Seen elsewhere
The calendar

Click to buy!




Click images for more details

Recent comments
Recent posts

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

Powered by Squarespace


Thanks, Brownedoff, I hadn't seen that. It was something of an exaggeration for Graham Stringer to say that I had "carried out a survey of all the reports that consider the views of climate scientists". Nonetheless, it was gratifying to see that I may have contributed something to the debate.

Nov 24, 2014 at 10:43 AM | Registered CommenterRobin Guenier

SandyS: interesting video link. Typical denier, though – usual rabid insistence on staying calm and reasonable, and quoting simple, verifiable facts. Obviously just another nut-job, and not worth listening to.

Nov 24, 2014 at 10:32 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Graham Stringer MP cited Robin Guenier’s evidence ( to the "Energy and Climate Change Committee" in last Thursday's debate in Westminister Hall:

Westminster Hall

Thursday 20 November 2014

[Mr Clive Betts in the Chair]

IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

20 Nov 2014 : Column 159WH

" ...........Staying with the science for a moment, one of the amendments that I proposed to the Select Committee report was to say that we do not really have 97% consensus that we are heading towards catastrophic climate change. I base that, although there are other areas that we can look at, on Robin Guenier’s evidence to the Committee. He carried out a survey of all the reports that consider the views of climate scientists, and he concluded:

“In summary, the inadequacy of useful evidence means that the extent to which the SPM reflects climate scientists’ views is both unknown and likely to continue to be unknown.”

That is because there has not been a decent survey.

20 Nov 2014 : Column 160WH

....................... "


Nov 24, 2014 at 10:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterBrownedoff

SandyS - coincidentally I came across this link last night on a Tallbloke thread, to an old (2006) solar forecast from NASA:

c777 says:
November 22, 2014 at 11:48 am
Solar cycle 25, on the way.
Wonder how they’ll try to blag their way out of that one?

SC24 has not been as strong as Hathaway predicted - see Leif Svalgaard – Active Region Count (source page ). It will be interesting to see if SC25 sticks to the script, and the pause/plateau continues - or we fall off a cliff. The NASA forecast only mentions the quiet Sun forecast in terms of the radiological impact on potential manned space missions, not global cooling / Dalton or Maunder type events, but historical evidence does seem to suggest the two are hand in hand.

Nov 24, 2014 at 9:50 AM | Registered Commenterlapogus

An interesting video for those that think solar influence on climate is important at IceAgeNow. Just over 20 minutes long.

Nov 24, 2014 at 8:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

There is one commodity that cannot run out too soon, I eagerly await peak subsidy! Along with an end to the nonsensical creation, out of thin air, of "new commodities".

Creating new commodities: carbon trading and ecosystem services markets

Nov 23, 2014 at 5:27 PM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

Breath of Fresh Air on Nov 23, 2014 at 9:35 AM

Most commodities won't run out.

Robert, it was a question for EM to answer, the silence is deafening.

Peak of any commodity is where you have used 50% of the available reserves, this then causes rapid price increases as demand still increases but production levels drop, this has happened several times with oil and the recent oil price drop would suggest its happened again but that technology has increased the available reserves yet again. So the theory is unproven, as most green theories seem to be.

Nov 23, 2014 at 4:37 PM | Registered CommenterBreath of Fresh Air

John Barrett - The greatest natural concentrations of helium are found in natural gas, from which most commercial helium is extracted. More fracking, more helium.

Nov 23, 2014 at 3:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Robert Christopher
That was the Secretary-General of OPEC in the 1970s, Sheihk Yamani:
"The Stone Age didn't come to come to an end because we ran out of stones and what you might call the Oil Age will end long before we run out of oil."
I think he had more faith than our eco-nuts in human ingenuity and sanity if I read him right. He reckoned that we would find a better way of running those things that need oil rather than that we would be forced back into the Middle Ages by a bunch of no-hopers whose combined understanding of human nature and the possibilities of human progress would just about fill a thimble. Probably.

Nov 23, 2014 at 3:16 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Breath of Fresh Air on Nov 23, 2014 at 9:35 AM

Most commodities won't run out.

They will get more expensive, and that will allow less profitable resources to be exploited, and this will increase supply or encourage a change of technology.

Didn't someone here say that the Stone Age didn't end because they ran out of stones?

Nov 23, 2014 at 3:08 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>