Letters to the Editor

De-Industrial Revolution Spreads

quill pen

To the Editor
Climate Conversation

10th April 2016

The industrial revolution started in Britain with inventors and entrepreneurs using coal to drive steam engines and make iron and steel. Generations have benefitted.

But Greens have started the DI (de-industrial) revolution. Their policies aim to have Britain producing no coal or steel and relying on expensive, subsidised, intermittent energy from windmills.

Consequently, heavy industry in Britain is in sharp decline, real jobs are scarce and some frosty night, lights will go out, trains will stop and “Earth Hour” will last until dawn.

The pampered green class will rejoice temporarily, but will soon join the modern pommy paupers forced back to candles, poaching and workhouses.


Greece, Spain and Italy are also infected with the DI disease. It has now spread to Australia where mining, energy and heavy industries are drowning in green ooze.

Viv Forbes


forbes [at] carbon-sense [dot] com

Views: 152

21 Thoughts on “Letters to the Editor

  1. Andy on 12/04/2016 at 11:32 am said:

    In a similar vein

    (via Hot Topic comments)

    A federal judge in Oregon on Friday ruled that the lawsuit brought against the U.S. government by a group of youths last August can go to trial—a huge victory for the case climate activists are calling “the most important lawsuit on the planet right now.”

    The lawsuit, filed by 21 plaintiffs ages 8-19, and climate scientist Dr. James Hansen, states that the federal government is violating their right to life, liberty, and property, as well as their right to public trust resources, by enabling continued fossil fuel extraction and use.
    “This is as important a court case as the planet has yet seen,” said Bill McKibben, co-founder of climate group 350.org. “To watch the next generation stand up for every generation that will follow is as moving as it is significant.”


    Presumably these 8-19 year olds are all acting on their own volition and are convinced that catastrophic climate change is happening, despite there being no discernible surface warming in their lifetimes

    Presumably, these 8-19 year olds have considered all the social and economic implications of stopping using fossil fuels

    Presumably these 8-19 year olds are not being used for political propaganda purposes by adults. These are very bright 8 year olds fully conversant in IPCC literature, and will be able to cite all the papers in the AR5 report that state that “catastrophic” warming is happening, right now

    Of course, we won’t be able to criticise or comment on the 8-19 year olds views. If a University of Edinburgh student is evicted from a student union meeting because raising her hand violated their “safe space policy”, then we can rest assured that these even younger snowflakes will be protected from “triggers”, like for example the near presence of a “climate denier” which might make them burst into tears.

  2. LukesAreWrongToo on 12/04/2016 at 12:04 pm said:

    John O’Sullivan from Principia Scientific International (without a background in physics) acts just like one of those power-hungry editors of those notorious journals that publish climatology papers, deciding all by himself what’s right and wrong science. So PSI “science” is just as corrupt and easily refuted with empirical evidence.

    Note however that PSI member Dr Hans Jelbring (with a PhD in climatology) fully supports what I say and my efforts to expose the fallacious physics at PSI and elsewhere. Evidence also supports my hypothesis without exception.

    What a JOKE it is to watch Jef Reynen and Joseph Postma (in their PSI articles) fight it out with totally different radiation figures each supposedly explaining Earth’s surface temperature. Both of them ignore the simultaneous surface cooling by evaporation and sensible heat which even the IPCC and NASA know must be deducted from the incident radiation before determining the maximum temperature such radiation could achieve.

    Jef Reynen talks about a mean of 180W/m^2 spread over the whole surface, so that could NOT make the mean surface temperature more than 237.4K (about -36°C) but Joseph Postma (considering only the sunlit hemisphere) not only forgets about the non-radiative cooling mentioned above, but also the 20% of solar insulation that is absorbed by the atmosphere. So he gets about 303K (30°C) from about 480W/m^2 which you will notice is more than twice Jef Reynen’s 180W/m^2, even though the area is only halved.

    Of course their fictitious physics doesn’t work on other planets like Venus, but they gloss over the inadequacies of their conjectures so to do.

    Every vortex cooling tube EXHIBITS the “HEAT CREEP” PROCESS as the central region becomes colder due to heat from it to the outer region that is becoming hotter – as a result of centrifugal force. If downward free convective heat transfer did not happen we’d all freeze to death.

    If John O’Sullivan without a physics background, thinks what I say is flawed, then he should get some physicist who understands entropy maximization and thermodynamics to study it and publish a refutation. I’ll show you in my responses where he is mistaken if he thinks I’m wrong. Do you see any refutations in the comment thread on my blog https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com ? And I don’t delete any that indicate they understand what the hypothesis is saying and the evidence that supports it, and they keep to discussing my hypothesis, not the radiative GH conjecture which says the opposite.

  3. Richard C (NZ) on 12/04/2016 at 12:35 pm said:

    REVEALED: EU subsidises the CHINESE steel which is decimating British industry’

    BRITISH taxpayers have been forced to subsidise the very Chinese steel companies that are threatening 40,000 UK jobs, critics say.

    By Marco Giannangeli, Sun, Apr 10, 2016


    # # #

    Another EU vote for Brexit.

  4. Andy on 12/04/2016 at 1:00 pm said:

    I does seem slightly creepy that climate activists have to resort to using 8 year old children to pushing their propaganda through the courts, but when you are a leftist creep with no moral compass, anything goes I guess.

  5. Richard C (NZ) on 12/04/2016 at 1:02 pm said:

    >[Hansen case] “(via Hot Topic comments)”

    Posted in the HT February temperature thread. Why that wasn’t posted in the ‘Hansen’s Magnum Opus’ thread (yet to see a comment), I’ll never know.

  6. Andy on 12/04/2016 at 1:19 pm said:

    Don’t know, it’s just a random comment they posted about “good news”. ie a bunch of children trying to shut down the USA economy

  7. Richard C (NZ) on 12/04/2016 at 1:51 pm said:





    A. Standing
    Plaintiffs must demonstrate standing for each claim they seek to press and for each form of
    relief sought. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 352 (2006). At the pleading stage,
    general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant’s conduct may suffice. Lujan v.
    Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). For Article III standing, plaintiffs must satisfy
    three “irreducible constitutional minimum” requirements: (1) they suffered an injury in fact that is
    concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged
    conduct; and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable court decision. Id. at 560-61.
    L Concrete, Particularized, Imminent Injury
    Plaintiffs allege that climate change endangers humanity and nature and is a consequence of
    human caused or influenced green house gases, primarily C02, derived from the combustion of fossil
    fuels. First Amended Complaint (F AC) (#7) at~ 202. Plaintiffs allege because C02 persists in the
    atmosphere, future emissions will lead to severe impacts on children and future generations and the
    current level of C02 has already taken our country into the “danger zone.” Id. At ~~ 206-07.
    Plaintiffs aver emissions must be rapidly and systematically reduced in order to avoid crossing the
    tipping points that set in motion disastrous, irrevocable impacts to human civilization and nature.
    Id. At~ 208. According to plaintiffs it will be nearly impossible for them to adapt to all of the
    current climate change impacts in the quick time-frame in which they will occur and that, therefore,
    “the survival and well-being of plaintiffs is significantly threatened by climate destabilization.” Id.
    at~ 208, ~ 211. Plaintiffs further allege that climate change is “already damaging human and natural
    systems, causing loss of life and pressing species to extinction.” Id. at ~ 213. Plaintiffs allege
    specifics regarding global changes that also lead to local harm such as: disintegration of both the
    West and East Antarctic ice sheets with concomitant sea level rise damaging coastal regions;
    changing rainfall and atmospheric conditions affecting water and heat distribution causing severe
    storm surges, floods, hurricanes, droughts, insect infestation, reduced crop yields, increased invasive
    vegetation, and fires; ocean acidification damaging sea life; increase in allergies, asthma, cancer, and
    other diseases; and harm to national security causing destabilization in various regions of the world.
    Id. at~~ 213-241.

    However, plaintiffs also assert injuries that are personal in nature such as: jeopardy to family
    farms resulting from the planned Jordan Cove gas line, 2 increased temperatures, and wildfires (FA C
    at~~ 31-34, 23-30); lost recreational opportunities(~, FAC at~~28-29, 31-34); and harm to family
    dwellings from superstorms (~, FAC at~ 71-72),3 etc. See, Memorandum of Plaintiffs in
    Opposition to Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss ( #41) at pp. 29-3?. While the personal harms
    are a consequence of the alleged broader harms, noted above, that does not discount the concrete
    harms already suffered by individual plaintiffs or likely to be suffered by these plaintiffs in particular
    in the future.


    While the F AC identifies numerous climatic, meteorologic, and political harms that the Earth
    and its inhabitants will suffer as a result of the government’s action and failure to act with respect
    to C02 emissions, the plaintiffs differentiate the impacts by alleging greater harm to youth and future
    generations.4 At this stage of the proceedings, the allegations, which must be taken as true, establish
    action/inaction that injures plaintiffs in a concrete and personal way.

    The debate about climate change and its impact has been before various political bodies for
    some time now. Plaintiffs give this debate justiciability by asserting harms that befall or will befall
    them personally and to a greater extent than older segments of society. It may be that eventually the
    alleged harms, assuming the correctness of plaintiffs’ analysis of the impacts of global climate
    change, will befall all of us. But the intractability of the debates before Congress and state
    legislatures and the alleged valuing of short term economic interest despite the cost to human life,
    necessitates a need for the courts to evaluate the constitutional parameters of the action or inaction
    taken by the government. This is especially true when such harms have an alleged disparate impact
    on a discrete class of society.

    To reiterate, at this stage of the proceedings the court must accept the allegations of concrete
    particularized harm or imminent threat of such harm as true. The question then becomes whether
    the alleged harm is traceable to defendants’ conduct and whether the court can redress such harm.

    2. Causation
    As noted above, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct of
    which plaintiffs complained. In other words, the injury has to be fairly traceable to the challenged
    action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before
    the court. Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26, 41-42 (1976).
    At the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendants’
    conduct may suffice because the court must presume that general allegations embrace those specific
    facts that are necessary to support the claim. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561
    (1992). The government asserts that the association between the complained of conduct (such as
    subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, favorable revenue code provisions, allowing transport of fossil
    fuels, and authorizing fossil fuel combustion in the energy/refinery/transportation/manufacturing
    sectors) and the associated greenhouse gas emissions that ultimately cause the harm is tenuous and
    filled with countless intervening actions by unidentified third parties. However, as alleged, without
    the complained of conduct, the third parties would not be able to engage as extensively in the
    activities that allegedly cause climate change and the resulting harm.

    To survive a motion to dismiss for lack of constitutional standing, plaintiffs must establish
    a line of causation between defendants’ action and their alleged harm that is more than attenuated.
    Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 757 (1984). A causal chain does not fai~ simply because it has
    several links, provided those links are not hypothetical or tenuous and remain plausible. Nat’l
    Audubon Soc., Inc. v. Davis, 307 F.3d 835, 849 (9th Cir. 2002). In cases where a chain of causation
    involves numerous third parties whose independent decisions collectively have a significant effect
    on plaintiffs’ injuries, the causal chain may be too weak to support standing at the pleading stage. See
    Allen, 468 U.S. at 759.

    But here, there is an alleged strong link between all the supposedly independent and
    numerous third party decisions given the government’s regulation of C02 emissions. See, e.g., 42
    U.S.C. § 7409 (providing the EPA the authority to regulate national ambient air quality standards
    for the attainment and maintenance of the public health); Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497
    (2007) (EPA has power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions). If the allegations in the complaint
    are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional
    proportions to the public health. Presumably, sweeping regulations by this agency (the EPA) alone
    could result in curtailing of major C02 producing activities by not just the defendant agencies, but
    by the purported independent third parties as well. 5 At this pleading stage, the court need not sort
    out the necessity or propriety of all the various agencies and individuals to participate as defendants,
    at least with respect to issues of standing. For now, it is sufficient that EP A’s action/inaction with
    respect to the regulation of greenhouse gases allegedly results in the numerous instances of emissions
    that purportedly cause or will cause the plaintiffs harm. Assuming lack of EPA or other government
    action to reduce emissions, the analysis turns to redressability.

    3. ~ Redressability of the Injury
    At this stage of the proceedings, the court’s job is not to determine whether increased
    greenhouse gases have impacted the climate and will have dire consequences for future generations.
    The issue is whether the court can fashion a remedy to address that alleged harm should plaintiffs
    prove it. Redressability does not require certainty, but it does require a substantial likelihood that
    the injury will be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.

    B. Political Question

    C. Valid Constitutional Claim

    D. Public Trust Doctrine



    # # #

    >”To reiterate, at this stage of the proceedings the court must accept the allegations of concrete
    particularized harm or imminent threat of such harm as true. The question then becomes whether
    the alleged harm is traceable to defendants’ conduct and whether the court can redress such harm.

    >”To survive a motion to dismiss for lack of constitutional standing, plaintiffs must establish
    a line of causation between defendants’ action and their alleged harm that is more than attenuated.”

    >”At this stage of the proceedings, the court’s job is not to determine whether increased
    greenhouse gases have impacted the climate and will have dire consequences for future generations.
    The issue is whether the court can fashion a remedy to address that alleged harm should plaintiffs
    prove it.”

    The court has accepted the allegations of harm for the purposes of the legal exercise. Now the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs,. The plaintiffs must satisfy three “irreducible constitutional minimum” requirements:

    (1) they suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent;

    (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct; and

    (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable court decision.

    What exactly, is the plaintiff’s injury? No injury is laid out except this:

    [A] Plaintiffs assert the actions and omissions of defendants that increased C02 emissions “shock the conscience,”

    [B] and are infringing the plaintiffs’ right to life and liberty in violation of their
    substantive due process rights.

    Their shocked conscience can hardly be injury in [A].
    Given they’re alive and free they can hardly be suffering injury in [B] either.

  8. Richard C (NZ) on 13/04/2016 at 9:24 am said:

    ‘When U.S. air force discovered the flaw of averages’

    In the early 1950s, a young lieutenant realized the fatal flaw in the cockpit design of U.S. air force jets. Todd Rose explains in an excerpt from his book, The End of Average.


    # # #

    Applicable to climate and sea averages. Average doesn’t exist anywhere but climate scientists still use averages anyway. It’s not as if they have 17 planes crashing in one day, but they’re labouring under the same illusion nonetheless.

  9. Richard C (NZ) on 13/04/2016 at 10:09 am said:

    ‘Accepting Regional Variability in Global Temperatures’

    By jennifer Marohasy on April 11, 2016



    The focus on mean global temperatures, rather than regional variability, has been a consequence of the politicization of climate science and the desire to use the authority of science to force political change

    [See Chart 1 – no recent spike in SH temperature]

    The UAH satellite record also separates out ‘land’ and ‘ocean’. So, for the northern hemisphere, as an example, it is possible to understand temperature trends for the land versus ocean components of this record. When we consider the land component of the UAH satellite record for the northern hemisphere, the recent spike in temperatures is particularly pronounced, Chart 1b. Meanwhile, for Australia, there is no such recent spike in temperatures. Rather temperatures appear to cycle within an approximate 4 degree Celsius band, Chart 1c.

    Patterns in the historical temperature record, and geographic variability in temperature trends, potentially gives us insight into the drivers of climate change. Many, however, would argue that as the satellite temperature record only goes back 38 years to 1978, that this is too short a period for discerning correlations with sunspots, and other extraterrestrial phenomena. In fact, consistency between the UAH satellite record for Australia, and records from individual weather station in Australia over this same period (December 1978 – March 2016), potentially gives us the opportunity to infer what temperatures would have been like at least back to when these weather stations were first installed. There is, for example, a reliable thermometer temperature record for Richmond in north eastern Australia back to 1893. Considering just the trends, not the absolute temperatures, the thermometer record for this location shows a remarkably good correlation with the satellite record for all of Australia for the period December 1978 to March 2016, Chart 2.

    CHART 2. The monthly thermometer record for Richmond, NE Australia, compared with the UAH satellite record for all of Australia. While chart 1 was a plot of anomalies, this is a plot of actual temperatures. The satellite measurements are significantly cooler than surface measurements as they are measuring a volume of lower atmosphere extending up about 10 kilometers.

    The much longer unadjusted historical temperature record for Richmond also shows significant intra-annual variability but broadly with a cooling trend to 1950, following by warming to the present. The hottest year in the entire record for Richmond, consistent with many locations in eastern Australia, is 1915.

    The pattern in the unadjusted thermometer record for Richmond, and the shorter satellite records for all of Australia, the northern hemisphere and the globe, are not consistent with carbon dioxide as a significant driver of temperature change.

    # # #

    The flaw of averages.

  10. Richard C (NZ) on 13/04/2016 at 11:54 am said:

    From JMA page:

    Long-term Variations in Solar and Infrared Radiation

    Long-term Variations in Global Solar Radiation [Surface Solar Radiation – SSR]

    Reports indicate that global solar radiation decreased from around 1960 to the late 1980s before increasing rapidly from the late 1980s to around 2000. Since then, no obvious changes have been observed in most regions of the world (Ohmura, 2009 *1). In Japan, solar radiation declined rapidly from the late 1970s to 1990 before increasing rapidly from around 1990 to the early 2000s. Since then, data from measurements at the five observation stations have shown no obvious changes. These long-term variations are consistent with those reported globally.

    Long-term variations in annual and 5-year running means of global solar radiation at 5 stations in Japan (Sapporo, Tsukuba, Fukuoka, Ishigakijima and Minamitorishima)

    Long-term Variations in Downward Infrared Radiation [DLR – CO2 component 6 W.m-2 1976]

    Downward infrared radiation has been measured since the early 1990s at Tsukuba. A time-series representation of five-year running mean downward infrared radiation until 2010 shows a trend of increase at a rate of about 0.4 W/m2 per year. This is consistent with the trend seen in the results of analysis using data from all BSRN stations worldwide (+0.3 W/m2 per year) (WCRP, 2010 *2).

    Long-term variations in annual and 5-year-running means of downward infrared radiation at Tsukuba

    # # #

    SSR decreased about 10 W.m-2 from around 1979 to 1992 (170 -160) then increased about 14 W.m-2 from 1992 to 2003 (160 – 174) then decreasing thereafter. This is the heating agent at surface.

    DLR increased about 10 W.m-2 from 1995 to 2008 (330 – 340 near enough) then falling thereafter. This is NOT the heating agent at surface.

    CO2 is a minor component of DLR (about 2% at Tsukuba) and is only increasing 0.2 – 0.3 W.m-2 per decade. Total DLR does that per year worldwide.

    CO2 flux change is negligible compared to SSR change.

    CO2 flux change is negligible compared to DLR change.

    Ergo, CO2 is negligible.

  11. Andy on 13/04/2016 at 1:22 pm said:

    Paula Bennett to head to New York to sign historic climate agreement
    Once the agreement is ratified, Mrs Bennett said, the more difficult task of moving New Zealand to a low-emissions economy would begin.

    “Quite frankly, there’s some easy ways to do that, and there’s some harder ways. And I want to go down the harder path to start with.”


    Yeah let’s go down the harder path and shut down the NZ agricultural economy

    That should work for the rump Nat voters in the rural blocks

  12. Andy on 16/05/2016 at 9:17 pm said:

    Reading about the appalling tragedy of the collapse of Venezuela makes me think that this will spread to the USA and beyond, and then we will hear no more about “climate change”


  13. Andy on 17/05/2016 at 7:19 am said:

    I hear that people in Venezuela have nothing to eat, resorting to scavenging for cats and dogs. Supermarkets, if they have any food, and being looted, Armed gangs kidnap and murder, yet guns are banned for the public.

    Walls are covered with no smoking signs, and signs telling people not to be racist. Restaurants require 30 odd permits to stay open.

    The country has the oil wealth of Saudi Arabia, yet the few hospitals left have no power and surgeons do operations by the light on their mobile phones, with no anathsthetic

    This dystopian nightmare is real, yet all the west can talk about is how horrible and “racist” Donald Trump is, and how nasty and bigoted people won’t let men into the women’s restroom

    Time to head for the hills, literally in my case.

  14. Andy on 17/05/2016 at 7:59 am said:

    Leftists can rewrite history but the internet archive still remains open for business

  15. Richard C (NZ) on 17/05/2016 at 5:57 pm said:

    >”Reading about the appalling tragedy of the collapse of Venezuela makes me think that this will spread to the USA and beyond……..”

    Yes, just the beginning. Puerto Rico is defaulting, Saudi Arabia has been downgraded and wanting to hock off Aramco. China is a slow moving train wreck. Trade war cranking up.

    Used to be backpackers from Brazil coming for seasonal work, don’t see them anymore now that Brazil’s back in the doldrums.

    But Venezuala is the stand out. Socialisms poster child has gone belly up. But capitalism wont fare any better, the debt-fueled party is over around the world (think ZIRP, NIRP). Just hasn’t trickled down here yet.

    Tough times ahead I fear. Will make AFC, GFC, Great Depression, look ordinary.

  16. Andy on 18/05/2016 at 9:47 am said:

    I just saw this from Canada

    “Ontario to spend $7-billion on sweeping climate change plan”

    This line stood out:
    “It will also require that gasoline sold in the province contain less carbon”


  17. Richard C (NZ) on 20/05/2016 at 6:33 pm said:

    ‘The Party of Scientism, Not Science’

    Written by Bruce Thornton, Frontpage Magazine on 19 May 2016.

    In a commencement speech at Rutgers, President Obama took an indirect shot at Donald Trump and the Republicans:

    “Facts, evidence, reason, logic, an understanding of science: These are good things. These are qualities you want in people making policy . . . We traditionally have valued those things, but if you’re listening to today’s political debate, you might wonder where this strain of anti-intellectualism came from.”

    Obama here indulges one of the hoariest progressive clichés: that they are the party of enlightenment, reason, and fact, while conservatives are ignorant obscurantists, “bitter clingers” to the superstitions of religion and tradition. This prejudice is false about both conservatives and progressives. Most of what many progressives think is science is, in fact, scientism: the application of the methods, techniques, and jargon of genuine science to subjects for which they are inappropriate.

    Indeed, leftism was born in scientism. Karl Marx believed that his ideas about the historical development, economics, and human nature comprised “scientific socialism,” as true as the laws of natural science. As Friedrich Engels said at Marx’s funeral, “Just as Darwin had discovered the law of development of organic nature, so did Marx discover the laws of human history.” Of course Marxism is no such thing. It is a reductive view of human nature and action, based on selective evidence, unexamined assumptions, and jargon modeled on real science.

    As we now know, Marxism is in fact a political religion based on faith more than reason. It identifies the good (the proletariat and the intellectual left) and the evil (capitalists and petty bourgeois); promises an earthly paradise (a society of equality and justice without private property); and provides a totalizing narrative that explains everything (historical progress driven by the struggle for control of the means of production). And despite its bloody failure, a Marxism dressed up as “democratic socialism” still attracts leftists like Bernie Sanders who fancy themselves thinkers of cool reason and empirical evidence.


  18. Richard C (NZ) on 20/05/2016 at 7:53 pm said:

    Eek! – “Catastrophe”

    “As far as I am concerned, this is a catastrophe.” – art dealer.

    ‘Another Asset Bubble Cracks: Art Sales Plunge’

    by Wolf Richter • May 10, 2016

    After a blistering five-year boom of near limitless possibilities, it is suddenly getting tough in another asset class – one that mere commoner millionaires are not invited to play in: the high-dollar art market.

    Auction house Sotheby’s reported on Monday that revenues in the first quarter plunged 32% from a year ago. Agency commissions and fees, the largest subcategory, plummeted 37%. Expenses edged up. Hence a resounding operating loss of $32 million – a $50-million swing from its $18 million profit a year ago.

    On the news, Sotheby’s shares plunged 8%, at one point trading below $26 a share, but then miraculously bounced back and today closed at $28.72. Yet, they’re still down 38% from their 52-week high last June, and 46% from the post-financial crisis high in December 2013, the halcyon days when QE was still inflating the art market and the wealth of its participants.

    At the same time, a debacle played out at Sotheby’s art sale. At its auction in New York yesterday evening, Sotheby’s sold $144.5 million in impressionist and modern art, down 61% from the auction a year ago, the worst performance since 2009.

    Of the 61 lots, 21 went unsold. So only 66% of the offered pieces turned into deals.

    “As far as I am concerned, this is a catastrophe,” Todd Levin, director of Levin Art Group in New York, told Bloomberg.


    These investors – and their appetite for art – have been beaten up by a slew of unsavory post-QE factors: volatile stock markets, with some of the markets around the globe deep into a bear market; residential real estate in trophy cities that is starting to sag; an oil-price crash that hit Russian oligarchs particularly hard; crummy hedge-fund performance where some big-name hedge funds have turned into veritable money evaporators; PE firms that are starting to take losses….

    These factors seemed unimaginable during the glory days of QE and “QE Infinity,” in the now bygone era when central banks were still considered omnipotent market inflators that would always be able to transfer more wealth to those who already had the most.

    But now there’s anxiety among these investors that have become so much wealthier during those seven years of what Ben Bernanke called the “wealth effect.” Suddenly, they’re worried that this system has hit its limits, and that some sense of reality – a horrid concept – might return to some of the markets and their valuations, and this anxiety is making them skittish.

    Already, the luxury condo boom in Lower Manhattan has turned into a phenomenal glut, and prices are beginning to sag. Read… Another Condo Bubble Bites the Dust


    # # #

    Climate change, high dollar art, catastrophe is relative to your perspective.

    Especially when that perspective is (Warning: pun ahead) artificially inflated; AGW in the former, QE in the latter.

  19. Richard C (NZ) on 23/05/2016 at 4:01 pm said:

    Johnson CO2 Generator – Fertilizes greenhouse air – easy and inexpensive to install

    Improve plant quality – Increase production [see photo]

    Carbon dioxide is one of the essential ingredients in green plant growth, and is a primary environmental factor in greenhouses. CO2 enrichment at 2, 3 or 4 times natural concentration will cause plants to grow faster and improve plant quality.

    Modern growers are becoming increasingly aware of the value of CO2. Particularly now that most greenhouses are purposely shutting out CO2 to conserve energy.

    The Johnson CO2 Generator automatically provides the carbon dioxide to meet maximum growing potentials – and operates for only pennies a day. The Johnson Generator can easily be installed in any greenhouse. No expensive ductwork is necessary and CO2 is diffused evenly without supplemental fans.

    Join with modern growers everywhere – use Johnson CO2 Generators – the low cost way to produce CO2 – the nutrient of the new millennium.

    Why you get more rapid and efficient growth and better plant quality with Johnson CO2.
    Plants must absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) in combination with water, soil nutrients and sunlight to produce the sugars vital for growth. A shortage of any of these requirements will retard the growing process. Normally there are approximately 300 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere; when this level is increased to over 1 ,000 ppm, results are higher production and better plant quality. The Johnson Generator provides up to 1,500 ppm per unit in an average 24′ x 200′ greenhouse or an equivalent 50,000 cu. ft. volume based on one air change per hour.

    Nighttime levels in a greenhouse range from 400 to 500 ppm due to plant respiration. Shortly after sunrise this level will drop to normal atmosphere (300 ppm) due to the plant using the early light to start photosynthesis. After 3 to 4 hours of early morning sunlight the CO2 level can drop to around l00 to 150 ppm, then growth is practically stopped. Supplemental CO2 added during this period can substantially increase your plant and flower production. By adding CO2, during winter months when greenhouse ventilators are closed and when low CO2 concentration becomes a limiting factor in growth, users are obtaining yield and bloom quality which is normally associated with spring and summer.

    CO2 More Important Than Ever
    The Johnson CO2 Generator is more important than ever because greenhouse growers, trying to conserve energy, are shutting out CO2. Rising fuel costs have forced many growers to use doubled-layered glass, etc., to conserve energy – as a result much less CO2 is entering the greenhouse.

    How to use the Johnson CO2 Generator
    When there is sunlight and the vents are closed, CO2 should be added continuously to your greenhouse. If the vents are opened because of heat build up the generator should continue to operate for about 2 hours and then be shut off. Approximately 1 Lb. of CO2 per hour per 1,000 sq. ft. yields 1,000 ppm’s of CO2. A 4,000 sq. ft. house requires at least 4 Lbs. of CO2 per hour. If CO21evel drops off from 1,000 ppm’s to 500 ppm’s on a clear sunny day, you can easily adjust to a higher burning rate to make up for the more rapid absorption of CO2 by plants. Most growers use their Johnson Generator daily in winter from approximately 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.


    # # #

    H/t PSI:

    Greenhouse Growers Tell Climate Crazies More – not less – Carbon is Needed

  20. Richard C (NZ) on 25/05/2016 at 3:24 pm said:

    Help has arrived ! EDF Climate Corps “Superheroes”:


    Getup’s a bit drab. Me, I’m gonna call SuperMandia:


    Much more colourful.

  21. Richard C (NZ) on 25/05/2016 at 3:35 pm said:

    Banned in Portland by climate catastrophists (OPINION)

    By Gordon Fulks

    WARNING: This article — and by extension this newspaper — should not be shown to children in the Portland Public Schools (PPS) system by order of the Portland School Board.

    “Banned in Portland” may not yet have the same notoriety as “Banned in Boston” or “Banned in Tennessee.” But we are catching up. Please do not look for a centerfold in this newspaper showing some gorgeous gal, au natural. And don’t look for photos of Oregon politicians guilty of inappropriate sex. This isn’t about sex. This is about something far more controversial: science.

    Yes, believe it or not, competent science is again deemed a threat to humanity by daring to doubt the global warming paradigm. It is as though we are back in 1925 Tennessee, where fundamentalist followers of an old time religion were up in arms about evolution replacing creationism.

    Today the issue is competent science versus catastrophism.

    Competent science is that messy business where perpetually skeptical scientists argue the vital details of a very complex subject, in this case the Earth’s climate.

    Catastrophism is the pretend science of the Prophet Gore and his fanatical followers. It is far simpler. Whatever the question, the answer is that diabolical gas, carbon dioxide. It comes from burning fossil fuels, but not from breathing! It has ruined our climate.

    But wait, there is still time to save the planet, if we vote for Democrats, enact carbon taxes and ban troublesome scientists who stubbornly maintain that “it’s not true.”

    Mainstream religions have long since made peace with science, recognizing that these two human pursuits can coexist to great mutual benefit, as long as one does not pretend to be the other. Some who study the history of science recognize that religion has been vital to science by teaching the value and necessity of telling the truth. The fervent pursuit of the whole truth (not just a political or religious truth) led the Puritans of the 17th century to form the first scientific society, the British Royal Society, with the motto “Take no one’s word for it.”

    Thus began 400 years of magnificent scientific progress, greatly assisted centuries later by Jews looking for an escape from the ghettos of Europe. From Albert Einstein to Richard Feynman, most of the great physicists of the 20th century were Jewish. Among Feynman’s famous lectures was one calling for “utter honesty,” a concept now largely forgotten in a scientific world dominated by presidential policy statements, vast amounts of cash and careerism.

    The new “green religion” of Al Gore sadly demands only belief, not competence, good behavior or honesty. Gore’s followers try to silence heretics.

    That silencing has been going on for a long time in Oregon. Former Gov. Ted Kulongoski forced Oregon’s best state climatologist, George Taylor, to retire and replaced him with one of the faithful. Scientists with advanced degrees are excluded from our schools in favor of Gore disciples like former Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury, who lacks even the college education required for teachers but still lectures on global warming.

    What will Portland children miss with all this political interference? They will miss science entirely — not just climate science. Propagandized children never learn that science is much more than a good story told by their elders. They will never learn that science is completely determined by logic and evidence, not by the “authority” and “consensus” preached by “Warmers.” They will miss the wisdom of our greatest scientists.

    Albert Einstein’s famous words — “One man can prove me wrong” — are surely blasphemous. That is dangerous doubt in a postmodern world. Today, it takes a political earthquake to topple politically correct pseudoscience. Students may even miss reading the voluminous United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that are the foundation of the climate scam. They dare to express the doubt now banned in Portland.

    We are back to 1925, with the modern version of creationism winning once again over science. Pitiful.

    Gordon Fulks lives in Corbett and can be reached at gordonfulks@hotmail.com. He holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago’s Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation