Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace


The planet where the sheeple don't bother checking. This is why I don't care if their electricity bills go up.

Jul 3, 2013 at 4:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

'An unprecendented rise' The planet is warming faster than ever before, says UN
THE planet has warmed faster in the first half of the decade than any other time in history, United Nations experts have claimed.

Which planet are they on?

Jul 3, 2013 at 4:11 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

'deep liberal bias' is an Americanese euphemism for 'bigoted socialist proselytising'.

Quote from the report: "The BBC Trust said it takes seriously the challenge of being "constantly alert to changing public opinion". Why not just try reporting the news as objectively as you can rather than see yourselves in some kind of heroic, explain it to the masses role? Why should public opinion interfere with such reporting?

I think the BBC Trust would be better off being 'constantly alert' to opinion within the BBC itself.

Jul 3, 2013 at 4:09 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

Report finds BBC has "deep liberal bias":

I wonder if this bias also extends to the subject of AGW?

Jul 3, 2013 at 3:26 PM | Registered Commenterlapogus


An old aboriginal chief died and was replaced by his son, who wasn't so well schooled in the old ways. Come the winter, the tribe want to know what to expect of the weather, so not really knowing, he plays safe and tells them to get some wood in. When he's on his own again, he calls up the local weather bureau and asks them - they don't know either, of course, so they hedge and say it could be cold.

The chief decides he'd better update his forecast and tells the others to gather plenty more wood, and a bit later calls the bureau to check. The guy in the office confirms that it promises to be really cold, so the chief asks him how he knows. "Oh, I'm sure" says the weather man, "have you seen all those Abos out there collecting wood?"

Jul 3, 2013 at 1:53 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

Turning Tide

Some of the comments are unbelievable ! No mention of Drax being bribed to burn inefficient wood and the effects of that on the atmosphere (it is supposed to be green to burn wood !). If alternative forms of energy for heating were resonably price the need to burn wood would be reduced. It seems the eco-loons want to remove any attempt by us to reduce our heating bills.

Jul 3, 2013 at 12:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoss Lea

Yet another example of the Law of Unintended Consequences at work here:

No fire without smoke: wood stove trend creates a burning issue

Will the eco-loons ever learn?

Jul 3, 2013 at 11:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterTurning Tide

not sure about Tim seeing the horrors of the apocalypse.. ref Dr Tim

try googling:

Dr Tim Kurz pole dancing


Jul 3, 2013 at 10:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods


That'd be Climate Care the "international floggers of Green Indulgences"? - I can only imagine that their reluctance to convert to a charity has something to do with their revenue/funding model - i.e. who buys the indulgences - I'd bet that they number a few UK gubmint departments and creepily led corporates among their clients...(I'd put money on DfID and DECC being enthusiastic offset shoppers) These relatively recent "for the public good" / community companies are quite a tangled swamp and they are wide open to abuse - that swamp needs draining.

It doesn't take many generations of incest/inbreeding to produce some strange, mutant animals - in fact it's been achieved with this outfit quite miraculously!

Jul 3, 2013 at 12:43 AM | Registered Commentertomo

Re: the Exeter Psychology Department survey.

I just wrote to the Chair of the School of Psychology’s Ethics Committee.

At the end of the survey they describe ClimateCare (who presumably have some connection with the survey) as being a charity and yet on their own web site they describe themselves as being an independent ‘Profit for Purpose’ organisation.

Their website puts it this way:

"Climate Care is a company limited by guarantee and has no shareholders.

When Climate Care started, as now, it was felt that Climate Care's service should not be simply seen as 'doing good'. We want people to pay us for a service, and thereby make the link between their actions and the climate. This is subtly different to people donating money to good works.

There is also the concern that if cleaning up pollution was adopted as a charitable goal, then the scale of the problem would mean that charitable giving to other sectors could be severely curtailed.

So Climate Care is not a charity, as we do not believe it should be left to the charitable sector to clear up pollution.

We are sometimes asked why we do not convert to being a charity, as there may be tax advantages of doing so. We have considered it in the past and we may consider it in the future but, for the reasons outlined above, it would be difficult to do so."

So they want people to make the link between their actions and the climate - which is exactly what the survey appears to be investigating. The survey is in effect helping a commercial organisation achieve its aims and yet the survey misleadingly describes the organisation as being a charity.

I must admit to being somewhat surprised that this distinction escaped the scrutiny of the ethics committee and must wonder whether they are in some way connected with the Tim Yeo school of ethics?

Jul 2, 2013 at 11:45 PM | Registered Commentermatthu

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>