Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace

Unthreaded

Martin:

Tut tut, you've not been paying attention. CO2 only traps heat in the atmosphere, where it can freely convect. :-)

Nov 16, 2011 at 10:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

The Economist has an online debate which is worth a look.

Proposition:

This house believes that subsidising renewable energy is a good way to wean the world off fossil fuels.

Robert Bradley Jr. Founder and chief executive officer, Institute for Energy Research is "the good guy" ... and he's spoken quite well (much to moderator, James Astill's displeasure. Astill seems to prefer the Proposer, Matthias Fripp)

It's a very close debate ... with Con at 51% as of this post.

http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/779

Nov 16, 2011 at 9:10 AM | Unregistered Commenterhro001

I'm in the middle of replacing some windows. The new double-glazed units are (the manufacturer says) filled with argon instead of air, to give better thermal insulation.

Why aren't double glazing units filled with CO2? I heard that it "traps heat".

Nov 16, 2011 at 9:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

You would need to contact Philip Foster,, try via climate realists website

Nov 16, 2011 at 9:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

30th Nov, day of the national strikes, London could be an interesting place at least to try and get from a to b!

I would expect attendance and coverage of "The Climate Change Act Reconsidered" to be severely limited but I wouldn't suggest that it would be by design, I'm sure that the organisers will have taken this into consideration and pre-warned all those wishing to attend, and the press.

Nov 16, 2011 at 7:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

Cassio:

The details I have are that the meeting is "The Climate Change Act Reconsidered"and it is to be held on Wednesday 30th Nov 2011 from 1pm in a committee room at Westminster Palace or Portcullis House (TBA). It will be open to the public. If I get more details I will post them here.

Nov 16, 2011 at 7:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Philip Bratby mentions an impressive line-up of speakers, including Donna Laframboise, in London on 30th November. But where ? And is the meeting open to the public ? And where can I book my place ? Help, please, from anybody who knows !

Nov 15, 2011 at 10:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterCassio

More climate alarmism, funded by taxpayers:

The usual bollocks, 1m rise in sea-level by 2100 (northern Norway), less snow in Lapland for Santa and his helpers, more floods... All predicated on computer models and not much else as far as I can see.

Communities and climate change

And naturally this is all uncritically spun by the BBC here.

Nov 15, 2011 at 10:35 PM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus

Richard Betts seems a bit cross with Bob Ward !! (grantham)
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2011/11/climate-doomsday-clock-winding-down/#comment-37232
over at Yale Climate forum... Bob's been twisting his words..
---------------------------------------------------
Richard Betts says:
November 15, 2011 at 10:33 am
Hi Bob

Please stop twisting my words.

I didn’t say “most scientists I know disagree with the 2 degree target”.

I said “most of the climate scientists (atmospheric physicists) I know do not subscribe to the 2 degrees ‘Dangerous Climate Change’ meme”. This is very different.

My point is merely that defining Dangerous Climate Change is not a question for atmospheric physics, as it has socioeconomic and policy dimensions and it is important for the integrity of climate science to remain distinct from such areas.

I must say that your persistance on this issue is rather worrying, as you seem to be trying to shut down legitimate scientific debate, which is unhealthy. The scientific uncertainties *should* be discussed openly, for the reasons I have explained.

BTW the AVOID report you mention was an expert elicitation. The experts involved are all highly-regarded but even so the evidence upon which they based their statements is still subject to high uncertainty. I don’t see why citing this report conflicts with my statements.

Nov 15, 2011 at 5:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

http://order-order.com/2011/11/15/bbc-caught-selling-news-slots-to-climate-change-crusaders/

BBC Caught Selling News Slots to Climate Change Crusaders

An investigation by the Indy has caught the BBC red-handed selling airtime for millions of pounds. They are trying to spin it as “nominal fees”, but a look at the numbers and content involved is pretty shocking:

Nov 15, 2011 at 4:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-record

PostCreate a New Post

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