A little light relief

Seeing we're just getting into the festive season, I give you this:

Miracle from 34th Street - Computer Controlled Christmas Lights from Richard Holdman on Vimeo.

And no Bah Humbug from the back please.

The best is yet to come.

More Climategate

A really excellent article explaining why Climate change is so important to the political elite.

The article explains the science and politics involved. It's a long read with a few vids thrown in.

If you have the time read it here.

The Climategate "hide and seek quiz"

Couldn't resist posting this:

I don't believe it, Sandwell "Elf" and safety at it again

You couldn't make it up.

sandwell council are at it again:

A pair of friendly gnomes have been banned from a block of Black Country flats under strict new health and safety rules.

It's unbelievable that this council can be so stupid.

Linda Langford has also been told to remove her ‘welcome’ plaque on the grounds it is a fire risk. Sandwell Council insists it is ‘common sense’ to ban the gnomes and a senior councillor defended the move as potentially ‘life-saving’.

The pottery gnomes – one hitting an anvil and the other reading a book – have been outside Miss Langford’s flat in Sedgley Road West, Tipton, since she moved in nine years ago.

and the usual weasel words,

But Sandwell’s housing boss Councillor Mahboob Hussain said: “I have received complaints about items blocking communal areas and I have visited flats to look at the problem.

“I’ve seen people blocking hallways in a manner that is just not acceptable. I’ve seen chests of drawers on landings and plants on staircases. This is about fire regulations. We have to use common sense. If it helps to save one life, it’s worth it.”

The next one will be "think of the cheeeldren". That hasn't been used yet.

UPDATE: The council have apologised to Mrs Langford.

'Sandwell Homes had slightly misinterpreted the policy on items in communal areas.'

The councillor said the authority's aim was to use common sense in identifying fire hazards and to treat each case on its merits.

'Our policy is that as long as there is not an excessive number of gnomes or similar items in communal areas, and as long as there isn't a problem with these items being damaged through anti-social behaviour, they can stay.'

H/T to Big Brother watch & The express and star

Not every reviewer agreed with the IPCC

Here are some snippets from one such reviewer:

General Comments

The idea that climate without human intervention can only undergo “natural variability”, and that “climate change” can only result from human activity is false and fallacious. It is in conflict with all that we know of evolution and geology. It is simply wrong to assume that “ climate change” automatically implies human influence on the climate.

This fallacy is embraced by the Framework Convention on Climate Change, but the IPCC (Footnote to “Summary for Policymakers. Page 1) claim that they are prepared to accept “natural variability” as “climate change”. They are, however, unwilling to accept the truth, which is that climate can change without human intervention

An additional fallacy adopted by the IPCC is the claim that it is possible to “attribute” cause and effect from a correlation. Science can assign probability levels of the likelihood of a cause and effect relationship, but it can never attribute a cause and effect relationship with certainty. This Report does not assign any quantitative probability levels to correlations

There is undue emphasis throughout on the importance of surface temperature trends measured by weather stations. Chapter 2 has 10 diagrams showing these data, but only one thoroughly confusing diagram (Figure 2.12) for other methods of global temperature measurement. The fact that satellite and weather balloon measurements in the lower troposphere do not show a warming for the past 21 years suggests strongly that the surface data are influenced by proximity to human habitation, rather than by greenhouse warming.

The assumed atmospheric concentration figures for carbon dioxide for the SRES scenarios were included in the First Draft, but have now been deleted. Presumably you are ashamed to admit such absurd figures. Figures for all the other gases are given in Chapter 4 including ridiculously exaggerated figures for future methane concentrations.

Taken from

IPCC WGI THIRD ASSESSMENT REPORT – (TAR)

GOVERNMENT/EXPERT REVIEW – APRIL-JUNE 2000

There's lots more