Seen elsewhere



Click images for more details

Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace
« Propaganda Bureau in print | Main | Flimsin flies in - Josh 191 »

AR5 Second Order Draft leaked

A website called Stop Green Suicide has just published the full second order draft of the Fifth Assessment Report. The big news, it seems, is that solar has been given an increased focus as a climate forcing.

Compared to the First Order Draft, the SOD now adds the following sentence, indicated in bold (page 7-43, lines 1-5, emphasis added):

Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link.

Read the whole thing. If it's unavailable, try Anthony.

[Updated to link to original source of the leak]

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (92)

I downloaded the Summary for Policymakers, which on first glance appears heavily alarmist. Luckily the drafting authors are named right at the top, which should give a good idea of any previous alarmist proclivity.

Dec 13, 2012 at 8:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterChris M

Very interesting..... I'm traveling and cannot start downloading or reading at the moment, but I must say that to name the URL "stop green suicide" is a flash of genius.

That should be exactly the meme in a variety of push-backs to the incessant campaigns to "save the planet" with foolish policies.

Dec 13, 2012 at 9:17 PM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

Chris M no Alarm no IPCC , its really that simply.

Dec 13, 2012 at 9:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

At the very least it will prevent this information being 'disappeared' in the final draft and throw the inevitably alarmist summary into doubt. Lots of time for our 'experts' to fully digest and forensically dissect AR5 with the advantage of punching first.
If the MSM fail to publicise this release, Daily Telegraph, Mail, Times and Sky, ITV, the BBC and especially the Sun (Murdoch again) and Mirror then I will agree with my sons that there is a centrally controlled conspiracy.

Dec 13, 2012 at 9:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterG.Watkins

Latest I can find on CERN Cloud chamber experiment is this.

and the list of speakers and talk titles at the 22‐24 May 2012 Conference here

Dec 13, 2012 at 10:08 PM | Registered CommenterPharos

James Delingpole has picked it up.

Dec 13, 2012 at 10:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

TSI is trivial compared bright sunshine changes.

Dec 13, 2012 at 11:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterBruce

Nicked from Dellers comments.. (Bionic_Snozzberry)

So... Murdoch was right, it's the Sun wot done it...

worth repeating I thought

Dec 13, 2012 at 11:52 PM | Registered Commentertomo

Unable to download any of it but I guess the server is overloaded atm ^.^ Big congratulations should go to Svensmark as well as the wonderful whistleblower here.

Dec 14, 2012 at 12:01 AM | Registered CommenterDung

Dec 13, 2012 at 9:18 PM | KnR

Chris M no Alarm no IPCC , its really that simply.

Not only that, but in the immortal words (circa Jan. 25, 2010) of no less a "climate expert" than IPCC Chair, Rajendra K. Pachauri:

“let’s face it, that the whole subject of climate change having become so important is largely driven by the work of the IPCC. If the IPCC wasn’t there, why would anyone be worried about climate change?” [emphasis added -hro]


So, the IPCC has to keep providing confections in order to keep us all "worried about climate change"!

Dec 14, 2012 at 1:30 AM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov


Depressing that since the original 2011 report on Cloud there has been total silence, I wonder how that could be?

Dec 14, 2012 at 2:40 AM | Registered CommenterDung

Now that the leaked IPCC Draft Report for 2013 indicates something of a backdown, you may be interested in my climate analysis and projections as in Appendix 1 of my paper published March 2012. You will need to open it to see the graphics and supporting links, but the text reads ...

Q.1 How do you explain the fact that the Earth has been warming?

Technically the Earth is currently in an interglacial period and the last few glacial periods have occurred at roughly 100,000 year intervals. This indicates the possibility of there being natural cycles, short and long, which appear to be related to astronomical orbital events. For example, the planet Jupiter has an effect on the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit in such a way that the difference in the distances between the Sun and the Earth at the aphelion and perihelion can vary (over many thousands of years) from just over 0% when its orbit is nearly a true circle, up to about 5% when it is elliptical. Such variations affect the mean distance and that will then affect the mean radiative flux over the course of a year.

Many scientists also believe there is clear evidence of a 60-year cycle which may be related to the alignment of the planets Jupiter and Saturn every 59.6 years. This cycle appears to have been the main cause of the observed temperature increases which raised alarm in the 30 years or so leading up to the maximum in 1998. However, there is also a longer cycle which appears to be very approximately 1,000 years. The underlying trend in the rate of ncrease can be detected when a trend line is added to the plot below (from this site) which shows 30 year trend gradients.

It appears that the mean rate of increase per decade has decreased from about 0.06oC early in the 20th century to about 0.05oC per decade in recent times, as you can see from the green trend line. Perhaps the 1,000 year trend will reach a maximum in the next 100 to 200 years and be 0.5 to 1.0oC warmer than at present. So natural trends can and do explain the historic climate record, right up to the current slight decline which is probably due to the 60 year cycle declining, but being mostly countered by the underlying upward trend of the 1,000 year cycle.

Dec 14, 2012 at 3:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterDoug Cotton

I got a complete copy eventually. This should be in a torrent.

Dec 14, 2012 at 3:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterBruce Hoult

Oh, found one .. trying this now (magnet link):


Dec 14, 2012 at 4:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterBruce Hoult

Bruce Hoult, thanks. Downloading now and will be keeping the torrent alive until it reaches the ratio of 20.

Dec 14, 2012 at 4:48 AM | Unregistered CommentersHx

Yes, that works for me, and so does this one:


This one is a RAR file, while the first is a simple directory with the HTML page and PDFs.

In either case just copy the link text and paste into your magnet link-aware bittorrent program e.g. Transmission on OS X

Dec 14, 2012 at 4:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterBruce Hoult

Oops, now I have it all, that 2nd one is a folder with the PDFs too. The RAR file was a different link and I confused them. But both are good.

Dec 14, 2012 at 5:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterBruce Hoult

Bruce. Is this why the MSM are always trying to tell us that Torrent is only used for illegally downloading the latest pop music and therefore should be banned when in fact it is a mighty useful instrument/tool for getting information spread without the powers that be being able to block it. Another MSM spin on another subject it would seem.

Dec 14, 2012 at 5:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterDisko Troop

Disko .. pretty much. And not only slightly subversive things (though it's great for that) but anything at all that an individual produces that a lot of people might want to download. It could be photos from your work Xmas party that you don't want to put on Facebook. Or a video of your kids at the park that you don't want on Youtube.

You could put it on a web server on your home computer, but most people have slow upload speeds. With bittorrent, in the time that you take to send one copy there can be any number of people (thousands!) who automatically shared the parts among each other as you sent them.

Every time someone downloads something on the internet, someone else has to provide bandwidth to send it to them. With Facebook or YouTube that is some huge company who effectively donates the cost of the bandwidth — but you can be sure they want something in exchange. Generally information about you, and ads to show you. With bittorrent everyone who receives data is (on average) expected to send as much as they received. Some people do more than their fair share, and some less, but on average as much is sent by individuals as is received by others.

Recent improvements to bittorrent make it even harder to stop. In the past you had to find a public file server to store the torrent metafile. Now with "magnet links" (like the ones above) even the torrent file is shared automatically and you need only a tiny piece of text that can be pasted into a blog comment or emailed. With the addition of DHT (Distributed Hash Table) you don't even need dedicated public tracker sites that keep track of who has which parts of the file — and can be taken down or corrupted by an attacker.

Knowledge is power, and bittorrent is a very important tool in making sure those in power can't prevent the spread of knowledge.

Dec 14, 2012 at 7:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterBruce Hoult

Interesting debate on Twitter between P. Gleick, L. Hickman, G. Smidt.

Hickman seems to accept the leak as inevitable.
Gleick dismisses as 'mountains from molehill'

gavin (sic) says: "Early drafts need 'safe space' for wide scientific criticism outside of politicized cage match"

What?? We keep being told that the IPCC final conclusions are watered down and conservative because of politics, and that the reality is more serious (by Monbiot among others). So here is a chance to see what the scientists are saying BEFORE the policy-makers and politicians get at it. Still not happy?

Just a classic case of choosing your arguments to suit your agenda?

Dec 14, 2012 at 7:41 AM | Unregistered Commenteroakwood

There is nothing in the world’s mainstream media about this. Nothing.
On a media-linked blog, Delingpole gave a short and accurate summary of the doubts about the science which led to the leak nine hours ago.
On a second media-linked blog, Revkin discussed IPCC methodology, and linked to a dismissal of the scientific concerns expressed by the leaker at Skeptical Science.
So it’s official then. What the IPCC says is only of interest to comic writers.

Dec 14, 2012 at 7:55 AM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Geoff, you're right . I'm watching the Guardian. Quiet so far, despite interest of Hickman on Twitter. Guardian is so hot on AGW, how can they ignore it, regardless of whether they like it? For AGW journalists to ignore such a story can only be a conscience decision of bias - as they did with Climategate in early days.

Dec 14, 2012 at 8:14 AM | Unregistered Commenteroakwood

FIVE years ago David Whitehouse said just this.

The truth is we can't ignore the sun

The Met Office ridiculed it. Bet they're not so cocky now.

Dec 14, 2012 at 8:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterRead12

congratulations to manic for getting some useful thoughts down
skepticalscience has a dismissal of Rawls which looks to my inexpert eye to be a general dismissal of solar influence, which doesn’t deal with the contradiction between chapter 8 and chapter 7.

Dec 14, 2012 at 9:01 AM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Given that over 1000 people signed up as reviewers, it could be argued that it’s surprising that it took so long for someone to leak it. The timing of the leak is significant, coming shortly after the deadline for the reviewer comments (which was November 30th). Thus the only argument I could think of for not making the drafts public (the possibility of coordinated campaigns of reviewer comments) no longer applies. Presumably Alec Rawls thought about this.

Just in case there's any doubt, I can confirm that it is the real thing.

Dec 14, 2012 at 9:13 AM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

Whatever we may make of it here, and whatever scientific significance it may or may have.......the point is just too obscure to be of interest to the MSM and indeed to almost anyone except those very few of us who obsess about such matters.

SkepticalScience has already put in place its "debunking" "proving" the point is of no significance blah blah and I would guess that this solar irradiance point will make absolutely zero impact in the wider world in the debate about whether or not we should be demonising and penalising CO2, which after all is why the Climate Debate has such huge political significance.

I hope I am wrong.

Dec 14, 2012 at 9:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterJack Savage

re: SkS

I haven't visited SkS for months. I have absolutely no interest in what that branch of climate doomsday cult have to say about anything.

I do remember however from the last time I visited that dump that a leading member of the SkS (Rob Honeycutt?) saying 2013 would be the make or break year for him because he expected 2013 to be the warmest year on record. If 2013 doesn't prove the warmest year on record then he'd begin to question his assumptions about the CAGW.

Sorry, can't give you a link to who said that when, because normally I care as much about John Cook and his cult as I cared about David Koresh and his cult. I can only assume those SkS cult members know themselves and what their fellow cult members said.

Dec 14, 2012 at 9:29 AM | Unregistered CommentersHx

I wonder if reviewers will now post up the comments they submitted on the draft. Here are the comments I sent on the SPM.

p2 line 36-39 This statement about stronger confidence of ‘unprecedented’ changes is not supported by the evidence. In fact there is less confidence in the paleo data, see for example the paper by statisticians McShane and Wyner (“proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series”). See sec on limitations and uncertainties.

p3 Some acknowledgement needs to be made here of the slowing of warming over the last 15 years or so.

p5 line 32 Misleading claim. Rutgers GSL data shows winter snow cover has not decreased.

p6 line 46 The statement of ‘high confidence’ in ‘inconsistent’ changes is scientifically meaningless and should be removed.

p7 line 22 Sec 3 and 4 are misleading because they make no mention of natural climate variation.

p20 Fig SPM1c is cherrypicked data (March April only), is misleadingly presented as an ‘anomaly’ and despite this does not even support the claim on page 5 of a significant reduction.

Dec 14, 2012 at 9:52 AM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

This all feels a bit mundane, it's obvious that there will never be an IPCC report that isn't more confident than the previous report. Never.

Their latest report will always be worse than they thought. Always.

Forever and ever Amen (at the 105% confidence level).

Dec 14, 2012 at 9:53 AM | Unregistered Commenterredc

Now now, redc, don't say 'Amen' cos you might insult our fellow Christian skeptics.

Say 'Amin' because that would point to the real culprit who invented the climate doomsday hysteria: the Muslims and Hindus and other immigrants with their climate jihad and sacred cows.

Dec 14, 2012 at 10:10 AM | Unregistered CommentersHx

Jack Savage

Whatever scientific significance it may or may [not] have, the point is just too obscure to be of interest to the MSM...
Which is why it’s so interesting. It’s a “man-bites-dog-that-didn’t-bark” story.
Any time any journalist gets hold of any leaked document it goes on the front page, however banal the contents, under a headline “leaked draft paper shows government thinks...blah blah”. That’s what journalism is - getting hold of stuff that you’re not supposed to see.
Here’s the draft of the most important document of the year, leaked 9 months in advance, telling us what the scientists will be telling governments they have to do over the coming decades. And nobody’s interested. Revkin is entirely concerned with the practicalities of the IPCC’s working methods. For an analysis of what’s in the document, he refers us to Skeptical Science which has “defanged” it - which is Revkinspeak for “rendered the leak harmless”.
Whatever the truth of Rawl’s criticisms, journalists should be fascinated simply because of what the document is . They’re not. Their lack of interest is an admission that what the IPCC says has no influence on government energy and environmental policy.

Dec 14, 2012 at 10:15 AM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Take back all those criticisms of the main stream media. All those who doubted that the Guardian would cover this story are wrong! Given that the Guardian is very keen on the subject of climate change and also on whistleblowers, e.g. Wikileaks, how could anyone possibly believe they would ignore the story?

Here is the link.

Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked IPCC report

Climate sceptics' claims that UN climate science panel's AR5 report show the sun is causing global warming don't stack up.

The article is by Dana Nuccitelli for Skeptical Science, part of the Guardian Environment Network, Friday 14 December 2012.

Dec 14, 2012 at 10:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoy

...comments are open on the Guardian reprint of the SkepticalScience article.

Dec 14, 2012 at 10:26 AM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Roy, thanks for the link.

Take back all those criticisms of the main stream media. All those who doubted that the Guardian would cover this story are wrong!

But, they haven’t covered the story, they have “cut and paste” a post from a blog.

Appreciate another link when they have actually covered the story, read the draft and done some investigatory journalism or is it that they deem blogs to be more knowledgeable than them on this subject? In which case there are numerous others they need to take into account.

Dec 14, 2012 at 10:42 AM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

Forgive me for my ignorance, but why does anyone give a flying &%*# about what appears in The Guardian? In a nation of over 60 million people, a diminishingly few thousand read it. Is this a remnant of some earlier culture war?

Anyway, the important thing here is that there is now a visible trail, as my first boss in the Public (Civil) Service said to me. Surely the IPCC is not embarrassed about the process that leads to its conclusions? Donna Laframboise and Steve McIntyre are no doubt casting an occasional eye over things even as they enjoy their holidays.

It's called keeping them honest.

Dec 14, 2012 at 10:57 AM | Registered Commenterjohanna


All that you say is an ideal world. But....
Common-or-garden journos won't touch it because it would involve too much research for too little fanfare. They would also be shouted down by the enviro-journos and others. (Witness David Rose and the Met Office "rebuttal" that was not a rebuttal!)
Enviro-journos won't want to deal because it does not advance the narrative. Careers hang on this. Even a brief flirtation with doubt can be fatal. (Witness : Geo. Monbiot's fading star.)

There have been scores of peer-reviewed scientific papers over the last few years that any journo could have seized upon and run with that would appear to undermine any or all of the IPCC's fundamental three message that global warming/climate change is here, is a serious threat and we are responsible for it via CO2.
As you imply, I think....those messages have been delivered to our government and, as yet, have stayed delivered.
There are some small signs, as the consequences of the magnitude of the follies we have signed up to on the strength of it are being gradually revealed, that government is starting to blink....

I rather think it will be common sense and necessity which finally puts the stake through the heart of this insanity rather than some individual or collective mainstream journalistic effort. Just as we will get after the 21st of December with the "End of Times" will all finish with a quiet, un-documented, sheepish withdrawal.
One day in the not too distant future we will all wake up and find.........would you believe it?......that no one seems to believe in catastrophic global warming at all any more ...and what's more...why, they never did!
It will be infuriating ...but that is the way the madness of crowds works.

I hope I am right for many reasons...not the least of which the bollockings and humiliations I am going to have to suffer from family and friends if I am not! I console myself with the fact that at least I looked into the matter closely before forming an opinion rather than taking one fully formed from the BBC as most people in GB have.

Dec 14, 2012 at 11:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterJack Savage

What is likely to "insult" Christian sceptics and get right up their noses is fatuous posts like that.
Can we please keep personal jibes about people's religious beliefs out of this debate? It simply distracts from the matter in hand.

Dec 14, 2012 at 11:22 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson


"Appreciate another link when they have actually covered the story, read the draft and done some investigatory journalism or is it that they deem blogs to be more knowledgeable than them on this subject? In which case there are numerous others they need to take into account."

Do you not mean: " In which case they are pretty much redundant." ?

Dec 14, 2012 at 11:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterJack Savage

Looked at the paleo chapter. The hockey stick is dead. Looked at the Amazon chapter in WG2 long, long back. The Amazonian drying out is not going to happen. And so forth.

skepticalscience can 'debunk' this article because they can literally debunk anything. They have their asses covered on any curious question that can be asked about the climate. Depending on what they choose to attack, they can plug-and-play various prefrabricated components to virtually anything. They've become a bore.

Did anyone pay attention to their vaunted 'The Consensus Project'? A full 67% of all examined climate papers/abstracts were neutral - i.e., neither accepted nor rejected AGW. But yet, what was the conclusion? "Our results are consistent with Doran and Anderegg". A vast team of crowdsourced volunteer effort at looking at literally tens of thousands of abstracts, and the best they can do is hide behind the skirts of other published papers. Keep it up guys.

Dec 14, 2012 at 11:40 AM | Registered Commentershub

I am still looking forward to version AR5E

Then I will know we have got to the bottom of this climate thing

Dec 14, 2012 at 12:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterDolphinhead

This is exactly as significant for the direction of public policy now as an authoritative debunking of the existence of witches in 1585 would have been for the witch-finding industry.

It will make no difference to anything, and in 50 years' time, we will still have the taxes and the public sector tit-suckers.

Dec 14, 2012 at 12:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterJustice4Rinka


There is a interview with Jasper Kirkby in the Gardian

As usual he is being very cagey ! Especially after the Head of Cern said " report you results but do not comment on them " (as well as I recall my not be a strictly accurate quote)

Dec 14, 2012 at 12:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoss Lea

J4R yes this policy will run and run because it has so much for so many: leftist wreckers, skint governments, uber-capitalists, all stand to do very well from their distinctly different perspectives out of the global warming scare. Are they going to give it up just because a few obsessives point out an inconsistency or two here and there?

Dec 14, 2012 at 12:26 PM | Unregistered Commenterbill

Mike Jackson,

Religious beliefs are as relevant to the matter at hand as political beliefs.

While some believe the climate doomsday cult is a result of commie conspiracy, I tend to believe it is an outcome of Christian conspiracy.

I believe that if it weren't for Christians and other god-fearing twerps who brought their religious zeal to the debate, the issue of climate change would have remained as a purely scientific one.

Climate Change has nothing to do with communism or socialism because there isn't an iota of reference to class struggle in the debate.

It has a lot to do with Christianity however because of the purported thermal Armageddon, and sinful ways (carbon emissions) and ways of cleansing the sins (the purchase of carbon indulgences) and what not.

I actually first decided to look into this climate change issue back in 2009 because the former Aussie Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, a leftie and a devout Catholic, began calling the climate change issue as "the greatest moral challenge of our time", and calling the skeptics as "flat-earthers".

So who is at fault here? The commie Rudd or Christian Rudd?

The corrupting influence of theists and other religious zealots is the great untold story of the climate debate.

Dec 14, 2012 at 12:30 PM | Unregistered CommentersHx

sHx, leaving aside your opinions, your facts are wrong.

Kevin Rudd was not a 'devout Catholic' when he made his stupid statement about climate change. He was an Anglican, albeit a High Anglican who was making overtures towards the Catholic Church. I don't know if those overtures were ever consummated, but if so, it has been kept very quiet.

In any event, while there are certainly valid comparisons to be made between believers in the CAGW cult and forms of religious belief, that does not give you carte blanche to trash everyone with religious beliefs. I am not religious, but have great respect for some people who are, and contempt for some people who are not. It is not a test of character or intellect that will get you very far on its own.

It is up to the Bishop to decide, (part of the conspiracy, no doubt!). To me, aggressive posts about religion here are irrelevant and verge on trolling.

Dec 14, 2012 at 12:56 PM | Registered Commenterjohanna

For a start, as johanna points out, your facts are wrong.
Secondly there is no centralised Christian "take" on climate. It is not a "matter of faith and morals" on which any Pope has demanded unquestioning obedience from the faithful.
The limp-brained and limp-wristed tendency among the Anglican and Catholic bishops — a uniquely English and US phenomenon, I might add — has inevitably joined the equally limp-brained Gaia-worshippers because in their limited mental view of life it makes the Church seem "relevant".
Those Christians who choose to use the brains that they believe God gave them for a purpose usually conclude that his creation is a bit more robust than the Gaia-worshippers like to have you believe.
So do us a favour: stick to the argument and keep you patently wrong and misguided opinions about other people's beliefs and how that informs their views on climate change to yourself.
Peace and Love!

Dec 14, 2012 at 1:14 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

I have trouble following how any Christian who has read the Old Testament can give the time of day to climate psyence or its dodgy prophecies.

God gave humankind an explicit assurance that the world would never again be inundated:-

Genesis 9:11

And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

Even the most twittishly legalistic parsing of the Noahic covenant must conclude that there isn't going be any sea level rise, or that to the extent there is, it will be trivial.

No Christian actually familiar with the Bible, therefore, can be a climate change activist. Belief in climate psyence's tenets amounts to doubting God.

It is far more likely that people claiming to be Christians concerned about climate change are actually climate change activists who have infiltrated churches, in the same way that BBC reporters reporting climate change so often turn out to be green activists posing as journalists.

Dec 14, 2012 at 1:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterJustice4Rinka

Come on. Climate change has just not been around yet for reflexive demands that it be accorded some respect, as the other real religions. That is the only difference.

Yesterday, religion was the basis for the state. Today it has withdrawn into the cocoon of 'personal belief'. Climate change is trying to occupy that vacated throne. Both are the same thing though.

Dec 14, 2012 at 1:18 PM | Registered Commentershub


The Arab Spring is in the air. Christopher Monckton pressed the button in front of him and spoke; so did I.

I don't blame religious people for their false beliefs. I don't care what they do with those beliefs in their own time. I blame them for bringing their religious zeal to a scientific debate and for protecting their fellow theists (Christians, of course) even when they are involved up to their eye-balls in the climate doomsday cult.

The global warming movement resembles a Christian religious movement much more than a Communist one.

BTW, it doesn't matter whether Rudd was a devout Catholic as I believe he is, or a lapsed Anglican as you believe he is. What matters is that his attack on climate skeptics borrowed words from Christian rhetoric more than a commie rhetoric.

Mull over this for a while, honeybunny, and sweet dreams.

Dec 14, 2012 at 1:26 PM | Unregistered CommentersHx


..but why does anyone give a flying &%*# about what appears in The Guardian? In a nation of over 60 million people, a diminishingly few thousand read it. Is this a remnant of some earlier culture war?
Yes, it is. The Guardian was a highly relevant radical newspaper back in, say, the late 19th century, when they supported, for example, votes for women, an absurd idea only practised in New Zealand and Australia.
Among the “diminishingly few thousand” who still read it are the leaders of all three main parties. Guardian journalists get invited to be visiting professors at top universities, or honoured guests on BBC programmes. That doesn’t happen to our best and most popular bloggers.

Dec 14, 2012 at 1:36 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>