Wednesday 22nd of September 2021

the battle of the hearts...


Rupert Murdoch is the major mass publisher of climate change denialism. ALL his journals, newspapers and TV outlets sing to the same tune: "Global warming is CRAP". Even when his learned journalists publish some purportedly "balanced" articles on the subject, it is designed to sow doubt in the mind of fair minded people. In his heart he hates anything that smells of anti-coal, anti-oil and anti-gas. He wants to burn the place down with more CO2 emissions. So how can he and HALL got into a relationship?

Here is some of what Jerry Hall wrote in the daily Mail in 2009:

Just like any mother, over the years I have worried about my children's schoolwork, the food they eat, their happiness. But the issues I used to worry about while bringing up Elizabeth, James, Georgia May and Gabriel seem small fry when I consider that their very future is now at stake. Climate change is the biggest threat the world has ever known and it is happening right in front of our eyes. All the experts say governments need to act now if we're to have any chance of saving our children from

It is really just common sense. After all, there is no emergency exit, no back-up planet. If temperatures continue to rise, scientists say we'll be left not just with melted ice caps, but flooded cities and whole species wiped out for ever. I grew up in Texas and as a little girl I kept a raccoon, a pig, horses and even an alligator called Nathan (I still have a scar on my thumb where he bit me when I was 11). As I've grown older, I have begun to get back in touch with nature, and simple things like gardening give me great pleasure. I may have a cupboard full of Manolo Blahniks but these days I'm more likely to be found in a pair of wellingtons and carrying a spade. I keep chickens and I'm starting to grow organic vegetables in my garden - there's nothing like the taste of a carrot you've planted from seed. It may be a long way from the catwalks but I find it healing to get back in touch with the Earth, to remember where our food comes from, and how precious nature is.

read more:


Meanwhile, The Australian, the Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Fox News Network, all promote Uncle Rupe's despise of the science of global warming. He will use all the disinformation channels and all the tricks in the book. He is a dangerous man.  This is a review by proper scientists of the crap published in the WSJ, by Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser — both on the black list of denialists published by




Analysis of Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser’s “Your Complete Guide to the Climate Debate”

27 Nov 2015

12 scientists contributed to analyzing the article and estimated its overall scientific credibility to be 'Low' to 'Very Low'[1].

The opinion piece in the WSJ by Matt Ridley & Benny Peiser contains numerous false statements, cherry-picked evidence, and misleading assertions about climate science. It attempts to surround the hard facts about climate change with clouds of uncertainty, even though these facts are agreed to by the scientific academies of every major country in the world and the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists.

Facts and/or studies are cherry picked or placed out of context to support the main claim that global warming is not as bad as we feared. For example the assertion that 1.5C of warming would be “beneficial” is one that very few scientists or economists agree with, and is contradicted by the overwhelming weight of evidence in the IPCC’s reports showing that the adverse impacts from climate change will far outweigh the benefits from carbon-dioxide induced greening and other heat-related effects.

See below for a list of scientists’ comments on the article’s statements.

See all the scientists’ annotations in context


analysis of a logo...


In the logo above, one should already note the deceit. The graph is limited to the years from 2000 onwards (21st century). This is designed to highlight the "plateau" of temperature which was promoted by denialists as the end of warming (which never happened in their mind despite referencing to 1989 as the warmest year on record).


Should one does a real comparison, 2014 was the warmest year on record then and 2015 IS NOW THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD NOW by a whopping 0.15 Degree C on the new average (about ten times the annual increase measured since the 1950s). The GWPF, presently directed by Benny Peiser and created by Nigel Lawson and promoted by Lord Monckton is a deceitful outfit. 


Please visit: (nearly) all in the family... | Your Democracy



analysis of a rogue...

Patrick Moore background information
Patrick Moore, a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry, frequently cites a long-ago affiliation with Greenpeace to gain legitimacy in the media. Media outlets often either state or imply that Mr. Moore still represents Greenpeace, or fail to mention that he is a paid lobbyist and not an independent source. This page contains information about how to accurately describe Mr. Moore and to judge his credibility.

Patrick Moore is a Paid Spokesperson for the Nuclear Industry

In April 2006, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the principal lobby for the nuclear industry, launched the Clean And Safe Energy Coalition and installed former Bush Administration EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and Mr. Moore as its co-chairs. The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition was part of a public relations project spearheaded by the public relations giant Hill & Knowlton as part of its estimated $8 million contract with the nuclear industry.(1)

Patrick Moore Does Not Represent Greenpeace

For more than 20 years, Mr. Moore has been a paid spokesman for a variety of polluting industries, including the timber, mining, chemical and the aquaculture industries. Most of these industries hired Mr. Moore only after becoming the focus of a Greenpeace campaign to improve their environmental performance. Mr. Moore has now worked for polluters for far longer than he ever worked for Greenpeace. Greenpeace opposes the use of nuclear energy because it is a dangerous and expensive distraction from real solutions to climate change.

Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace

Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. A copy of his application letter and Greenpeace's response are available here (PDF).

Patrick Moore Has Provided Inaccurate Information on Nuclear Power

In 2004, Mr. Moore published an article in the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) journal entitled "Nuclear Re-think." According to Mr. Moore, "Three Mile Island was a success story. The concrete containment structure did as it was designed to do: it prevented radiation from escaping into the environment."(2)

Contrary to Mr. Moore's claim, the damaged reactor spewed radiation into the environment for days. It appears that Mr. Moore didn't even bother to check his facts. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's fact sheet on Three Mile Island (TMI) acknowledges that the meltdown resulted in "a significant release of radiation…"(3)

cherry pickings...


The global warming denialists do not hesitate in calling upon "reports" by serious scientists to confirm their denialist "views". But they do it in a way which is misleading, misquoting or simply truncating bits of the report to suit their agenda. Here is a simple example of devious deceit from the GWPF:

With regard specifically to the report we recently published by Indur Goklany called Carbon Dioxide: The Good News, detailed comments were received by reviewers inside and outside the AAC. The author was asked to respond to them, which he did. Any allegation to the contrary is false. The validity of the research in the Goklany report is self-evident. As Professor Freeman Dyson said in the foreword, “To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.” Professor Colin Prentice of the Grantham Institute concurred, saying “much of it is quite correct and moreover, well-established in the scientific literature…the various benefits of rising CO2 are actually well established in the scientific literature, even if sometime ignored. They are indeed ‘good news’. ”

read more:


This is what was actually said by Colin Prentice:

“Carbon Dioxide: The Good News” – This is the title of a recent Global Warming Policy Foundation report (Goklany, 2015) that focuses on the benefits of CO2 for people. In a hard-hitting foreword, eminent physicist Freeman Dyson claims that the entire scientific and policy establishment has been suffering from a form of “tribal group-think” that involves systematically ignoring the “obvious” facts about CO2.

The reason I find this report dismaying is not that it misrepresents the science. In fact, much of it is quite correct and moreover, well-established in the scientific literature. But given the ever-increasing politicisation of climate science, its author evidently found it appropriate to set up a straw man hypothesis, according to which CO2 is said to be “evil and dangerous” (by whom?), and to write the report in a polemical way that tends to draw the reader to a conclusion that because this straw man can easily be burnt down, the current international interest in emissions reduction is entirely misguided. He accuses the IPCC (Working Group 2) of putting a particular, negative gloss on the impacts of climate change on crop yields, for example; but then he puts his own very particular gloss on several topics, including the celebrated warming “hiatus”, the subject of an extensive recent literature that he largely ignores, in favour of the popular pastime of rubbishing climate models.

read more:


I believe that the GWPF hopes you will not check the original contrary works they quote, in its deceitful defence of its crap.

The problem with global warming is not CO2. It is about the EXTRA CO2


The Extra CO2 leads to global warming


wedding bells...

The 84-year-old media mogul and the 59-year-old former supermodel have been dating for four months after being introduced by Murdoch’s sister and niece in Australia.

Their relationship became public knowledge after they appeared together at the rugby World Cup final at Twickenham in London in October.

They were engaged over the weekend in Los Angeles, where they attended the Golden Globes.

The notice appeared in the Tuesday 12 January edition of the Times. The newspaper also ran a news story online, behind its paywall.

“Mr Rupert Murdoch, father of Prudence, Elisabeth, Lachlan, James, Grace and Chloe Murdoch, and Miss Jerry Hall, mother of Elizabeth, James, Georgia and Gabriel Jagger, are delighted to announce their engagement.”


May the old man come to terms with the reality of global warming.

driving our climate into uncharted territory...

Want to lose £2,000? Then make a bet with a climate change expert that the world isn’t warming.

That’s what two members of Lord Lawson’s climate change science denying Global Warming Policy Foundation(GWPF) did when they bet Chris Hope, a Cambridge University researcher, that 2015 wouldn’t be the hottest year ever recorded.

You win some, you lose some,” Benny Peiser, director of the GWPFtold Reuters, adding that the pace of warming “is not something that people… need to be greatly concerned about”.

But new data released this week by meteorologists in the UK and US proved the GWPF wrong as 2015 saw “record-shattering” global temperatures.

Climate Bet

Five years ago British engineer Alan Rudge and Australian geologist Ian Plimer – both members of the GWPFacademic advisory council – bet Hope £1,000 each that the Earth would be cooling by now, not warming.

Hope bet that average global temperatures in 2015 would be no more than 0.1°C cooler than in 2008.

Maybe Benny Peiser can let us know what pace of warming would be cause for concern?@theGWPFcom via @Reuters

— There's Physics (@theresphysics) January 21, 2016

As data released by the UK Met Office on 20 January revealed, the average global temperature in 2015 was 0.75°C higher than the long-term average between 1961 and 1990. The Met Office expects 2016 to beat this record.

When compared with the pre-industrial period, the 2015 average global temperature was around 1°C above the long-term average from 1850 to 1900 the Met Office said.

Temperature data from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) also showed that 2015 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern record keeping began in 1880.

Uncharted Territory

Experts agree the record-breaking 2015 temperature was the result of the long-term warming trend caused mainly by the burning of fossil fuels combined with a strong El Niño year.

Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies said: “2015 was remarkable even in the context of the ongoing El Niño. Last year’s temperatures had an assist from El Niño, but it is the cumulative effect of the long-term trend that has resulted in the record warming that we are seeing.”

Professor Phil Jones, from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, said: “While there is a strong El Niño-elevated global temperature this year, it is clear that human influence is driving our climate into uncharted territory.”


read more:

logo update...

One needs to keep an eye on the bastards... They try to appear up-to-date without any remark that could rock their flimsy denialist boat. Anyway the GWPF has updated its logo.


This is the updated version (portion thereof):

new logo (portion)


This still does not account for the rise in temperature during the 20th century. Note that most of the years in the 21st century were warmer than the years of the 20th century. This is the previous logo:




Note the added temperature for 2015 in the updated version...


Jerry Hall doesn’t tweet often, but her “absolutely wonderful” marriage to Rupert Murdoch just over a week ago has provided the perfect opportunity to return to the platform 241 days after posting a selfie with former Bond star Grace Jones.

The former model reunited with celebrated photographer David Bailey for the family photo, which, included all 10 of the couple’s children. 

They included Hall’s offspring Georgia May Jagger, Lizzie Jagger, James Jagger and Gabriel Jagger, as well as Prudence, Lachlan, Elisabeth, James, Grace and Chloe Murdoch.

he gets the whole cake and eats it...

Rupert Murdoch's Twenty-First Century Fox is set to win unconditional EU antitrust approval for its £11.7bn (€13.7bn) takeover of European pay-TV group Sky, two people familiar with the matter said on Friday.

Fox already owns 39pc of Sky. Murdoch and his family have long coveted full control of Sky, despite the damaging failure of a previous attempt in 2011 when their British newspaper business became embroiled in a phone-hacking scandal.

The European Commission, which is scheduled to decide on the deal on Friday, declined to comment.


read more:


See toon at top

when scientists are wrong...

Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists and that one of its main causes is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from the burning of fossil fuels.[55] He has said that in many ways increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is beneficial,[56] and that it is increasing biological growth, agricultural yields and forests.[57] He believes that existing simulation models of climate change fail to account for some important factors, and that the results thus contain too great a margin of error to reliably predict future trends.[55][58]

Dyson's views on global warming have been criticized.[22] In reply, he notes that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it's rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."[59]

In 2008 Dyson endorsed the now common usage of "global warming" as synonymous with global anthropogenic climate change,[60] but argued that political efforts to reduce the causes of climate change distract from other global problems that should take priority.[61]

Since originally taking interest in climate studies in the 1970s, Dyson has suggested that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere could be controlled by planting fast-growing trees. He calculates that it would take a trillion trees to remove all carbon from the atmosphere.[62][22] In a 2014 interview he said, "What I'm convinced of is that we don't understand climate ... It will take a lot of very hard work before that question is settled."[4]

Dyson is a member of the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a climate sceptic think tank chaired by Nigel Lawson.[63][64][65]


Read more:


"about which I do not know much" is not good enough for a man of sciences, especially when other people know a lot more about the subject. Freeman Dyson is thus used often by denialists and religious mobs for his views that cannot be verified and are mostly wrong in regard to global warming and possibly wrong in regard to the origin of life.


See also:



weakening synapses to cull memories...


preparing for armageddon...


boiling the kettle of global warming with a denialist weatherman...


interpretations of natural climate change and anthropogenic global warming...


the science of observation and enlightened response...


celebrating the madness of life...


Read from top.


Gus is not a scientist but can crunch the numbers and can say with 99.9 per cent confidence that the models of global warming so far have been understated in order to limit the "panic". The new models, more accurate, are actually computing a much faster warming. On this little site, YD, we explore many subjects — all of which are relating to the bio-process of thinking — from art to sciences — trying to exclude the hocus pocus of ignorance, ignorance mostly developed for control of people under religious dogmatic inventions.


"Physicist Freeman Dyson once wrote that the more he examined the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence he found that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming" is the kind of bullshit that get the religious mob excited... Physicists like Neils Bohr are (were) way above this bullshitic interpretation of random universal relativity.





rupert's WSJ pushes climate falsehoods...

Senator John Barrasso and the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) editorial board are once again attacking the federal electric vehicle tax credit, and are once again relying on easily debunked talking points born of the Koch network’s influence machine. 

Senator Barrasso has reportedly sent a letter to Republican colleagues in the Senate, advising them not to extend the electric vehicle (EV) tax credit. 

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board cheered Senator Barrasso’s act in an editorial published Tuesday. The deception and falsehoods are so rife in the WSJ editorial that it that begs for rebuttal. So here goes. 

The piece itself opens with a whopper. 

“Washington has been underwriting EVs for nearly 30 years.”

We asked the WSJ editorial board for a reference, but haven’t yet received a reply. The EV tax credit wasn’t introduced until 2009, and government research and development (R&D) spending on EVs was relatively small in preceding decades.

In fact, in 1990, the federal government spent roughly $194 million on all energy efficiency programs, a small percentage of which may have been steered towards transportation electrification. It’s worth noting that this $194 million was less than half of the R&D support provided to both the nuclear industry and fossil fuel industries. 

Possibly they are referring to California’s Zero Emission Vehicle mandate, introduced in 1990. But, of course, California isn’t “Washington,” and a mandate isn’t exactly “underwriting.” 

Later, the board writes:

“Itʼs hard to imagine a more blatant income transfer for the well-to-do. Electric cars are significantly more expensive than the average vehicle, with a starting price of around $36,000.” 

Actually, according to Kelly Blue Book, the average price for a new vehicle in the United States was $37,577 in December 2018

They continue:

“A recent Congressional Research Service study found that nearly 80 percent of the credits were claimed by households with adjusted gross income of more than $100,000.”

Specifically, this CRS report explains that in 2016, 57,066 individual taxpayers claimed $375 million in plug-in vehicle tax credits. Of these 57,066, 78 percent have an adjusted gross income of $100,000 or more.

However, this study ignores the significant role leases play in the EV market. (And the CRS acknowledges as much in its methodology.)

Through 2017, the vast majority of EVs were leased — a full 80 percent of non-Tesla EVs and still well more than half of all EVs including Tesla, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. In 2016, when those 57,066 individuals claimed the EVtax credit, a total of 158,614 plug-in vehicles were newly registered. This means that more than 100,000 were leased, or nearly two-thirds of all new EVs put on the road that year. After a dealer claims the $7,500 tax credit, it is applied as a rebate at the point of sale and reduces the monthly lease payments, making EVs more affordable for drivers of all income levels. 

Finally, the WSJ editorial board claims — somehow, without any reference or substantiation — that:

“None of this will have the slightest impact on the climate.” 

This claim only makes sense if you entirely deny the scientific realities of how greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change. The transportation sector is currently the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, and personal vehicles represent the majority of those emissions. 


Read more:



Read from top...