Wednesday, April 29, 2015


T o suppress the thermodynamic heresy, we must  excommunicate all who deny black vestiments will keep us cool in Hell 

"Some 'me too' statement from someone who is not a physicist but a chemist is not likely to carry very much weight in the councils of the world. The damage that would be done by a statement straying into the science of this questionon either sidewould be to the church herself. For yet again, she would have gone beyond what she was founded to do… and yet again got the science 100 percent plumb wrong."  
                                                                                                         --Viscount Monckton 
 The Heartland Institute has had the most fun vandalizing the Vatican since the Swiss came through town in 1524

Sunday, April 26, 2015



'You demean the office that you hold and you demean the church' 

                                                                        --   Viscount  Monckton  of  Brenchley

“The Holy Father is being misled by ‘experts’ at the United Nations who have proven unworthy of his trust,” Heartland Institute presbyter president John seph Knox  Bast said. 
“Humans are not causing a climate crisis on God’s Green Earth – in fact, they are fulfilling their Biblical duty to protect and use it for the benefit of humanity. 
Though Pope Francis’s heart is surely in the right place, he would do his flock and the world a disservice by putting his moral authority behind the United Nations’ unscientific agenda on the climate."
“People of all faiths have a moral calling to continually seek the truth," Bast said. 'That is why Heartland is sending a contingent of real scientists to Rome next week. We are bringing the Vatican a message of truth for all with open ears."

This seems to have struck a chord with the unfortunately named Maureen Mullarkey, who writes in  First Things  that:
"Francis sullies his office by using demagogic formulations  to bully the populace ... theologised propaganda,”

Could she have confused Heartland's fatwa with this encyclical produced by The Inquisition For A Constructive Tomorrow  for

             his Unholiness  Antipope  Marc XXIII:

“The Pope’s claim that: 'It is man who has slapped nature in the faceneeds to be weighed against  the fact that fossil fuels have allowed mankind  to  stop nature from slapping man in the face...
Instead of entering into an invalid Marriage with climate fear promoters — a marriage that is destined for an annulment – Pope Francis should administer last rites to the promotion of  man-made climate fears and their so-called solutions. This unholy alliance must be prevented... climate activists have even called for genetically altering humans to fight global warming."

Sound theology can draw but one lesson from this historic Roman conclave: those too preterite to slap Nature back should turn the other fish when slapped by their fellow man:


Thursday, April 23, 2015



Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's contributors

Growing wine in Greenland

Posted: Updated: 

... I would lay odds on there being a 100% correlation between climate change deniers and intelligent design believers...  If you believe that wine growing in England, and crops in Greenland, and the River Thames freezing over, are all not only true (they aren't of course) but significant climatic events, then you also know that humans lived through those changes.

Step Away From the Heat Beam

Posted: Updated: 
It's strange how, among the segment of climate change deniers who think the planet is warming but think it is all perfectly natural and we should just lay back and enjoy it and think of Greenland, the view that global warming never did anyone any harm is dominant. They welcome, embrace, the idea of an extra 2, 3, 4 degrees, the more the merrier, bring it on. They are relaxed about the change in the way that a man falling from a building with 100 floors reaches number 50 and says "so far so good".
I'm a science fiction/fantasy fan, and it is clear that climate change deniers are not. But let me try this on them. What if a space ship suddenly arrived ... hey, you insignificant little grubs, we want your planet, want to take one of your rare Earth elements. If you don't give up all your stocks of it now we will use this heat beam to begin warming up your planet.
What would our response be? Go for it you nasty little green bugs, do your worst,....Be good to have it warmer.
Or would there be an instant call to battle stations? .... Radio shock jocks would rally their listeners to support the UN, conservative politicians would join hands with progressives in unity governments, ... and solutions would be found, space shuttles launched, shields erected, wavelengths interfered with, heat beams reversed until the aliens were turned into so many fried green tomatoes. 

Mark Steyn
April 22 2015
It’s an elitist thing...— they come up with this phrase about ‘climate deniers’ and all the rest of it. They’re the ones who actually deny science.
 They basically took a jackhammer to a thousand years of sane scientific observation of natural climate variability of the Medieval Warm Period when they were making wine in Greenland,

Monday, April 20, 2015


How To Tell If The Post About Climate You 

Are Reading Is B.S., In Five Easy Steps

1. Skip articles pretending  to know how fast the unknowable will happen, as in
 "  Whatever changes we are too greedy or myopic to stop from happening in the first place are “irreversible” on that timescale, as the world’s leading scientists and governments explained in November."

2. Skip  polemics that try to steer you away from the scientific literature , as in 
"The Times piece is a double time waster because not only is the piece itself anti-informative but one of its goals is to get you to read an even longer, even more anti-informative essay, “An Ecomodernist Manifesto,” which is “A MANIFESTO TO USE HUMANITY’S EXTRAORDINARY POWERS IN SERVICE OF CREATING A GOOD ANTHROPOCENE.” Not!"
3. Skip  dueling tuba articles written by the opposite numbers of  George Will - one is enough.
4. Skip articles, especially longer ones,  by authors who ignore their own past predictive failures and evade stating what time frame  they are talking about for changes said to pose existential threats.
5.  be very afraid of authors even more calculatedly Orwellian than terms like
 “good Anthropocene,” 
soi disant environmental philosophers included.

Saturday, April 18, 2015

The Second Sun

At last a film that really clarifies  what commenters and guest post authors  have been trying to tell the world


The whiskers of 58 species of lagomorphs are atwitch  at the news that Tony's answer to  Thomas Galton,  Eric Worrall has moved on from DIY meteorology ( "High sunspot count is associated with warm weather..." ) to rabbit population punditry :
"it is futile, in my opinion...Even biological warfare has failed to contain the rabbit plague. Australia runs one of the most advanced biological warfare laboratories in the world, dedicated to finding new rabbit specific plagues... The research is ongoing, because nothing works for long. When a virulent new disease, or a genetically modified version of an old disease is released, the rabbit population crashes, but within a few years it bounces back, as adaptions for resistance to the new disease spread rapidly through the population.
The reason for this adaptability is that rabbits breed like, er rabbits..."

Friday, April 17, 2015


Carbon-Based Prohibition

If some environmentalists have their way, simple math suggests life as we know it will end

In 1916 a blanket ban on beer seemed like far-fetched idea. But prohibitionists cracked the door open by promising to keep whiskey available by prescription. Within three years, the country was dry.
Nearly a century later, environmentalists are thinking the same way about carbon. Converting fossil fuels into controlled substances today could lead to outright carbon prohibition tomorrow.
In a magazine interview last year, Al Gore upped his call for a 90 percent cut in fossil fuel use, demanding Congress “eliminate the payroll tax and replace it dollar for dollar with a CO2 tax.” A research paper published this year in Geophysical Research Letters went further. “Avoiding future human-induced climate warming,” the authors said, “may require policies that seek not only to decrease CO2 emissions, but to eliminate them entirely.” As the New York Times business section headlined it in March, “For Carbon Emissions, a Goal of Less Than Zero.”
Those who view fossil fuel the way Carrie Nation did Demon Rum point out that were everyone on Earth to burn just a gas tank’s worth of carbon each day, CO2 in the atmosphere would still double in a decade. Skeptics may discount climate models as metaphysical, but true believers consider the human costs of prohibition an acceptable price for environmental salvation. Gore’s 2006 Nobel Prize speech elevated environmentalism from a pretext for social intervention to a categorical imperative by declaring: “We must abandon the conceit that individual, isolated, private actions are the answer.…They will not take us far enough without collective action.”
It took two centuries for daily per capita carbon consumption in America to reach the roughly 100-pound level that currently lights homes, powers industry, and keeps the Internet humming. But like driving, all those welcome activities increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The average American currently generates 22 tons of CO2 a year, but to limit 21st century warming to 2.5 degrees Celsius, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggests cutting the global rise in CO2 to one part per million by 2050. That’s only a small multiple of the weight of the CO2 people exhale, and realizing this goal within 42 years could require America to burn less carbon in a month than we do now in a day.
This draconian downturn unfolds from a single statistic: the 5-quadrillion-ton weight of Earth’s atmosphere. Your 792,000-ton share of the air may seem hefty, but one part per million of it is less than one ton. Goodbye, central heating; an average New England home furnace belts out six tons of CO2 a year. Ditto private cars; families living on a truly Earth-friendly carbon ration might spend breakfast debating whether to blow their half-pint gasoline coupon on a moped ride to town or use the daily kilowatt-hour allotment to turn the communal electric blanket up to 4. Holiday turkeys may end up as sashimi, since oven roasting could mean a heatless Thanksgiving night or Christmas Eve.
A personal CO2 limit of less than a ton per year does not even imply the right to buy that much fuel, because CO2 is only 27 percent carbon. Multiply your 1,745-pound annual CO2 ration by 27 percent, divide the result by 365 days, and…yikes! It’s 21 ounces of carbon a day—and falling. If the global population reaches 9 billion by 2050, expect a daily fossil fuel ration of a latté cup of gasoline, three Pilates balls of natural gas, or a lump of coal the size of a turnip.
If you suspect life on a pound of coal a day might be solitary, brutish, nasty, and short, you’re right. The countries with the smallest carbon footprints already feature the shortest life expectancies on Earth. Not that real prohibitionists should mind—Sudan , Somalia and Afghanistan are all  bone dry.
Russell Seitz (, a physicist living in Cambridge, Massachusetts, blogs on the climate wars at

Thursday, April 16, 2015


It is April, and as the air again fills with airheads and nostalgia for the Logan Act, let us prepare for Paris in November by recalling the glory days of environmental evangelism on the sidewalks of New York

Tuesday, April 14, 2015


The decay of what the late William  F. Buckley  styled his 'Review of fact and opinion' continues, witness what becomes of attempts to dissent from the current Editor's party line ; Hat tip to Stoat for setting off a Deep Shock wave at NR by  mentioning  the  Irony Thing.


If http://vvattsupwiththat.blogsp... is true, and I see no reason to think it isn't, 
this post is somewhat ironic, no?