Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace
« Bulldog Bob | Main | Playing the fool - Josh 383 »

GWPF Annual Lecture 2016 - Cartoon notes by Josh

Last night Matt Ridley gave an excellent lecture titled 'Global warming vs global greening'. You can read the text and slides here.

Cartoons by Josh


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (135)

Robert: "Y2K is on topic".

You're right (unlike this DoC stuff). Thanks.

Oct 22, 2016 at 9:14 PM | Registered CommenterRobin Guenier

JerryM, memories of the Battle of Tsushima 1905, is probably stopping them going too far.

Oct 22, 2016 at 9:22 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Josh, statistically all comments are OT.
Edit without mercy.

Oct 23, 2016 at 7:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Silver

Poor PC. He is , as we say in the US, stuck on stupid. No matter how much he talks it up, he just can't get his climate crisis to take place. And now he is so stuck he has to distract from the science 101 stuff about more CO2 = more biosphere. The islands aren't sinking. The polar regions is doing fine. The polar bear population is growing. The Tibetan glaciers are fine. The storms ain't getting worse. But PC and the other true believers still bleat on, trapped by their claptrap dogma.

Oct 23, 2016 at 6:38 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

hunter, the problem faced by Climate Scientists is that they only ever encounter ice in exotic cocktails, whist lounging on beaches at Climate Conferences, in tropical island paradises, all paid for by taxpayers. They see ice, it melts. They believe that sea ice does the same.

If Climate Conferences were only held in winter, north of the Arctic circle, they might not see warmth as a problem, and not many would be interested in attending.

The cost savings to the world would be huge.

Oct 24, 2016 at 12:31 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Will someone on BH please block the Dork?
I genuinely think he's a bit unhinged and his ramblings are absolute twaddle. I don't to see any more of his rubbish!

Oct 24, 2016 at 10:26 AM | Unregistered Commenterdavid smith

 The islands aren't sinking. The polar regions is doing fine. The polar bear population is growing. The Tibetan glaciers are fine. The storms ain't getting worse.

Hmmm. My initial correction seems to have gone to spam, maybe due to too many links in one place, so
one link at a time

Polar Bears

Oct 24, 2016 at 10:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke
Oct 24, 2016 at 10:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke
Oct 24, 2016 at 10:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke
Oct 24, 2016 at 10:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Perhaps Hunter, next time you accuse someone of being stuck on stupid, you could include some actual facts to back it up, 'cos there were sweet FA in that post.

Oct 24, 2016 at 11:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, I looked at your first two links on polar bears and vanishing islands. Total rubbish. I couldn't be bothered with the rest.

Oct 24, 2016 at 2:44 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I will ensure that Dr. Steven C. Amstrup, chief scientist with Polar Bears International and USGS polar bear project leader for 30 years is made aware of that eloquent and devastating critique.

Oct 24, 2016 at 3:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Read Susan.

Oct 24, 2016 at 3:32 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

david smith:
Will someone on BH please block the Dork?

No, please don't. He produces some stimulating and thought provoking comments.

Phil Clarke: Polar bears, Amstrup is the Hansen of the Polar Bear world, for factual information, you really should regularly visit If you want some info from someone who lives there, (although he hasn't posted this year), and the best Polar bear pics on the web, visit

Arctic ice area? See if you can find the satellite images for 1903 - 1907,


"We encountered no ice with the exception of a few narrow strips of old sound ice, carried by the wash. Of large Polar ice we saw absolutely nothing.

Between the ice and the land, on either side, there were large and perfectly clear channels, through which we passed easily and unimpeded.

The entire accumulation of ice was not very extensive. We were soon out again in open water. Outside the promontories, some pieces of ice had accumulated; otherwise the sea was free from ice.

Captain Knowles reports the season the most open he has ever known. He entered the Arctic on the day we left San Francisco, May 22, and thinks the straits were open even earlier than that.

The ice of the Arctic Ocean is never at rest. Even in the coldest winters it is liable to displacement and pressure by the currents of air and water. The expansion and contraction, due to changes in temperature, also assist in this disturbance. Owing to these combined causes, the surface of the ice always presents a rough, uneven appearance.

At times the pack itself opens in leads, by which it may be penetrated for several miles. The water to the south was open, the impenetrable wall of ice was not there."

Or Satellite images for 1855.........



"Just as the work was completed upon these currents in the North Pacific, in 1855, the news was received in the United States that Dr. Hane had discovered an open sea near the Pole, and people began to ask how that could be possible, when it was well known that a belt or region of ice several hundred miles in width must lie to the south of
that sea, and which was never dissolved."

Oct 24, 2016 at 3:35 PM | Registered Commenterdennisa

Tropical storms are caused by the temperature difference between the equator & the poles.If temperatures are increasing, that difference is reduced, thus causing fewer storms!

Oct 24, 2016 at 3:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan the Brit

I am a different kind of polar bear expert than those that study bears in the field but having a different background means I know things they do not and this makes my contribution valuable and valid


Oct 24, 2016 at 3:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Heh, an adaptable species that Ice Bear.

Oct 24, 2016 at 3:57 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

How very Goddard.

It took Amundsen 3 years to navigate the NW Passage in a shallow draught boat, hugging the coast, finding small leads through the floes and iceberg; he was trapped by the ice on King William Island for nearly two of those years.

Since then there have been over 250 transits, getting more frequent in recent decades. The single handed yacht 'Williwaw', managed it one season in 1977, a passenger cruise ship crossed in 1984 and in 2000 a twin-hulled light catamaran did it in three weeks.

There was so little ice that most of the trip was smooth sailing except for the occasional iceberg floating by

These days

Sep 2011 - “Sea ice is now almost completely gone from the channels of the Northwest Passage, with the exception of a small strip of ice across a stretch of the Parry Channel. The southern route (Amunden's Route) is ice free. According to the Canadian Ice Service, sea ice extent in the western Parry Channel is now the lowest at this time of year since record keeping began in 1966 and very little multi-year ice remains

Oct 24, 2016 at 4:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke:
"I am a different kind of polar bear expert than those that study bears in the field but having a different background means I know things they do not and this makes my contribution valuable and valid

That means, I'm not going to go and read something that demolishes the arguments I am making, I am just going to pretend to be smart.

If it doesn't fit your group think you don't want to know. Susan Crockford is every bit as well qualified as Amstrup and friends and if you were to actually read and check out her data and references she is a highly credible commentator.

Amstrup is defending a false position:

"Amstrup knows his polar bear predictions are flawed – but continues to promote them"
November 29, 2014

"The largest conservation organization in the world says that predictive models developed by polar bear biologist Steven Amstrup are utterly unsuitable for scientifically estimating future populations. Earlier this year, mathematical modeling experts at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, who maintain the Red List of Threatened Species, made it clear that Amstrup’s models (used in 2008 to convince the US Fish and Wildlife Service to list polar bears as ‘threatened’ due to predicted global warming) do not meet IUCN standards."

If you were to read through some of the material at Polar Bear Alley, you would find that the claims about Polar Bears in danger is a false claim. This guy has has lived in Churchill for some years and works with Polar Bear tourism. He is an ardent conservationist and his history is that of a "lefty liberal". He knows a lot about Polar Bears.

Your smug comments with your easily demolished links are far less worthy of note than the often enlightening outpourings from the Dork.

Get a grip.

Oct 24, 2016 at 11:36 PM | Registered Commenterdennisa

Hey, I am a simply different kind of commenter than those who read Heartland-funded guff on polar bears from an expert in canine evolution, at first hand. This gives my dogged insights and viewpoints a unique value. I hope her backers got their money's woof.

Oct 25, 2016 at 9:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

So in Phil Boy's world any alternate evidence is 'Heartland funded guff' ... ha! There's a conspiratorial ideation Lew paper on some withdrawn heap that describes such behavior to a 'T'.

For 'dogged' read 'willfuly & deliberately blnd'.

Phil, you're wasting your life and your reputation on this penny ante stuff. Time for a proper contract.

I hear Putin's rates for those who are skilled at defending the indefensible are pretty good.

Oct 25, 2016 at 11:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterJerryM

Clearly I haven't read all her stuff, that would be a strange and unusual punishment,just enough to know she is a few floes short of an iceberg. Internal Heartland documents show payments to her of $750 / month.

I apologise, to be correct, I should have written 'Guff from a Heartland-sponsored dog domestication expert', as the payments were for some other dogmeat.

Oct 25, 2016 at 12:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke's comments - and the responses to them - indicate a remarkable consensus between the two sides of the climate debate. Neither side can believe that the other can fail to be convinced by so many facts and arguments that conclusively prove them to be wrong! So they are forced to the unlikely (but only alternative - Sherlock koan) conclusion that their opponents must be fools or knaves!

Question (to both sides) - which is more likely to change the minds of your opponents - telling them they are stupid, or telling them they are venal?

Oct 25, 2016 at 3:02 PM | Unregistered Commenterosseo

osseo, Phil Clarke's own side supply him with wrong info, because they think he is stupid.

Oct 25, 2016 at 11:17 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

…Radical rodent, a fool who denied the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
I did? Where?

Curious that your insistence on ice melt does not agree with the observations NASA has published – that the ice mass on Antarctica and Greenland is increasing. Pah! What do they know, eh?

I have no intention of wasting time on a closed mind.
Ha ha ha… good one, EM!

Oct 27, 2016 at 9:20 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

My first post on here so please bear with me (no pun intended).

There is an awful lot of rubbish spoken by both sides in this debate IMO. Most of it bouncing from one distraction to another to divert the conversations from the real issues.

Global temperatures are rising - just. However, the land surface measurement evidence is based on weather stations designed in the 19th Century. The records are contaminated by urban heat islands, shading and general bad siting with bad record keeping and measurements taken by tea boys because the designated 'scientist' was absent/couldn't be arsed/was too busy/drunk etc.

Both sides of the debate surely recognise this simple fact. Land based temperature measurements are unreliable. Homogenising the data is a fudge and distorts the entire debate.

Similarly, until satellites were 'reliably' deployed, sea temperature measurements were largely reliant on ships. The same unreliability issues apply as with the land based weather stations.

Weather balloons have their own problems but at least, by their nature, their recordings are probably, mostly, reliably recorded.

When satellites were first launched, they could hardly be considered reliable, quite apart from the 'adjustments' (homogenisation) needed as they became redundant when more accurate ones were deployed. Orbits were limited, there were failures, data transmission problems, all sorts of stuff was going on in hte pioneering years.Contemporary satellite data may be accurate but early operations were a period of learning as scientists and engineers began to understand what they were dealing with.

So, overall, we are left with decades of unreliable temperature data until more recently.

The proposition of GW has been done to death over the last 40 years. We had the 'Return to an Ice Age' scare of the 70's, most of it Media driven. Ever since then, Media driven scare stories of plagues, pestilence, droughts, cities drowning etc. have abounded. I have looked at some of the sources of these and even the AGW supporting scientist's they are apportioned to didn't make outrageous claims. They may have asked the question, or proposed a worst-case scenario, but I suspect most of them despise being taken out of context.

The plain fact is that over the last 40 years or so, billions of £'s/$'s and innumerable man hours spent on it, there is still no conclusive proof that CO2 causes GW, far less anthropogenic CO2.

And now there are questions being asked about the reliability of the Peer-Reviewed system itself as investigations have found it to be riddled with serious compromises. And we only have to look at some of the wacky papers submitted with 'Climate Change induced' appended to them to almost guarantee a grant and publication in Nature. Once again, one side of the debate is as guilty as the other. This type of behaviour does nobody more damage than the scientific community itself.

And both sides, I am sure, would happily admit the debate has been toxified by political and financial interests. Whilst both agree the planet is warming, it is miniscule and currently the only real, observable, dramatic change to the planet is that it has greened, by 14% over the last 30 years. We can nit-pick over hurricanes/droughts/wildfires and even temperatures, but none of them have demonstrated increases anything like 14%. Tragically, the only people to benefit from future greening will be the politicians. They’ll continue to spend eye watering amounts of taxpayer’s money on ‘clean’ energy and in 20 years will either take the credit for the nicely greened planet they ‘saved’ with inconsequential amounts of clean energy. If it all does go tit’s up, they’ll say “we did what we could” shrug their shoulders and walk away anyway.

And for all his faults, Matt Ridley made one statement recently that isn't resonating nearly as significantly as it should. "Greening is a really important development". In my opinion, it should stop everyone, scientists, politicians and the Media in their tracks. It is the single most important, observable development relative to Climate Change over the last 40 years. But we are still wasting our time arguing about bloody Polar Bears!

What on earth are you guys doing? Many of you seem well educated, many I assume with scientific degrees, and yet the bickering over minutiae continues when the 14% Elephant in the room is clamouring for attention. It’s utterly contrary to what was anticipated and if man’s contribution of 2ppm of atmospheric CO2 per annum has caused it (which I doubt very much) then we have done ourselves a favour. Let’s work with it.

Or is it the case that AGW supporters are alarmists after all, and will ignore the simple fact that the earth is healthier right now than it has been for a long time, by a huge margin. Will you allow politicians and industrialists to fleece us and consign the poor to poverty for generations by your compliance? Never mind our kids, and their kid’s futures, millions are starving RIGHT NOW and we’re bitching about OUR future. They don’t have a future and no one’s advocating for them.

This is now day 14,600 of the debate, yet it seems every day is the first day of climate science for some, and the next global disaster is just around the corner. At some point in time, we all must admit the stuff the Media promised us, didn't happen, and by historic record, is unlikely to happen in the future. It's no one's fault but the Media, they created this situation by feeding off our insecurities to ensure their owners could generate extraordinary wealth.

Sea levels may rise, ice may melt, but that's the nature of the planet. Will it be out of control? Possibly, from historic records it seems it has done so before. Can we do anything about it? I think it's arrogant to imagine we can. Sure, let's clean up our act by ensuring particulates aren't spewed into the atmosphere from cars and industry, but 2ppm of man-made CO2 isn't a threat to anyone. Unless, of course, one believes in Homeopathic medicine. And even that proposes cures at ppm levels of application, not threats.

Oct 28, 2016 at 4:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterDreadUK

PC ignores that there are more polar bears, that Tibetan glacier melt is not as predicted nor a crisis, and that atolls are mostly growing. The mind of the climate consensus fanatic is much more secure than Hillary Clinton's server.

Nov 2, 2016 at 4:36 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

I wonder why people keep throwing glacier melt or ocean rise at each other. As far as I'm concerned, the science of global warming should be kept as simple as possible (but no simpler).

The claim is that slight increases in CO2, and hence temperature, will be magnified by corresponding increases in water vapour, leading to a runaway heating episode. This should show up unequivocally with a tropospheric hot-spot, followed by a global air temperature rise, which is modelled to be rapid and considerable.

My understanding is that the CO2 levels have gone up, but that water vapour levels have not, that no tropospheric hot-spot has been found, and that the global air temperature has not risen by the amount predicted - indeed, over a long period during which CO2 levels peaked, it did not rise at all.

In my book that is a failed hypothesis. Being able to point to a glacier which is melting, or an island which is eroding, does not alter the big picture....

Jan 19, 2017 at 11:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterDodgy Geezer

Poor PC, vhecwoukd rather recycle b.s. and pretend appeals to authority- and of course the holy models-are more important than pesky facts and reality. Sorry PC. increasing islands and polar bears the real world. Subsidence is not the cream world. But in climate delusion land the devil CO2 causes all to fail. And of course you can't defend yourvrudiculous counter factual spin on CO2 and increased biomass...

Jul 13, 2017 at 6:41 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter Yeezy Boost 350 V2 Zebra VaporMax Spinner Fidget Toy Ray Ban Outlet Yeezy Boost 350 V2 Cheap NFL Jerseys Longchamp Handbags Yeezy Boost 350 V2 Adidas Air Max Shoes Yeezy Ray Ban Sunglasses Yeezys Yeezy Boost 350 V2 Kade Sapde Adidas Outlet Nike Store Adidas Outlet Under Armour Timberland Jordan 12 Air Max Toms Outlet Ultra Boost MLB Jerseys Adidas NMD R1 Oakley Outlet Kate Spade Outlet Adidas Outlet Nike Air Max 90 Vapor Max Timberland Outlet Adidas NMD Adidas EQT Ralph Lauren Toms Outlet Jordan 4 Cheap Jordan Adidas NMD Jordan Shoes Kate Spade Outlet Longchamp Outlet Adidas Yeezy Adidas NMD R1 Nike Air Max 90 Running shoes Basketball Shoes Michael Kors bags Adidas Yeezy outlet Asics Coach Factory Outlet Cheap Nike Shoes 2017 Timberland outlet Air Jordan Adidas Yeezy Nike VaporMax Air Maxvapor

Jul 20, 2017 at 9:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterSpinner Fidget Toy

Question (to both sides) - which is more likely to change the minds of your opponents - telling them they are stupid, or telling them they are venal?

Neither, just 'misguided'.

You never know, there may be hope, one day they may see the light.

IMHO it can help to be polite. But it is difficult to remain so when this is, at times, rather one-sided...

Mar 9, 2018 at 1:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterJayJay

I know you posted this quite a long time ago, but I wanted you to know that this is exactly what I was just looking for.
It's perfect. I thought I was going to have to carve little holes in my cigar boxes,
and then I saw your idea of using plastic canvas Nz
I have a lot of leftover plastic canvas from when my mother used to do needlepoint tissue box covers.
So, cheap and easy! Thanks!

Mar 29, 2019 at 7:27 AM | Unregistered Commenterjynx

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>