafarers are vetted to a minimum of "Secret" clearance. (Yours truly is vetted to "Atomic Secret"). How would they be able to vet foreign Nationals. Which ally would work with this level of uncertainty?

2) Training: The average commercial company trains their personnel in basic firefighting. Probably 1/2 hour per week.

RFA training is in advanced firefighting, damage control, Nuclear warfare, chemical warfare, biological warfare, operation of the weapon systems (Yes the ships are armed), Secure communications, Replenishment at sea (Very close manoeuvring of two or more vessels, which would make the average commercial Captain have a heart attack), and many more drills. These are ongoing and extremely thorough. Each ship also has to undergo a gruelling evaluation period on a regular basis which exercises all these parameters. Can you imagine a commercial outfit, costing and training for that?

3) Turnover of personnel: RFA personnel are intensely loyal. They are not just in it for the job. For most it is a vocation.

I could go on, but I'll let readers decide for themselves if privatisation is a good thing or not.

We really are going to Hell in a Handcart under this Government.

Source for the Times article is here.

Microsoft. Can they never get it right first time?


Microsoft has rushed out a software update for Internet Explorer after the browser was found to contain a security flaw.

Why is it that they always push their programmes out before they're checked properly?


The "out of band" security update – so called because it has not been released as part of a wider package of software updates – fixes the security flaw that is thought to be related to recent hack attacks against Google and other organisations.

Why can't they be like these outfits who show responsibility over short term gain?

Rival browser makers, including Firefox and Opera, are said to be benefiting from the fallout, with downloads of Firefox spiking in Germany immediately after the government issued its advice, and more than twice as many people as usual downloaded Opera over the weekend.

If you are silly enough to be using Internet Explorer the security patch can be downloaded from HERE.

Killer Toasters? What next.




Following on from my last post,it's not only the law that's out to get you. In the Mail (Sorry), theres an article explaining how your Kitchen is out to kill you. Be very afraid.

Several hundred people a year worldwide are killed by their toasters, compared to eight or nine by sharks.

Toasters are potentially deadly because they contain exposed live electric elements and the way they work invites one of the commonest causes of serious home accidents - electric shocks caused when using a metal knife to prize out a slice of stuck toast.


And it gets worse. Apparently my sink cupboard contents are going to kill the world. Bye the way, has anyone looked in Saddams sink cupboard for those pesky WMDs.


Under the typical kitchen sink can be found enough potentially hazardous chemicals to start a minor WMD programme.

Detergents, sanitisers, polishes, caustic sodas and other alkalis, drain unblocking acids and degreasers - all present potentially fatal hazards, particularly to toddlers.

Put a childproof catch on the door, throw away old bottles of chemicals and never use the same space to store food.


Oh well, time to get the chemical suit on an dig out my S10 respirator.

Full story here.

Break the law at your peril

It would seem from this article in the Mail today, that you really can be locked up for anything.

Labour has created 4,300 new crimes since taking power - including a ban on swimming in the wreck of the Titanic and on the sale of game birds shot on a Sunday.

Gordon Brown has been the worst offender in this unprecedented 'legislative splurge', with his Government creating new offences at the rate of 33 a month.

I especially liked this:

Causing a nuclear explosion - Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Act.

More loony ones below:


The biggest problem I find with this wankfest of new law making, is that most of us don't know about them until some Jobsworth comes knocking on our door to inform us that the nuclear weapon we are about to explode, will incur a fixed penalty notice. I mean how  many of us know that it is illegal to "Disturb a pack of eggs when directed not to by an authorised Officer"?

How also, do we know who the authorised officer is? Does he have an ID card with Egg pack protection officer stamped across it?

Thursday 21 January 2010

Another analysis of the Climate gate scandal.

It will take you a while to read. Fascinating stuff though.

by John P. Costella | January 18, 2010



Why Climategate is so distressing to scientists

by John P. Costella | December 10, 2009

The most difficult thing for a scientist in the era of Climategate is trying to explain to family and friends why it is so distressing to scientists. Most people don’t know how science really works: there are no popular television shows, movies, or books that really depict the everyday lives of real scientists; it just isn’t exciting enough. I’m not talking here about the major discoveries of science—which are well-described in documentaries, popular science series, and magazines—but rather how the process of science (often called the “scientific method”) actually works.

The best analogy that I have been able to come up with, in recent weeks, is the criminal justice system—which is (rightly or wrongly) abundantly depicted in the popular media. Everyone knows what happens if police obtain evidence by illegal means: the evidence is ruled inadmissible; and, if a case rests on that tainted evidence, it is thrown out of court. The justice system is not saying that the accused is necessarily innocent; rather, that determining the truth is impossible if evidence is not protected from tampering or fabrication.

The same is true in science: scientists assume that the rules of the scientific method have been followed, at least in any discipline that publishes its results for public consumption. It is that trust in the process that allows me, for example, to believe that the human genome has been mapped—despite my knowing nothing about that field of science at all. That same trust has allowed scientists at large to similarly believe in the results of climate science.

Until now.

So what are the “rules” of the scientific method? Actually, they are not all that different from those of the justice system. Just as it is a fundamental right of every affected party to be heard and fairly considered by the court, it is of crucial importance to science that all points of view be given a chance to be heard, and fairly debated. But, of course, it would be impossible to allow an “open slather” type of arrangement, like discussion forums on the Internet; so how do we admit all points of view, without descending into anarchy?

This question touches on something of a dark secret within science one which most scientists, through the need for self-preservation, are scared to admit: most disciplines of science are, to a greater or lesser extent, controlled by fashions, biases, and dogma. Why is this so? Because the mechanism by which scientific debate has been “regulated” to avoid anarchy—at least since the second half of the twentieth century—has been the “peer review” process. The career of any professional scientist lives or dies on their success in achieving publication of their papers in “peer-reviewed” journals. So what, exactly, does “peer-reviewed” mean? Simply that other professional scientists in that discipline must agree that the paper is worthy of publication. And what is the criterion that determines who these “professional scientists” should be? Their success in achieving publication of their papers in peer-reviewed journals! Catch-22.

It may seem, on the surface, that this circular process is fundamentally flawed; but, borrowing the words of Winston Churchill, it is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried. Science is not, of course, alone in this respect; for example, in the justice system, judges are generally selected from the ranks of lawyers. So what is it that allows this form of system work, despite its evident circularity?

The justice system again provides a clue: judges are not the ones who ultimately decide what occurs in a courtroom: they simply implement the laws passed or imposed by the government—and politicians are not, in general, selected solely from the ranks of the legal profession. This is the ultimate “reality check” that prevents the legal system from spiraling into navel-gazing irrelevance.

Equivalent “escape valves” for science are not as explicitly obvious, but they exist nonetheless.

Firstly, a scientific discipline can maintain a “closed shop” mentality for a while, but eventually the institutions and funding agencies that provide the lifeblood of their work— the money that pays their wages and funds their research—will begin to question the relevance and usefulness of the discipline, particularly in relation to other disciplines that are competing for the same funds. This will generally be seen by the affected scientists as “political interference”, but it is a reflection of their descent into arrogance and delusions of self-importance for them to believe that only they themselves are worthy of judging their own merits.

Secondly, scientists who are capable and worthy, but unfairly “locked out” of a given discipline, will generally migrate to other disciplines in which the scientific process is working as it should. Dysfunctional disciplines will, in time, atrophy, in favor of those that are healthy and dynamic.

The Climategate emails show that these self-regulating mechanisms simply failed to work in the case of climate science—perhaps because “climate science” is itself an aggregation of many different and disparate scientific disciplines. Those component disciplines are extremely challenging. For example, it would be wonderful if NASA were able to invent a time machine, and go back over the past hundred thousand years and set up temperature and carbon dioxide measurement probes across the breadth of the globe. Unfortunately, we don’t have this. Instead, we need to infer these measurements, by counting tree rings, or digging up tubes of ice. The science of each of these disciplines is well-defined and rigorous, and there are many good scientists working in these fields. But the real difficulty is the “stitching together” of all of these results, in a way that allows answers to the fundamental questions: How much effect has mankind had on the temperature of the planet? And how much difference would it make if we did things differently?

It is at this “stitching together” layer of science—one could call it a “meta-discipline”— that the principles of the scientific method have broken down. Reading through the Climate-gate emails, one can see members of that community usually those with slightly different experience and wisdom than the power-brokers questioning (as they should) this “stitching together” process, particularly with regard to the extremely subtle mathematical methods that need to be used to try to extract answers. Now, these mathematical and statistical methods are completely within my own domain of expertise; and I can testify that the criticisms are sensible, carefully thought-out, and completely valid; these are good scientists, asking the right questions.

So what reception do they get? Instead of embracing this diversity of knowledge— thanking them for their experience (no one knows everything about everything) and using that knowledge to improve their own calculations—these power-brokers of climate science instead ignore, fob off, ridicule, threaten, and ultimately black-ball those who dare to question the methods that they—the power-brokers, the leaders—have used. And do not be confused: I am here talking about those scientists within their own camps, not the “skeptics” which they dismiss out of hand.

This is not “climate science”, it is climate ideology; it is the Church of Climatology.

It is this betrayal of the principles of science—in what is arguably the most important public application of science in our lifetime—that most distresses scientists.

Read the full essay here.


Oh well it had to be done.

H/T to loads of people


Wednesday 20 January 2010

Things you notice when you're over sixty


Alligators and climate change.

It seems that the IPCC are trying every trick in the book to have us believe we are all doomed. This is just the latest scare story.

Millions of New Yorkers are in danger because Global Warming is going to lead to an increase in the numbers and mobility of the city's sewer alligator population, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has announced in its latest assessment report.
Better tell my wife this as she was planning another shopping trip to the big apple. Mmm. Then again maybe I won't.

And of course we must think of the cheeldren:

The imminent danger to so many New York children is revealed in the latest IPCC report which looks at the increasing dangers of Global Warming.
And of course our unpaid hero of the IPCC is involved:

According to Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, the growing threat to the millions of New Yorkers who live around exit and entry points to New York sewers is another example of the unexpected dangers which increasing Global Warming poses for the planet.

This must be a spoof. Make your own mind up. It's the last line that has me thinking. Then again they could be just barking mad.

Munir Hussain freed from prison

Although I do think that he went just a touch to far, I think this is the right decision:

Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, and two other judges in London, showed ''mercy'' to Hussain, 53, of High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire.

They overturned his 30-month jail sentence, replacing it with a two-year term, but ordered that it should be suspended.

I suspect that if I'd been in his position with the adrenaline flowing I might have done something similar.


Got it wrong again have we?

Further to the furore that the government want cigarettes to be sold from under the counter, comes this :ciggie

The British Psychological Society’s blog has this astonishing report:

Researchers have found that death-related health warnings on cigarette packs are likely to encourage some people to smoke.

Well I never.


Tuesday 19 January 2010

Jonah curses Cadbury's

Well that's the workers at Cadbury's shafted for sure. Gordon "Jonah" Brown has said that he will ensure that jobs are not lost.

Mr Brown this morning said that his Government would act to ensure Cadbury's 6,000 UK employees were not sacrificed as Kraft seeks a return on its investment.

He said: "We are determined that the levels of investment that take place in Cadbury in the United Kingdom are maintained and we are determined that, at a time when people are worried about their jobs, that jobs in Cadbury can be secure."

Why doesn't he shut the f**k up. Every time he visits, or pronounces on any company or enterprise it goes tits up within weeks. This is the end of chocolate as we know it. If you've never eaten yank chocolate, I can assure you, it is utter shite.

Whole article here.

Update: I told you so.

Job losses are an "inevitability" at Cadbury after its takeover by US giant Kraft Foods, the UK firm's chairman has confirmed to the BBC.

The Labour Manifesto?

From an article about the censorship of "Only fools and horses" in the Telegraph.

* Senior civil servants have attacked Gordon Brown for his "barmy ideas". Thanks to a source close to No 10, I'm able to disclose a list of these ideas, all of which were due to appear in Labour's manifesto.

• Safeguard pupils from paedophiles by allowing nobody over the age of 12 to be employed in a school.

• Combat global warming by stockpiling cold weather.

• Reduce carbon emissions by introducing a tax on breathing out. Guarantee that by 2025 a minimum 50 per cent of Britons will live solely via breathing in.

• Bring down crime statistics by making all crime legal.

* To me, however, Gordon Brown's barmiest idea was the one encapsulated in a headline on the Sky News website two months ago, during the deluge in the north of England. "PM Pledges to Help Flood Devastated Cumbria," it read. As if the sodden county hadn't suffered enough, here was Mr Brown, vowing to flood it even further.

Of course, it may just be that Sky News forgot to use an all-important hyphen.

Full article here.

Monday 18 January 2010

This blogger needs comforting

Please go over to Juliette's place and leave a comment. She is about to slash her wrists, I think

I've got it all backwards.

A palindrome reads the same backwards as forward. This video reads the exact opposite backwards as forward. Not only does it read the opposite, the meaning is the exact opposite.

This is less that 2 minutes long and it is brilliant. Make sure you read it as well as listen, forward and backward.
This is a video that was submitted in a contest by a 20-year old. The contest was titles "U @ 50" by AARP. The video won second place. When they showed it, everyone in the room was awe-struck and broke into spontaneous applause. So simple and yet so brilliant. Take a minute to watch this.


Sunday 17 January 2010

Why I like being a Libertarian.


All seem to agree that everyone has to be on the same "On message"


All seem to agree that everyone has to be on the same "On message"


Not sure what the message is.


Out of Europe.


Have a bloody good arguement over multiple topics. (Cue. DK and Boutang & dimetriou).

You tell me which is the best party for democracy. Not a spin doctor or whip in sight.

Yes I know this is a simple reasoning. Then again, I'm a simple person. My vote is for the libertarian.

Bribo laptop offer is now a charity appeal for the Haitian disaster

I link here to the spoof Ebay advert which is now advertising a good cause. Donate if you wish.

Saturday 16 January 2010

Terror threat upgraded worldwide

Ranting Rab is keeping us appraised of the situation.

Some are less worried than others:

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual, and the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.

Go on over and read it. Be afraid if you can. I split my side with larfing.

Drink and be damned

How much are all these propaganda broadcats costing us. Oh the evils of drink this time.

Think of the Cheeldren.

H/T to Subrosa

Friday 15 January 2010

Storm in a Teacup?

I must admit I have never heard of Tim Minchin, but have to agree that his poetry is amusing.

H/T to Stu at Sharpes Opinion

Scientists only have themselves to blame for their bad reputation


Remember these "Predictions".


Predictions that there would be 136,000 deaths. (How did they arrive at that figure anyway?)

Could infect 10 million Britons.

ANS: When the prediction proved wildly wrong, the government excused itself with a classic Rumsfeld-ism: "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

£5 Billion was the cost of that load of twaddle.


WHO predicted that one in four Britons could die.

ANS: 800 died Worldwide.

Avian Flue:

Sir Liam Donaldson predicted 50,000 to 750,000 deaths.

When one dead swan slumped on a beach in Scotland, BBC reporters went crazy as inspectors stumbled through the seaweed, clad in anti-nuclear armour. Within a year the horror had passed.

ANS: The global mortality was put at 262, with not one death in Britain.

Swine flue:

Sir Liam Donaldson, (Yes, him again), bandied about any figure that came into his head, settling on "65,000 could die", peaking at 350 corpses a day.

This week the authorities admitted that, far from a winter upturn in swine flu, there has been a slump. From 100,000 a week at the peak, there were just 12,000 last week. After the coldest winter for decades, when deaths might be expected to rise, the rate is below that of seasonal flu.

ANS: In the UK, 360 people have died under its influence, most with prior "non-flu" conditions. Swine flu is not nice , but bears no relation to the government hysteria.

Climate change/Global warming:

"The science is settled"

We'll wait and see on that one. What with all that white global warming crap I had to shovel off my drive in the last few weeks.

Away with the Fairies.


Parents are not telling fairy stories to their Children as they are too frightening and are not Politically correct. Jeesus Christ.

A new survey suggests that they are! The poll, by TheBabyWebsite suggests that a quarter of parents have ditched classics such as Snow White and Hansel and Gretl in favour of more modern bedtime tales. Apparently they don't like the messages (leaving poor Hansel and his sister alone in the forest is a no no, as is sending Little Red Riding Hood on a journey alone through the woods - only to find out that granny has been eaten by a wolf!)

So lets Coccoon them in cotton wool, the poor lambs

A fifth of parents said the tales weren't politically correct (Cinders does too much cleaning up, I guess, while Jack climbs up a beanstalk and steals from the giant), and 17 percent worried about them giving their children nightmares (Snow White's wicked witch is said to be too scary). Sixty five percent of parents said that they preferred to read their children more "light-hearted" stories at bedtime.

Good education if they want to become H & S inspectors or the like.

I despair of these "Modern" parents and their new labour way of thinking. If its scary, ban it.

The rest of the article is over here at the Times

Climate change is natural

Some of the latest vids detailing why climate change is not our fault, or a problem.

Worth watching.


Thursday 14 January 2010

Trolling for beginners

Amazing what you find on the web.

This from the Beeb:

Guerrilla Warfare for the Online Generation – Trolling For Beginners

Before you begin, you'll need to make sure you're properly equipped. As you're reading this Entry, you'll have access to either an internet-enabled PC, or some sort of internet-capable mobile phone. Excellent! You are now fully equipped to start your campaign of terror. So let's get this show on the road.

The first thing you need to do is identify your target. Don't worry, this won't involve any thought, intelligence or consideration on your part – just a dictionary and a search engine. Open your dictionary and pick a word at random. Let's say it's 'kittens'. Now head over to your search engine and put in your topic, along with the word 'forum'. This should (hopefully) take you to a forum populated with people who are completely besotted with your word1.

Great. Now set up a username. Make sure this is as offensive as possible, as you'll never be using it again. Now click onto the most innocent looking thread you can find and post one line of absolute drivel railing against whatever topic the posters on your target board are for. Don't worry about spelling, grammar or lucidity – and make sure you use at least five exclamation marks to get your point across. You should end up with something that looks like this:

I Like Kittens Introduction Thread
Kittenz-R-well-pants says:
I luv dogs!!!1! In fact the only fing that kittenz are good 4 is ffeeding 2 my rottwiler!!!!

Congratulations, you've taken your first steps into a much more irritating world. Now log out and abandon your diabolical alias – that way they'll never find you. Hit and run, that's the beginner's motto. Dive headlong into someone else's conversation, derail it completely and melt back into the shadows before you can be hit with a devastating riposte. Rinse and repeat with a number of forums until you feel comfortable enough to move onto moderate trolling.

More article of trivia can be found here.

What a riot.

I haven't a lot of time for the modern day police "service", but I had to chuckle at this article.

Police officers filmed using riot shields to sledge down a snowy hill while on duty have been reprimanded.
We should all be able to have a little fun occasionally.

Linked to the article here. Includes film footage.

Pat Condell has a fireside chat about Anjem Choudary

Way to go Pat!

He certainly says what a lot of us are thinking.

Shamelessly knicked from Tory Totty.

Labour's Pledge card for the Election.

Sounds about right to me.

H/T to the Red Rag

And they came for the drinkers

Here we go again.

Minimum prices for alcoholic drinks would be set by the Government under radical plans being drawn up to cut Britain’s growing binge-drinking problem.

They're even admitting to intend to use the same tactics as they did on smokers:

He compared the emerging alcohol policy to that involving tobacco – which led to a sharp increase in cigarette prices and a ban on smoking in public places.
I will not vote for any party that contemplates more of this bullying. And yes, that includes your party Dave.


Wednesday 13 January 2010

Old sayings ring true

Now you would think that these quotes below would be a description of Life under labour's Britain. Just guess who said them:

I shall give a propagandist reason for starting this war. Never mind whether it is plausible or not. The victor will not be asked afterward whether he told the truth or not. In starting and waging war; it is not right that matters but victory.

No. Not Blair.

The great massses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.
Alistair Campbell? Nope
What good fortune for Governments that the people do not think
MP's. Wrong again.
Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong.
Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for it's own destruction.
Make your own mind up on that one.

A bit earlier than you would think. Adolf Hitler got here first.

Free Laptops for Labour supporters

Get your free laptop here

Do read the Question and answers section before you put your bid in.

That Dodgy Dossier.

In the Times today, the Author of the original article lifted from the internet, by an official of the Government at the times, explains why he is haunted by it.

The Author,
What actually happened was this: the British Government took my material, then added pages that argued for military action against Iraq and changed key words to suggest that Iraq had supported al-Qaeda. This formed part of what became known as the “Dodgy Dossier”, published in February 2003.

H e further goes on to say:

I cringe now at how I reacted. I was suddenly famous but I failed to used that fame to highlight the British Government’s spin.. .......
I'm not sure why he feels he has to apologise for someone else lifting his data and then twisting it for their own ends.

Link Below

I am haunted by the Dodgy Dossier

Tuesday 12 January 2010

S44 Stop and search found to be illegal.

The European court has just ruled that a couple's rights to privacy and family life, have been violated. They have been awarded £30,400 in compensation.

Mmm. I knew it would end in tears.


H/T to OH

School dinners

They really can't stop meddling, can They?

A study of school lunchboxes has been carried out. Bloody hell, that's more of my tax down the drain.

Half of UK children eat a packed lunch - equating to 5.5bn lunches a year.
Well the study has come up with the fact that only 1% of those lunchboxes meet the "Nutrional Standard".

These standards say school lunches must contain protein-rich foods such as chicken and low fat starchy foods like pasta, as well as vegetables, fruit and dairy products.

Why does the state feel that it has to meddle in every minutae of our live? Yes by all means give parents nutrional guidance. Apart from that they should bloody well keep out of the way.
After all, If you give kids food they don't like they either won't eat or they'll swap it with someone elses.

Monday 11 January 2010

You've been Cromwelled

If you want your MP to know how you feel about his troughing then use this site.

You've been Cromwelled

Set aside?

A very good spoof letter to Veggie Benn reproduced in full from Calling England

The plight of a Yorkshire Dairy Farmer, one amongst many:
"All across the country, diary farmers are facing the loss of their livelihood. In 1985, there were 28,000 diary farmers in England and Wales. By last November, when Mr Rickatson became one of the nine dairy farmers that throw in the towel each week, there were 11,551 left. As recently as two years ago Britain was self-sufficient in milk. Now we import 1.5 million litres a day. For the farmers who struggle on, their working lives – and that of their herds – have become a grind: such is their despair that one a week commits suicide."
Bringing us closer to a food crisis: 13years of Labour and EU contempt for British agriculture
Since Labour has been in power, Britain's self-sufficiency in food has tumbled from 75 per cent to 60 per cent and is falling at the rate of 1 per cent per year. In that time, too, the UK has produced 35 per cent less beef, 25 per cent less lamb and 35 per cent less pork.
Benn calls for 'more sustainable food' and for shoppers to buy locally. This vegetarian Minister is more concerned with green environmentalism than truly helping British farmers and British shoppers. Green is the new global religion.

Below is a letter for Hilary Benn which illustrates the problems of bureaucracy and idiocy facing British farmers:

Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP
Secretary of State
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London SW1P 3JR

16 July 2009

Dear Secretary of State,

My friend, who is in farming at the moment, recently received a cheque for £3,000 from the Rural Payments Agency for not rearing pigs. I would now like to join the "not rearing pigs" business.

In your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to rear pigs on, and which is the best breed of pigs not to rear? I want to be sure I approach this endeavour in keeping with all government policies, as dictated by the EU under the Common Agricultural Policy.

I would prefer not to rear bacon pigs, but if this is not the type you want not rearing, I will just as gladly not rear porkers. Are there any advantages in not rearing rare breeds such as Saddlebacks or Gloucester Old Spots, or are there too many people already not rearing these?

As I see it, the hardest part of this programme will be keeping an accurate record of how many pigs I haven't reared. Are there any Government or Local Authority courses on this?

My friend is very satisfied with this business. He has been rearing pigs for forty years or so, and the best he ever made on them was £1,422 in 1968. That is - until this year, when he received a cheque for not rearing any.

If I get £3,000 for not rearing 50 pigs, will I get £6,000 for not rearing 100? I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to about 4,000 pigs not raised, which will mean about £240,000 for the first year. As I become more expert in not rearing pigs, I plan to be more ambitious, perhaps increasing to, say, 40,000 pigs not reared in my second year, for which I should expect about £2.4 million from your department. Incidentally, I wonder if I would be eligible to receive tradable carbon credits for all these pigs not producing harmful and polluting methane gases?

Another point: These pigs that I plan not to rear will not eat 2,000 tonnes of cereals. I understand that you also pay farmers for not growing crops. Will I qualify for payments for not growing cereals to not feed the pigs I don't rear?

I am also considering the "not milking cows" business, so please send any information you have on that too. Please could you also include the current Defra advice on set aside fields? Can this be done on an e-commerce basis with virtual fields (of which I seem to have several thousand hectares)?

In view of the above you will realise that I will be totally unemployed, and will therefore qualify for unemployment benefits. I shall of course be voting for your party at the next general election.

Yours faithfully,

Sexy Robots. What next?

Now I never ever read the Sun. However today I snuck over out of curiosity about their labour Party poll. Then I found an article that made me spit coffee all over my keyboard.

THE world's first "sexbot" — a life-sized rubber doll named Roxxxy who can chat about football — has been unveiled.

The dark-haired, lingerie-clad robot has inbuilt artificial intelligence — meaning she can talk footie and cars with her owner.

The Puritans are on the march again.

There is a very balanced article in Cif, by Nick Cohen. Now that the new Puritans have won the battle against the smokers, now they are coming for the drinkers.

First they came for smokers. Now the health lobby is after drinkers. But prohibition has its own dangers
Worth a read

Climate "Change" again! A cold wind blows.

It seems there is some shift in the media over climate change. Both the Telegraph and the Mail are running a similar story about Global cooling rather than Global warming.

From the Telegraph:

The world could be in for a spell of cooler temperatures, rather than hotter conditions, as a result of cyclical changes in ocean currents for the next 20 or 30 years, it is predicted.

Research by Professor Mojib Latif, one of the world's leading climate modellers, questions the widely held view that global temperatures will rise rapidly over the coming years.

And from the Mail:

Britain's big freeze is the start of a worldwide trend towards colder weather that seriously challenges global warming theories, eminent scientists claimed yesterday.

The world has entered a 'cold mode' which is likely to bring a global dip in temperatures which will last for 20 to 30 years, they say.