Chris Huhne’s favourite yoghurt ingredient | James Delingpole

Huhne: A taste for something better. . .

Huhne: you'll get used to the taste, eventually
Huhne: you’ll get used to the taste, eventually.

Let me explain the analogy, which I first introduced to a nauseated world in a Spectator column penned in bile in the aftermath the Eton Grocer’s spectacular general election non-victory. Here’s the relevant passage:

Quite the most absurd piece of recrimination I’ve heard so far from the Cameroons, though, is the notion that the real people to blame for all this are those 900,000 or so folk who voted UKIP, as well as all those rabid head-banging types like James Delingpole who were so unhelpful in pointing out the flaws in Project Cameron’s splendid policies. If only we’d held our noses and accepted that the Cameroons, for all their flaws, were our last hope of restoring Conservatism to power in Britain, then Dave might be in position right now to effect Real Change.

This is what I call the Dog S**t Yoghurt Fallacy. Suppose your preferred brand of fruit yoghurt manufacturer has been losing sales of late and has decided, after doing a bit of market research, that it may be necessary to alter the formula slightly. What at least some of the punters are clamouring for these days, it seems, is not chunks of fruit in their yoghurt but bits of dog poo instead.

“But that’s revolting!” you tell the manager of your preferred yoghurt brand. “Fruit goes way better in yoghurt than dog poo does.” “Look, you know that and I know that, but trust me we’ve crunched the numbers, done the research and it’s the only way. If we don’t put some dog poo in our yoghurt, then people will say we haven’t moved with the times. We’ll be forever stuck in the boring, fuddy duddy age of strawberry, and raspberry and apricot. But under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the public have acquired a real taste for excrement. If we don’t give it to them – we’ll only need a little bit, I promise – then we’ll probably go out of business.”

“No you won’t!” you reply. “There are loads of us who still like fruit yoghurt. And still loads more who’d buy it if you made it even fruitier. Your analysis is barmy.” “Well I’m sorry sir, but our marketing expert Mister Hilton assures us there’s no other way. Surely, you won’t object to just the inclusion of a tiny hint of merde de chien to save our brand from total ruin?”

Call me weird, call me stubborn. But I prefer my yoghurt to taste of fruit, real fruit and nothing but fruit.

As you see, I was talking mainly about the death of the Conservative party. But the analogy applies just as well to the Coalition’s energy policy, as supervised by the appalling Chris Huhne with the full encouragement of the no less appalling David Cameron.

In this case, the fruit element of the yoghurt would be nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is good. It’s what we need, both for energy security and to fill our looming energy gap. Only a total nutcase could possibly be opposed to nuclear energy, as my colleague Louise Gray has been demonstrating with her ring-round of the asylums:

But Mike Childs, head of climate change at Friends of the Earth, insisted the expansion of nuclear power could not go ahead without some form of public subsidy because of the massive costs of construction.

“It is not obvious to see how nuclear will be affordable without some form of public subsidy because the costs keep rising of building nuclear and getting rid of the waste,” he said.

“The only way nuclear will get built is if they [the Coalition] renege on their promise not to subsidise it.”

What, and the supposed green alternative to nuclear – wind power – doesn’t require massive public subsidy on an even greater scale? Pull the other one, Childs. According to Booker, who unlike some has actually been bothered to do the maths, our economically suicidal attempts to meet the EU renewables target are going to add £880 a year to our energy bills.

Which brings us to the poo element in the yoghurt: renewable energy and decarbonisation. There are many within the Coalition and indeed in the country at large who take what they imagine is a ’sophisticated’ line on Climate Change. As to whether or not it’s a serious threat and to what degree it is or isn’t “man made” they don’t much care. What motivates them is a vague sense that some climate change action is better than no climate change action, that it’s probably quite useful to keep the Caroline Lucas fringe onside, and that there might be some green jobs in it for someone somewhere. In other words: “Let’s just put a few lumps of dog poo in the yoghurt, just in case. No harm done if it turns out to have been unnecessary, eh?”

Er, no actually. In the name of the “precautionary principle” on Climate Change, quite enormous amounts of harm are being done. Richard North gives an example of this in his scathing dismissal of Chris Huhne’s new carbon capture project, which will cost the taxpayer £1 billion to no purpose whatsoever:

Whichever way you look at it, £1 billion is a lot of money. That is £1,000,000,000.00, and it is our money – more money than you and I will ever see, or ever dream of earning. It is a sum of money that would buy 150,000 hip replacement operations. It would pay the energy bills for two million pensioners for a full year, or pay the university fees for 600,000 students. More specifically, and of some personal interest, it would pay for 100,000 life-saving heart operations.

Yet the ****wit pictured is going to take that amount of money from us to play around stripping plant food from coal-fired electricity generation and bury it deep in a hole in the ground.

This man, therefore, will – indirectly – be responsible for many deaths, lost in “opportunity costs”. The money frittered away on this moronic enterprise cannot be spent on life-saving functions. And we do not have the money to spare. If we waste this money, it is not available for anything else. People will die because of this action.

And what about this:

[Huhne] is set to give the go ahead to a new generation of eight nuclear power stations, alongside an expansion of renewable energy and the creation of up to 44,000 wind turbines.

Anyone care to hazard how much environmental damage is going to be done to our countryside by 44,000 – count ‘em – wind turbanes? How many birds – and protected bats (H/T Ian Smith)- are going to be liquidised? How many views spoiled? How many householders impoverished?

Oh and let’s dispense once and for all with the idea that renewables bring any economic benefits. The green experiment has already been attempted in Spain and Germany and has failed dismally. Why? Because renewables only make economic sense if they are subsidised by the taxpayer – which means of course that they make no economic sense at all.

Here’s a report on the Spanish disaster (H/T Global Warming Policy Foundation)

Spain stands as a lesson to other aspiring green-energy nations, including China and the U.S., by showing how difficult it is to build an alternative energy industry even with billions of euros in subsidies, says Ramon de la Sota, a private investor in Spanish photovoltaic panels and a former General Electric Co. executive.

“The government totally overshot with the tariff,” de la Sota says. “Now they have a huge bill to pay — but where’s the technology, where’s the know-how, where’s the value?”

And here is the German energy disaster:

Next year, German households are in for a big price shock: the renewable energies levy, which every household in Germany has to pay as part of their electricity bills, will increase by over 70 per cent to 3.5 cents per kilowatt hour. This was announced by the German network operator on Friday. For an average household this will mean additional costs of around 10 € a month, according to the Federal Environment Ministry.
An end to the price spiral, which is caused by the subsidies for green electricity, is not in sight. Holger Krawinkel, energy expert of the Federation of Consumer Organizations, expects a further rise of the so-called EEG surcharge in the medium term. “It will rise by more than 5 cents in coming years in any case”, Krawinkel predicted in an interview with the news agency DAPD. The reason: The federal government has failed to cut subsidies for solar energy fast and strong enough. Moreover, the impending boom in offshore wind energy is not even included in the green energy levy.

And all because a few plausible charlatans have been able to persuade an awful lot of influential people over the years that plant food is a deadly poison. Thanks Bert Bolin! Thanks Stephen Schneider! Thanks James Hansen! Thanks Al Gore! Rest assured that one day – and let’s hope sooner rather than later – your names will live in infamy for all eternity.

Related posts:

  1. ‘Compassionate’ Conservatism isn’t Conservatism
  2. Led Zep’s favourite folkie
  3. The date of the General Election is:
  4. John Clare: your favourite new old poet

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

‘Biodiversity’: the new Big Lie | James Delingpole

Blog

‘Biodiversity’: the new Big Lie

October 22nd, 2010

And so it begins. With all the shamelessness of a Goldman Sachser trading in his middle-aged wife for a hot, pouting twentysomething called Ivanka, the green movement is ditching “Climate Change”. The newer, younger, sexier model’s name? Biodiversity. (Mega hat tips to: Hilary Ostrov and Ozboy at Libertygibbet)

(to read more, click here)

Share

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • email

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Back to Basics | James Delingpole

Back to Basics

October 22nd, 2010

One of the few professional stand-up comics I’ve met who wasn’t bitter, twisted, malign, graceless, grumpy, chippy, egomaniacal and slightly to the left of Stalin is Mark Billingham. We bonded at the Dubai literary festival earlier this year, and I liked him so much that I very nearly bought one of his bestselling crime thrillers.

The reason I didn’t in the end was that I decided a) if I liked it, it would make me jealous and hate him, b) if I didn’t like it, I wouldn’t be able to look him in the eye and c) I don’t really do bestselling crime thrillers because when you’ve read one series about a detective with a rackety personal life investigating a serial killer with an unusually vile and pervy modus operandi you’ve pretty much read them all, haven’t you?

So, imagine my surprise when I watched the first episode of Thorne: Sleepyhead (Sunday, Sky 1), starring Billingham’s creation DCI Thorne and discovered that, for a change, it was about a detective with a rackety personal life investigating a serial killer with an unusually vile and pervy modus operandi. Actually, putting aside sarcasm for a moment, there really was one major difference between this and most of the others: it wasn’t incredibly annoying.

AdTech AdI blame Inspector bloody Morse. The problem with Inspector bloody Morse was that he was such a character, his quirks started taking over the entire programme. So by the time you’d done with the foaming pint of ale in Oxfordshire pub stuff and the ‘Morse drives classic Jag through agreeable countryside’ stuff and the ‘Morse is really into his opera’ stuff and ‘Morse’s sidekick is dogged, loyal and thick’ stuff and the ‘Morse always makes mistakes and fingers the wrong culprit’ stuff, all you were left with was a strong urge to hang yourself — probably from a bell rope in a picturesque church like the pretty classical violinist daughter who had secretly been abused by the stuffy don with the fruity wife whom Morse half-fancied but only in a wistful, late-middle-aged way for nothing would ever come of it.

I also blame Prime Suspect, which would insist that TV detective dramas had to be about issues. In this case, the issue was: ‘Ooh, look. Have you noticed she’s a woman in charge in a man’s world? Can you imagine the sexism she’s going to have to put up with? It’s OK, no need to imagine — I’m going to show you with the help of my magic sledgehammer. Oh, and just in case the sexual politics get a bit heavy for any of you men viewers, here’s Jane getting her kit off. And here’s a juicy murder or three.’

And Cracker. I’m not pretending I didn’t like Cracker — it was great — but from then on, everyone seemed to take it as a challenge to see just how unbelievably messed-up and larger-than-life they could make their investigating heroes. ‘Hey, I know: I’ll call him Inspector Quirke — the quadriplegic, heroin-addicted whale breeder who is a grandmaster at Go and flies around in his gyrocopter spotting serial killers by the effect they have on cloud formations.’

Anyway, what I really liked about Billingham’s Sleepyhead is that it’s very much back to basics. DCI Thorne (David Morrissey) has his inevitable traits — drinks too much, can chop onions at least as well as Harry Palmer in The Ipcress File, etc. — but you’re not asked to waste any of your time trying to grapple with whether you like him or not. You do, because he’s popular with his colleagues, he’s almost supernaturally good at his job, he gets the girl and he’s more or less indestructible: the kind of ’tec, in other words, that they don’t make any more.

Same with his sidekicks, who again provide just the right amount of superficial colour without your ever feeling you’re having too much art ground in your face: there’s DI Dickensian — the actor with the slightly odd phiz perfect for Dickens adaptations, whose special feature seems to be that he’s a fastidious dresser; there’s Not Annoying Detective Woman who, though a Woman and a Detective, is amazingly not annoying; there’s whacko, tattoo-loving Queer as Folk pathologist who, though gay, whacko and tattoo-loving, never quite outwears his welcome.

It could be partly down to casting, of course. Besides Morrissey they’ve got Natascha McElhone, Aidan Gillen, Eddie Marsan, as well as top-notch director Stephen Hopkins — Sky has gone to town on this and wants to make it work. But I suspect a lot of credit for it ought to be Billingham’s. When I went to hear him speak (and read extracts from his books) in Dubai, he struck me as that very unusual thing — a writer who is totally happy in his skin. And I think that easy fluency comes through in his writing. As a stand-up, he has paid his dues and he knows what an audience wants: it doesn’t want its intelligence insulted but it does want to be entertained. He’s also, it goes without saying, very funny. His evil hospital consultant is one of the most glorious wankers I’ve ever seen on screen.

(to read more, click here)

Share

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • email

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

I’m sure Richard Curtis doesn’t really want to kill my children. Well, I say that … | James Delingpole

October 22, 2010

For some time now I’ve had this idea for a running gag in a comedy sketch series. It would star a character called Unfunny Observational Comic. Each week we’d see him dying a death with his ‘Have you ever noticed…?’ comedy of recognition before an appalled audience. He’d say things like: ‘You know how it is, when you’ve broken into your neighbour’s house to rummage through her knicker drawer…?’ and ‘Gerbils. Just what is it about gerbils that makes us all want to shag ’em?’ The humour would lie, of course, in the Observational Comic’s tragic inability to apprehend the gulf between what he thinks is normal and what everybody else does.

Unfortunately, it’s not going to work any more, a) because I’ve explained the joke, and b) because Richard Curtis has beaten me to it…

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. Cult splatter flick director Richard Curtis talks about the film that made him famous
  2. Richard Curtis’s snuff movie: A joke? A canny marketing strategy? I don’t think so.
  3. 10:10: who are YOU going to kill to help save the planet?
  4. Richard Madeley reveals that the green blight has finally sunk Cornwall

4 thoughts on “I’m sure Richard Curtis doesn’t really want to kill my children. Well, I say that …”

  1. winston says:22nd October 2010 at 5:49 amDid you see this?
    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/10/20/vaclav-klaus-an-anti-human-ideology/
  2. Dora the Explorer says:23rd October 2010 at 1:42 pmAfter you’ve seen that watch this to cheer you up.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmBnVjy4vag&feature=player_embedded

  3. Th says:24th October 2010 at 9:43 pmTwo new climate videos

    The Skeptics Eleventh Commandment 1:03

    The viewer is requested to guess at the final words of the 11th commandment for skeptics. Hint: it comes from a famous speech by an American politician.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qog4z2lSUCo

    ==========
    No Pressure-gate and the Juan Williams Firing 3:26


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naOdHcbiGvg

  4. Roger Dandy says:28th October 2010 at 8:20 pm10:10 still have their BBC friends onside, it appears. I reference today’s “Costing the Earth” on Radio 4, which devoted itself to 10:10’s “Lighter Later” sister-campaign to lose GMT and put us onto European Time.

    Of the 27:50 running-time, just five and a half minutes were given to “sceptics”, as represented by two farmers and someone from the Royal Horological Society [so clearly a selfish-minority who put tradition and cattle-counting above the lives of our chiiiiiiiiiildrens.]

    Unattributed “studies” were then bandied around, so it was clear the “informed” metropolitans from iffy college departments would trump the hick-conservative viewpoint, due to all these authoritative-sounding invocations of “The Evidence”.

    The prog presented almost as a done deal that the grant-hippies would get their plan to do Socialist Time on us past parliament, when it comes up in December. No mention was made of Lighter Later being a 10:10 wheeze, nor of the recent history of this vile organisation. No, it was described as “a growing movement”. Last time I looked, 10:10 had lost a quarter of their membership following their spectacularly ill-judged, yet revealing film aimed at marginalising the uncommitted by encouraging 10:10’s audience to laugh at them being blown up.

Comments are closed.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

‘Biodiversity’: the new Big Lie | James Delingpole

October 22, 2012

Climate Change is dead. Long live the new Eco Lie

Climate Change is dead. Long live the new Eco Lie

And so it begins. With all the shamelessness of a Goldman Sachser trading in his middle-aged wife for a hot, pouting twentysomething called Ivanka, the green movement is ditching “Climate Change”. The newer, younger, sexier model’s name? Biodiversity. (Mega hat tips to: Hilary Ostrov and Ozboy at Libertygibbet)

When I say shameless, I’m talking so amoral it makes the Whore of Babylon look like Mother Theresa; so flagrant it makes Al Gore’s, ahem, alleged drunken “Love poodle” assault on the Portland Masseuse look like an especially delicate passage from Andreas Capellanus’s The Art of Courtly Love.

Consider this summary of the UN’s two-week Convention On Biodiversity, launched on Monday:

Delegates from nearly 200 countries are being asked to agree to new 2020 targets after governments largely failed to meet a 2010 target of achieving a significant reduction in biological diversity losses, a goal set at the last biodiversity conference in 2002. And one of the same issues that led to failure the first time around could jeopardize this meeting: money.

Developing nations say more funding is needed from developed countries to share the effort in saving nature. Much of the world’s remaining biological diversity is in developing nations such as Brazil, Indonesia and in central Africa.

Do you see what’s going on here?

OK. Here’s an even bigger clue. Here’s something, unbeknownst to the world’s taxpayers and free citizens, which the UN technocrats stitched together in June.

Busan/Nairobi, 11 June 2010 – History was made, Friday, in the South Korean port city of Busan, when governments gave the green light to an Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

The independent platform will in many ways mirror the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which has assisted in catalyzing world-wide understanding and governmental action on global warming.

The new body will bridge the gulf between the wealth of scientific knowledge -documenting accelerating declines and degradation of the natural world – and the decisive government action required to reverse these damaging trends.

Its various roles will include carrying out high quality peer reviews of the wealth of science on biodiversity and ecosystem services emerging from research institutes across the globe in order to provide gold standard reports to governments.

“Gold standard”, eh? Now where have I heard that phrase before?

Suddenly it becomes clear why they kept Pachauri on at the IPCC. Because the IPCC simply doesn’t matter any more. Sure it will go on, churning out Assessment Report after Assessment Report, bringing pots of money to the usual gang of bent scientists prepared to act as lead authors. But the world’s mainstream media – especially all those environment correspondents who so lovingly transcribe the press releases of Greenpeace and the WWF as if they were holy writ – will have moved on, according to the dictates of the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) fashionable crise du jour.

“Never mind ‘Climate Change’,” they’ll say to themselves. “Our readers and viewers aren’t really so into that now all the winters seem to have got so very cold. Biodiversity, that’s the thing.”

And guess what? Not only does the great big new Biodiversity scam already have its own IPCC but it even has its own pseudoeconomic, panic-generating Stern Report. This one is produced by a member of Deutsche Bank which – as Hilary Ostrov tells us in an excellent post well worth reading in full – has form when it comes to promoting half-witted, ill-documented, patently political climate change ****ocks.

Hmmm … Deutsche Bank … Oh, yes I’ve heard of that one. Ross McKitrick recently responded to some misinformation they had included in “a report that aims to rebut major skeptic arguments on global warming”. But I digress …

Just read how it’s billed and weep:

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)
Nagoya, Japan, 20 October 2010– The economic importance of the world’s natural assets is now firmly on the political radar as a result of an international assessment showcasing the enormous economic value of forests, freshwater, soils and coral reefs, as well as the social and economic costs of their loss, was the conclusion of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) report launched today by TEEB study leader, Pavan Sukhdev.

“TEEB has documented not only the multi-trillion dollar importance to the global economy of the natural world, but the kinds of policy-shifts and smart market mechanisms that can embed fresh thinking in a world beset by a rising raft of multiple challenges. The good news is that many communities and countries are already seeing the potential of incorporating the value of nature into decision-making,” said Mr. Sukhdev, a banker who heads up the Green Economy Initiative of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

He was speaking at the launch of the two-year study, which has involved hundreds of experts from around the world, at the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 10th Conference of Parties meeting (CBD COP10) in Nagoya.

The TEEB study calls for wider recognition of nature’s contribution to human livelihoods, health, security, and culture by decision-makers at all levels (local to national and business to citizens). It promotes the demonstration, and where appropriate, the capture of the economic values of nature’s services through an array of policy instruments and mechanisms.

Here’s the UN’s Achim Steiner – you’ll have seen him recently on a BBC news report where David Shuckman, was it? got to go on a nice freebie to Kenya in the guise of bigging up, you guessed it, biodiversity – telling us just how SERIAL this business is.

This year’s Global Biodiversity Outlook-3, prepared in close collaboration with UNEP’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre, points to ‘tipping points’ fast emerging – changes for example in freshwater systems that soon may be irreversible.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of 2005 concluded that 60 per cent of the services provided by the world’s ecosystems that support human well being are now either degraded or heading that way.

Changes in biodiversity as a result of human activities were more rapid in the past 50 years that at any time in human history, it concludes.

The report, the output of more than 1,300 scientists from more than 90 countries supported by UNEP, the Global Environment Facility and many other partners, underlined that rather than exercising the brake the world continues to choose the accelerator.

What? Only 1300 scientists this time, was it? I’m sure the figure which used to be bandied about with global warming was more like 2,500.

Ah well, what the hell. It’s not like the “little people” are going to be able to do anything about it. That’s the beauty of the United Nations. The European Union too, come to that. Democratically unaccountable, lavishly funded, and with over a half a century’s expertise at spreading big lies round the world before the truth has got his boots on.

Related posts:

  1. When you hear the word ‘Biodiversity’ reach for your Browning
  2. I’m loving being middle aged
  3. Giles Coren says: ‘Climate Change. It’s SNOW joke!!!’
  4. Dave, you’re a disappointment – but there’s still time to change that

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Rod Liddle knows even less about Climate Change than I do about Millwall FC

Rod’s clumsy play for publicity

Young Rod - in cap, lower middle - enjoys some clean sporting fun with his pater at Millwall, 1935

Young Rod – in cap, lower middle – enjoys some clean sporting fun with his pater at Millwall, 1935

In a shameless attempt to win some readers for his little known Spectator blog, Rod Liddle has thrown together a desperate post with the highly offensive and almost certainly libellous headline The Politically Correct James Delingpole. It’s about my reaction to Richard Curtis’s ecofascist snuff movie No Pressure, which Rod reckons was overdone.

But there is something which does not quite ring true in his attacks upon a film made by Richard Curtis for the 10:10 climate change movement, exemplified by his piece in this week’s magazine. He has been ranting and raving about this film for ages and I cannot tell if his outrage and lack of humour is real, or post-modern ironic.

It’s puzzling that Rod should be puzzled because I did in fact spell the whole thing out on my You Know It Makes Sense column this week.

So let me explain for those die-hard defenders of ‘No Pressure’ why it wasn’t funny on any level whatsoever. And no, it isn’t because of the exploding children. Not per se. Sure, it’s a risky business, in the age of the suicide bomber, trying to extract comedy out of gruesomely atomised kids. But that doesn’t necessarily put such things beyond the pale. In comedy nothing ought to be beyond the pale, for that is part of its purpose, as the safety valve which allows us to say the unsayable. What matters is its context and its satirical point. Only then are we in a position to judge whether the sketch ‘works’ or whether it has failed horribly.

The reason Curtis’s joke failed horribly, I went on, is because it worked neither as effective satire nor as comedy of observation.

The joke would only work if all reasonable people thought ‘Christ, climate change deniers are a pain. Wouldn’t life be so much easier if we could just — tee hee — kill ’em rather than have to engage with their tedious, action-delaying arguments?’

What I didn’t mention in the piece for reasons of space, though I think it’s quite an interesting paradox is this: though the original No Pressure video was desperately unfunny, many of the pastiches were funny. The one where children were exploded, for example, for not submitting to the “Religion of Peace” had a readily comprehensible satirical point that Richard Curtis’s did not.

Anyway, of course I wasn’t really offended that Rod chose to embarrass himself by getting things so totally wrong and making everyone hate him and think he’s incredibly stupid and smelly. What I am, though, is disappointed.

Here’s the bit that really disappointed me:

You do not have to agree with Curtis, or 10:10 (though I don’t see what’s wrong with cutting carbon emissions, regardless of whether you sign up to AGW) to find it funny.

Do you see the bit I mean? It’s that trite bit in parenthesis where the normally well-informed, clear-sighted and acerbic Liddle ventures an opinion based on little more than WWF and Greenpeace press hand outs.

If Rod ever took me to a Millwall match – I’m not asking, you understand, this is just a theoretical scenario – I think I’d know better than to declare in a loud, fruity voice that the offside rule was silly, very silly, or that the game would be lot more enjoyable if the players weren’t so infernally competitive and the fans so foul-mouthed, and couldn’t someone teach them to sing the Eton Boating Song instead of all this four letter stuff?

I would expect Rod to show a similar degree of diligence in matters he clearly knows eff-all about, climate change being the most blindingly obvious one. And the same applies, though to a lesser extent, to my blog colleague – and Rod’s old mucker – Andrew Gilligan.

Gilligan has been doing some stormingly good exposes, of late, on the unutterable uselessness of wind farms. But blogging last month he went and ruined an intelligent, well-argued blog with this entirely unnecessary paragraph:

The problem with British greens is not that they’ve misdiagnosed the problem – I’ve very little doubt that climate change is real. Even in the unlikely event that the science is wrong, it’s not a gamble we can afford to take.

And your evidence for that statement is what, exactly, Andrew? Or, to put it another way, how would you feel if I were to write a blog astringently critiquing Lutfur Rahman and suddenly declare, en passant, that I’d walked past the East London Mosque the other day and that its calm, peaceful, delightfully mosquey appearance had left me in “very little doubt” that claims of its extremist tendencies were an outrageous calumny.

The sad thing here is that both Liddle and Gilligan are journalists I very much admire: proper, courageous, counterintuitive journalists who do their research, are never afraid to speak truth to power and write with verve and conviction. One day, I’m sure, they’ll come round to appreciate what many readers of this blog already do – that the Climate Change circus  represents possibly the greatest outbreak of mass hysteria in history, that it’s probably the worst pseudoscientific scandal in history and that it’s being used as an excuse to impose on us the biggest bill in history. It’s a story that is worth proper investigation and the sooner the cause of truth and justice has the likes of Liddle and Gilligan fully onside, the better for us all.

Related posts:

  1. On Plimer, climate change and the ineffable barkingness of George Moonbat
  2. What the liberal elite feel you should know about ‘Climate Change’
  3. Climate change has nothing to do with the Holocaust or 9/11
  4. Why the BBC will always be wrong on Climate Change

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Professor Hal Lewis is not an irrelevant, senile, old fool

Hal Lewis and the alarmists

Connelly

When Professor Hal Lewis wrote his now-famous letter of resignation to the American Physical Society earlier this week, climate change alarmists were quick to respond with their usual wit, aplomb and generosity. Here were some of the excuses they offered as to why this terrible man must at all costs not be taken seriously.

1. Professor Hal Lewis is a physicist not a climate scientist and therefore unqualified to comment on climate science.

2. He’s old. Old people are, like, really senile.

3. We haven’t heard of him before. How can what he say matters if we haven’t heard of him before?

4. He’s probably just some shill for Big Oil, like all the other deniers.

5. He hasn’t published enough papers, so he’s hardly a real scientist

6. OK, so maybe there’s a possibility he’s not senile, but he’s definitely too old to have stayed in touch with all the zippy modern climate stuff that the experts at places like RealClimate know about.

Some of these views you’ll see expressed by the host of trolls who flocked to my popular blog on the subject. Others, you’ll find expressed by bloggers like this character here (sample quote: “Who is Hal Lewis? I’ve been studying physics for 30 years, and I’ve never heard of him.”) and this blogger here who calls himself the Stoat but whose real name is William Connolley.

Here is Connolley in action on his blog, scrabbling for dirt:

So, where are the papers? You can’t have a scientific career without papers. There are some early ones – The Multiple Production of Mesons from 1948 with Oppenheimer, no less. Or Multiple Scattering in an Infinite Medium, 1950 – worthy maths-ish thing, I’d guess. But past the late-50’s early 60’s it suddenly gets very thin indeed. I’d guess, without knowing more, that he gave up science and moved into admin.

And here he is, in his role as a Wikipedia editor caught by Watts Up With That  doctoring Professor Lewis’s Wikipedia entry so as to edit out that all-important resignation letter.

William Connolley – a green party activist – has form in this regard. Lots of form – as I first reported here last year – drawing on Lawrence Solomon’s definitive National Post expose “How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles”.

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

Anyway, Connolley’s latest escapade has proved to be the straw that broke the camel’s back for the Wiki administrators. He has now been banned from writing on “Climate Change” for Wikipedia. (H/T Bishop Hill). As too has the similarly fanatical KimDabelsteinPetersen.

This is glorious news for those of us on the side of truth and reality. According to Solomon “he is arguably the world’s most influential global warming advocate after Al Gore”, which sounds like overstatement until you remember that Wikipedia is “the most popular reference source on the planet” and that Connolley managed to skew almost every one of its entries on Climate Change to his fervently warmist perspective. The Climategate scientists tried and failed to disinvent the Medieval Warm Period. But on Wikipedia, Connolley very nearly succeeded by pouring cold water on its significance and by trying to rename it the Medieval Climate Anomaly.

Remember too that it was Connolley who helped up the Warmist propaganda site RealClimate which – despite its reassuring-sounding name – is essentially the black ops wing of Michael Mann’s Hockey Team. So his scalp – (bushy, with comedy bear attachment, see sexy photograph above) – represents a considerable coup for the cause of climate realism.

In fact, this has been a good news week generally for us goodies in the great climate wars. Best of all, of course, are the glorious tidings that cricketlovingjetsettingbeardgrowingrailwayengineeringsoftpornwritingtrollimpersonating Dr Rajendra Pachauri is to stay on as chairman of the IPCC.

Dr Benny Peiser thinks this will be bad news for the IPCC’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report:

“As long as he stays the IPCC will not restore credibility,” he said. “ Everybody knows that so there is a risk that the next report will not be taken that seriously.”

Exactly, Benny. Why else do you think we’re all jumping for joy?

Related posts:

  1. US physics professor: ‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’
  2. I’m famous at last — thanks to the internet (and this column)
  3. The Met Office – defending the indefensible, as per usual
  4. An open letter from my old mate David Cameron to the people of Britain

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Climategate: the Fox connection | James Delingpole

October 18, 2010

Wrong Fox - but no harm done, eh?

Wrong Fox – but no harm done, eh?

A strange story in Bishop Hill about Fiona Fox. You may remember she’s the director of the Science Media Centre who claimed earlier this year that the way BBC could improve its science coverage was to give less space to sceptics.

She said: “To have a sceptic or contrarian in every interview is really misleading the public.”

Then, amusingly, she dropped two of the BBC’s more shameless eco-activists in the dudu by commenting:

“With Climate Science there’s been a real change with people like Richard Black and Roger Harrabin fighting internally to say ‘We don’t have to have a sceptic every time we have a climate scientist.’”

How Rich and Rog must have thanked her for this revelation!

And now she’s in trouble of a different kind. It seems she took part in a practical joke which went horribly wrong, summarised here by the Bishop:

She is also apparently a close friend of Jim Devine, a former Labour MP who is now facing fraud charges over his expense claims. She appears to have got herself involved in a bizarre and rather nasty practical joke involving Devine and his office manager, and which has now led to a substantial damages award against the politician.

Unless it involves Al Gore, masseuses and the phrase “love poodle” I’m not generally that interested in reporting sordid, sorry tales about people’s rackety personal lives – not least because it can’t be long before word leaks out about me last weekend with the hamsters, the dwarves with cocaine bowls balanced on their heads, Jimmy Page and the cast of High School Musical III. (And it’s interesting to note that when Steve McIntyre chose to write it up at ClimateAudit, some of his commenters got frightfully sniffy. “And what, pray does this have to do with statistics or climate science?” some of his more matronly readers wanted to know as they reached for the smelling salts).

Me, I’m much more interested in the Science Media Centre connection and the puzzling question of how Fiona Fox became to become so influential figure in the Climate Change Pseudoscience Alarmism Spin Machine. OK so she’s a former revolutionary Marxist – but so too are her sister Claire, as well as the Spiked Online gang Brendan O’Neill, Mick Hume, Frank Furedi and the rest. And all the latter are ferocious defenders of Enlightenment values, as well as being so sceptical about Global Warming b***ocks generally they make me sound like Geoffrey Lean. Well, almost.

One theory, mooted by one of the Bishop’s sharp-eyed readers, is that she was got at by an organisation called LobbyWatch and bullied in changing tack. But did she really have to go so far the other way as to appoint to her Science Advisory Panel such nakedly partisan figures as (former Government Alarmist-in-Chief) Sir David King, and to her board, such outrageously parti-pris types as Philip Campbell (editor in chief of Nature) and, Lord preserve us, Bob Ward?

“Only connect.” As well as being the epigraph of Howard’s End, this is also the theme of an infinitely superior book coming out soon on the great climate change conspiracy called Watermelons.

Fox, Campbell, King, Ward, Hansen, Gore, Monbiot, Porritt, Connolley….Not without reason do these names crop up again and again in this blog. They may not be sitting round the same table plotting. But they’re all part of the cabal, a surprisingly small cabal, given the vastness of its influence and the almost unimaginable immensity of the bill they are trying to impose on mankind in the name of their religion, Climatism.

Related posts:

  1. What the liberal elite feel you should know about ‘Climate Change’
  2. Climategate: peak oil, the CRU and the Oman connection
  3. Climategate 2.0: junk science 101 with Michael Mann
  4. ‘I want to be remembered for the science’ says Phil ‘Climategate’ Jones to chorus of titters

One thought on “Climategate: the Fox connection”

  1. TDK says:18th October 2010 at 10:20 amThere’s a nice quote here you might enjoyFiona Fox’s elder sister is Claire Fox (Moral Maze BBC radio 4). The difference between them is Claire is a AGW skeptic. Here’s Fiona on her sister’s “anti-science views”I get furious with her sometimes. I believe in an evidence-based approach to science, but Claire is more driven by her political passions. I heard her on [Radio 4’s] The Moral Maze saying the “bloody scientists” are exaggerating the risk of bird flu, and that made me very cross. I phoned her from Center Parcs, and within two minutes we’d both slammed the phone down. Then, because we don’t want to stay on bad terms, we e-mailed. I sent her the research, and she came back with her political point. She takes the same stance on climate change: she knows the evidence is there; her point is that the human race is far more resilient than people think.

    You will recall that Bird Flu has didn’t kill the numbers predicted in 2003.

    What does that say about their relative judgements.

Comments are closed.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Royal Society: doh! | James Delingpole

October 15, 2010

homer

Of the many pseudoscientific institutions responsible for pushing the pseudoscientific fraud of Man Made Global Warming in recent years, few have been quite so assiduous in promulgating the great lie as our own Royal Society. (H/T John O’Sullivan at Suite 101)

“Pseudoscientific” may seem a bit of a harsh charge to lay at the door of the reverend body founded in 1660 whose alumni include such distinguished figures as Sir Isaac Newton, Sir Hans Sloane, Sir Joseph Banks and leading palaeopiezometrist Bob Ward. The problem is, in the latter part of the last century and the first bit of this one, it managed to urinate three centuries’ worth of credibility and rigour up against the wall by deciding to abandon all objectivity and act as cheerleader for the Man Made Global Warming lobby.

The three men largely to blame for this were its fanatically warmist presidents Lord Rees and Lord May, together with the even more dismal Sir John Houghton, who was partly responsible for perhaps the most embarrassing document in the institution’s history: the one called Facts And Fictions About Climate Change.

This 2005 propaganda exercise rode a coach and horses through the Royal Society’s traditions of non-partisanship. As Nigel Calder has pointed out, for two centuries the following advertisement was printed in its house journal Philosophical Transactions:

… it is an established rule of the Society, to which they will always
adhere, never to give their opinion, as a Body, upon any subject,
either of Nature or Art, that comes before them.

But perhaps more importantly it was hopelessly inaccurate, which is why, following a rebellion by some of its members, the Royal Society last month issued a revised guide to Climate Change.

However, this one is apparently wrong too. According to German chemist Dr Klaus Kaiser, the new document grossly exaggerates the amount of time the deadly, devil gas they call CARBON DIOXIDE (mwa ha ha ha!) spends in the atmosphere.

Here’s what the Royal Society claims:

“Current understanding indicates that even if there was a complete cessation of emissions of CO2 today from human activity, it would take several millennia for CO2 concentrations to return to preindustrial concentrations”

But Dr Kaiser says this is rubbish, for reasons he explains at length in Canada Free Press.

It is also obvious then that the statement by the Royal Society that it would take “millennia” for atmospheric CO2 to return to levels at preindustrial times upon a (theoretical) complete and sudden cessation of all manmade CO2 release to the atmosphere cannot be true. If the CO2 were to stay in the atmosphere for millennia, why has its level in the atmosphere not doubled in the last 15 years, or gone up tenfold-plus over the last 100 hundred years? Furthermore, there are several peer-reviewed papers reporting the half life of CO2 in the atmosphere to be between 5 and 10 years. A half life of 5 years means that more than 98% of a substance will disappear in a time span of 30 years.

He has the support of Swedish maths professor Claes Johnson, who has written scathingly before of what he calls the “Royal Society in Free Fall”.

This is not science which has been shown to be correct, but populistic science selling “truths” which serve a certain political agenda.

The Royal Society’s next president will be the Nobel Prize-winning geneticist Sir Paul Nurse. He has got his work cut out, I’d say.

Related posts:

  1. The Royal Society: too little, too late
  2. Global warming fraud: the tide begins to turn
  3. The case against Dr Phil ‘Climategate’ Jones
  4. US physics professor: ‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’

2 thoughts on “Royal Society: doh!”

  1. Ian says:16th October 2010 at 10:58 amJames Old Boy, I think the greatest pseudoscientific scandal of recent history isn’t the great global warming scam, but the holocaust. The cost to us all in general, and to many countries and corporations and banks in particular, ever since has been in the trillions. The global warming scam will run it a close second though.
  2. JazzRoc says:22nd October 2010 at 4:52 pmThe most telling argument for global warming is EVIDENCE like the following:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0kIaCKPlH4
    This is something you may try for yourself.
    You’ll see the immediate and measure-for-measure warming taking place in the bottle containing MORE carbon dioxide. This is a reaction which takes place across the Universe: shine EM radiation through carbon dioxide gas, and it will ABSORB it and RE-EMIT it.
    It may be argued that producing more CO2 will increase its natural absorption (it does) but that doesn’t mean that the heating effect is REDUCED; only that the rate of heating is reduced.
    So we are uncovering fossil carbon and burning it, increasing its proportion of the atmosphere day-by-day, having TRIPLED it in historical times.
    When you remove natural cycles from the Earth’s temperature history, lo-and-behold, you get an exact MATCH in the last three centuries to Man’s fossil fuel use and the proportion of atmospheric carbon dioxide: the “hockeystick”.
    Now it seems to me that THAT is EVIDENCE of ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING, and no amount of arguing (the power of big bucks, the “corruption” of scientists, etc., etc.) makes the slightest difference to the TRUTH: the Earth is getting hotter because we are burning fossil fuels.
    Faced with the SURE knowledge that there are SERIOUS TIPPING POINTS like POLAR ALBEDO and temperature-released methane from the tundras and ocean clathrates, the posture AGAINST man-made global warming seems downright irresponsible to me.
    What’s the motivation behind the denial of this evidence? What can POSSIBLY make one take a stand AGAINST reason and logic?

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

10:10: who are YOU going to kill to help save the planet? | James Delingpole

October 11th, 2010

Hey kids, the big day’s here. It’s 10/10/10 and that if you’ve been following the campaign of Franny Armstrong, Richard Curtis, Eugenie and all their other nicely-spoken, privately-educated, Daddy-funded, Guardian-reading trustafarian chums at 10:10, you’ll know that means just one thing: Climate Action.

So what are you going to do today? Here are a few suggestions, inspired Richard Curtis’s campaign video which has proved so successful that at least 20,000 10:10 signatories were inspired to resign.

Well done Richard!

1. Encourage Daddy to convert his Aston-Martin or Kenneth-Noye style Range Rover to biofuels, like the Prince of Wales has. Biofuels are great for the environment because they lead to higher food prices and starvation in the Third World. And the more people who starve to death in the Third World the better it is for nature. Because remember, overpopulation is the real problem.

2. Kill a climate denier, any denier – they’re all the same and their Exxon-funded attempts to deny the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming makes them fit only for one thing. Death. Just like Richard Curtis showed us on his video. And he should know: he wrote Love, Actually.

3. Build a wind turbine in your garden. Never mind the neighbours. Don’t worry about planning permission – Uncle Chris Huhne will make sure any local objections are brutally overridden. It’s a win win situation. Not only do you get to show how serious you are about your environmentalism – never mind the birds you kill or the views you spoil: the Environment is abut much more than wildlife or aesthetics – but you get paid for by the taxpayer for all the pretend comedy electricity you “generate”.

4. Write an inarticulate comment below a blog like this one. Perhaps you can refer readers to the experts at Realclimate – the unbiased information website run by friends of the distinguished, world-renowned inventor of the marvellous Hockey Stick, Michael Mann. Perhaps you could do you bit for the climate wars by reporting every remark that you disagree with to the moderators. Remember, this battle isn’t about facts. It’s about making sure everyone knows how evil and wrong climate change deniers are. Worthy of death in fact.

5. Hug a polar bear. Go to the arctic circle right now, creep up to the nearest polar bear and hug one. Try it. They’re not at all violent. The best ones to go for are the babies, when their mother is nearby.  You can tell by how white and innocent and fluffy they look.

Happy 10/10/10 everybody!

(to read more, click here)

Share

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • email

15 Responses to “10:10: who are YOU going to kill to help save the planet?”

  1. Pete H says:October 11, 2010 at 11:08 amMaybe Franny was thinking of this “Red Button.http://www.webworksllc.com/I_Like_You.cfm
  2. Pete says:October 11, 2010 at 7:55 pmJames check out what Franny says on this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfP0lUMPd7A#t=1m9s
  3. Mr. Xyz says:October 11, 2010 at 9:45 pmHere’s a pretty good collection of 10:10 related videohttp://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7C79DEF1EE25E880The channel “1010fail” has produced multiple spoofs.
    Also included are most of the over the top eco scare classics.
  4. Amanda says:October 12, 2010 at 4:02 amJames,Why is this chap Chivers, who apparently is somebody employed by the Dental Telepath, sticking his oar in on your Desperate Tonsillectomy blog? (Sorry, it’s less boring than ‘DT’ and much less boring than the real name.) Apparently there will be no discussion of words he doesn’t like. He has already put us on notice that ‘eco-fascist’ and ‘conspiracy’ are evil words to his mind, therefore no such things could possibly exist and certainly should not be bruited. Next it will be ‘agenda’, ‘watermelons’, ‘Leftist’, ‘taxes’, and other norty words that might alert certain unenlightened readers to the path of unenlightenment. And we can’t have that.But — soft! — how can I speak like that? For I am now one of the new-enlightened. I have seen, on account of the gentle chastening of the past few days, the error of my past life. I have come to see Michael Mann as a persecuted hero, and Phil Jones now looks quite lovely in my eyes.

    I do hope that you appreciate all that Chivers, and especially my own favourite darling Damocles, are trying to do. In the name of truth, justice, and the AGW way.

    Yours most sincerely and contritely,
    Amanda

  5. Richard Cumming says:October 12, 2010 at 8:52 amJames,You may be (mildly) interested to know that there is a competition running herehttp://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/10/world-of-sceptical-questions-unfolds%E2%80%A6/

    the best submissions of which, get to have their questions posed in the New Zealand Parliament to the Minister Responsible for Climate Change Issues, Nick Smith.

    International entries are invited.

    There is a separate category that is only of local importance – something to do with a Court Case that you could skip but I thought that you may wish to make an entry that is generic in nature.

    I provide my example below for your assistance but note that it is more specific, loaded to the hilt, and designed to induce squirming

    To the Minister Responsible for Climate Change Issues, Nick Smith:

    Question 1, Does the Minister concede that the case for an ETS has completely unravelled given the overwhelming body of scientific literature that has been presented since the beginning of the 21st century that is contrary to the consensus established by the IPCC that is its basis?

    Question 2. Does the Minister concede that recent revelations of the increasing levels of uncertainty in the conclusions of the IPCC with particular reference to climate models are sufficient for the repeal of the Climate Change Response Act 2002 and the December 2009 amendment?

    Cheers,

    Richard Cumming (NZ)

  6. Richard Cumming says:October 12, 2010 at 6:10 pmForgot to append the obligatory “And if not, why not?” to the 2 questions at Oct 12 8:52 am
  7. Grimble says:October 12, 2010 at 9:07 pmTrustafarians, eh? Well you’ll know all about that Delusionpole! So let’s precis what’s going on here: your qualifications in the field of climatology – nil. Your expertise in the field – nil. Your experience of experimental science – nil. Your credentials for commenting – being a right-wing loony. Your areas of specialist knowledge – using the usual upper-class right-wing network beloved of all Telegraph wannabes to ‘build’ a ‘career’, and shagging brainless debs called Jules or Melissa. Your source for the Martin Luther quote in the Telegraph today (what an insult to Luther!) – an ex-TV weatherman and right-wing loony who sees a ‘liberal’ conspiracy in the media.Conclusion – you’re a joke. You should have continued to plat Anthony in the Royle Family… answering the door and making pots of tea is pretty much at the limits of your intellect.Prediction – you’ll remove this post because right-wing loonies can’t stand to have their delusions challenged.
  8. Grimble says:October 12, 2010 at 9:09 pmThat was of course “play” Anthony… :)
  9. David says:October 13, 2010 at 12:32 amre: Global Warming.I’ve never understood why people (mostly conservatives) who aren’t scientists comment on the work of other people who are scientists. I’m not a scientist so I haven’t got a clue whether Global Warming is true or not, real or unreal.When it comes to public policy, why shouldn’t the electorate just follow the advice of the majority of scientists, since they (the public) aren’t scientists themselves? I go to the doctor because he knows my body better than I do.

    Sure you can cite one scientist who refutes Global Warming. Then I’ll name one who supports it. Then you’ll cite another. And so on, forever & forever. Amen.

    Maybe this is a ten trillion dollar con game. But in the end, neither you nor I will ever find out whether we won or lost that game. (At least for another 50 years.)

    As for the present, let’s leave the debate to those who know what they’re talking about. I can’t speak for you but I know for sure that wouldn’t include me.

    David,
    DeadFag.com

  10. Richard Cumming says:October 13, 2010 at 12:58 amGosh, that was extravagant Grimbel, feeling better now?
  11. Manuel says:October 13, 2010 at 10:54 amI find it interesting, this notion that those of us who aren’t scientists should trust those who are. Well, up to a point.I’m happy to leave particle physics to the experts, having only an O level in the subject, but I still read enough to know what a boson is and (roughly) what’s going on at CERN. OK, my mind mists over a little when people start asking me to imagine 4-d spacetime, but I find their arguments interesting and compelling.In chemistry, again I only have an O-level there, so I’m quite happy to rely on others to figure out the best alloy to use in aeroplanes that I use, but again I’ve dipped into books an aeronautical engineering, and jolly interesting it is too.

    In the area of finance, I think many of us previously were happy for other people to understand the detailed ins and outs of complex derivatives, but I have to say that when mortgage-backed securities were first explained to me, it seemed quite clear to me that they weren’t achieving anything like the risk-spreading that they claimed to be. I wasn’t qualified to opine on that either, but I did, and I was right to.

    And when my children were being born, despite having no previous experience at all of obstetrics I was quite right to insist to the midwives that they needed to call the doctor immediately, which they acknowledged afterwards. If I’d followed your advice then my eldest would be a good deal more handicapped than he is, or perhaps wouldn’t be here at all.

    And in the few fields I am qualified in and do understand very well indeed, it’s always startling to see just how many mistakes people make, how many groundless myths become widespread beliefs, how many eminent, honest, brilliant scholars make foolish errors of judgement and careless slips.

    So on climate, I freely admit to not knowing the difference between a cumulonimbus and a tiger’s bum, but even a small amount of reading around this subject does not fill me with reassurance that all is well. Seemingly reasonable objections are met, not with rational argument, but with furious insults. Seemingly well-qualified scientists have plenty of doubts, while many of those claiming to represent the AGW science actually aren’t qualified in relevant science; I don’t really care what biologists or former vice presidents think about climatology.

    So you need to stop this “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” approach and acknowledge that a geography (or any) degree is not in itself sufficient for me to believe unquestioningly.

  12. Richard Cumming says:October 13, 2010 at 9:17 pmYes Manuel, our common sense is being insulted.You say:“I find it interesting, this notion that those of us who aren’t scientists should trust those who are. Well, up to a point.”

    And I say:

    “It is not compulsory to be a climate scientist in order to check the weather or the climate.”

    The AGW faction of climate science seems to think that their particular branch of science is completely unintelligible to any other field of science, engineering, medicine, law, architecture etc and the trades: electricians, builders, nurses, HVAC technicians and farmers out in the weather/climate all year round and mums taking their kids to school and that the very special nature of AGW climate science must be interpreted to us in Janet and John “trust us” fashion.

    But the simple fact is: that climate science is not unintelligible to every-one but them; Stephen Wilde (a Solicitor) has figured it out, and anyone with a rudimentary education can do the same, and even that’s not strictly necessary when simple observation will suffice.

    Also, since when does the IPCC have a monopoly on knowledge of the future?

    I suggest that there are people who regularly work with heat or sea level or atmosphere such as boiler operators or port operators or airline pilots for example, that are in the same or even better position than “climate change communicators” and climate scientists to assess the merits or otherwise of the CAGW case.

    And Climate Action splatter videos do not assist the process of understanding except to provide insight into the barrenness of argument.

  13. Peter Crawford says:October 13, 2010 at 10:04 pmWell said gents, the barren arguments are what turned me against these arrogant tits. As somebody who lives by and fishes the British coast (Anglesey to be precise) I asked an innocent question on a “Scientific” internet forum querying how sea levels can be rising in one part of the sea but not in another (because they definitely aren’t here). I never got a plausible answer. Instead I got a tirade of vicious abuse.So if George Monbiot, Prince Charles, Al Gore or any other eminent scientists want to explain to me I will greet them with a cup of tea and a plate of Welsh cakes.If not I will dangle them of the end of the Holyhead breakwater as mackeral bait.
  14. Richard Cumming says:October 14, 2010 at 5:14 amJames,I’m confused.Is Grimble a friend masquerading in troll trappings or is he the real thing?

    I can’t make him out.

    Please excuse my lack of insight but when you’re upside down on the other side of the globe, there’s such a head-rush, it makes it hard to think – like bungy jumping, but without the bungy…or the jump.

    Thnx.

  15. Richard Cumming says:October 14, 2010 at 8:17 pmRe 10:54, 9:17, 10:04Joseph A Olson, PE says it better.Climate Science’s Worst Week in History

    Facing mass revolt from its determined objective members, the Royal Society was forced to back off from the previous total endorsement of the ‘human caused climate’ FRAUD. The RS issued new guide lines which included the following statements:

    “Lack of access to the latest knowledge about climate research is one of the primary reason[s] for the constant doubt and misinformation in the minds of COMMON PEOPLE”

    Yes, COMMON PEOPLE are too stupid to neglect ALL information that is not filtered by the PROPER authority figure. The RS then amplified this statement urging mob rule to demand immediate action:

    “COMMON PEOPLE armed with the right scientific knowledge would certainly exert pressure on their respective governments to take action on Climate Change.”

    Yes, COMMON PEOPLE of the world rise up and demand to be placed in carbon shackles and chains. Adding to the UK woes, the BBC was forced to admit bias and issued the following statement:

    “The BBC must be inclusive, consider the broad perspective and ensure that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.”

    [Further on]

    It is time for the COMMON PEOPLE to rise up against the Royalist, Monopolists and Elitist Alliance. They have intentionally dumbed-down our schools, corrupted our governments, systematically lied through their puppet media and bankrupted us with fiat financing. It is time for universal freedom from these tyrants.

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28735

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations