Climate Change Skepticism Now Virtually Illegal in Trudeau’s Canada

REUTERS/KACPER PEMPEL

Did you know that in President Bieber’s Canada it is now virtually illegal to express doubts about the existence of ManBearPig?
No, I wouldn’t have believed it either, till I learned via Lorrie Goldstein about the extraordinary criminal action brought in Canada by a bunch of eco-fascistic litigants against three climate skeptical organisations.

The complaint was filed by Ecojustice on behalf of six “prominent” Canadians, including former Ontario NDP leader and UN ambassador Stephen Lewis.

It accused three groups, Friends of Science, the International Climate Science Coalition, and the Heartland Institute of making false and misleading claims about climate change, including that the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide, and that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

When it launched its complaint in December, 2015, Ecojustice told the National Observer it would press the Commissioner of Competition to refer the matter to the Attorney-General of Canada for “criminal charges against the denier groups.”

What’s really shocking is the reason the case was dropped by the Competition Bureau (an arm’s length agency funded by President Bieber to the tune of $50 million a year) after an investigation lasting 14 months.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Islamic State and Hillary Supporters Beg Hurricane Irma – ‘Destroy Trump’s America!’

Islamic State supporters have united with their natural allies on the regressive left to celebrate the destructive power of Hurricane Irma on the Great Satan and its wicked, climate-denying president Donald Trump.

Here are some screenshots of ISIS-supporting sites, provided by jihadist monitor MEMRI.

Though Islamists and progressives differ as to the cause of hurricanes – one side ascribes them to Allah, the other to Donald Trump and man’s selfishness, greed and refusal to amend his carbon-guzzling lifestyle – they are both unanimous that the damage being done is good thing.

While the followers of ISIS want the whole of America destroyed, the followers of Hillary seek the more modest goal of seeing one of Trump’s homes reduced to rubble.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

President Trump Must Not Wobble on Climate Change – Whatever Ivanka Says…

If she wants a pony and bats her eyelashes at me, I’ll be off in a trice to buy her a herd. Baby unicorn ponies, if that’s what she prefers. With jewels inlaid in their spiral horns and maybe some magical attachment that plays the collected works of Taylor Swift while she rides.

So I totally get where President Trump is coming from when I read reports that, under the influence of Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner, he has toned the phrasing of an Executive Order so that it no longer includes derogatory comments about the utterly useless and pointless climate deal signed in Paris in 2015 by Barack Obama.

Kushner and Ivanka “intervened to strike language about the climate deal from an earlier draft of the executive order,” sources familiar with the matter told The Wall Street Journal.

Ivanka and her husband “have been considered a moderating influence on the White House’s position on climate change and environmental issues,” WSJ reports. Now, the executive order will have no mention of the so-called Paris agreement.

If it’s just a case of casual daughter-pleasing, fine. But if he actually means it than we should all start to worry.

I’ve said it before but it’s worth saying again: if President Trump proves to be as radical on energy and climate as he promised to be on the campaign trail, then this, even if he achieves nothing else, will more than qualify him for a place next to the greats on Mt Rushmore.

He will go down in history as the hero who slew ManBearPig: the president who, unlike his pusillanimous, career-safe, Establishment predecessors from Clinton and the Bushes to the ultimate horror that was Obama, finally had the courage, integrity and honesty to point out that the Climate Emperor is wearing no clothes; the guy who brought to the end the greatest scientific scandal ever; who saved Western Industrial Civilisation from the Watermelons.

But it’s all very well having good instincts and good intentions. The hard part will be dealing with all the obstacles thrown in his way by the monstrously large group of special interests sometimes known as the Green Blob and sometimes as the Climate Industrial Complex.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Liberal Mega-Donor Tom Steyer Gives up on Climate Change (Because No One Cares…)

steyer
AP

Tom Steyer – the hedge fund guy with the annoying tartan tie – has decided to quit green advocacy politics and move“beyond climate change” in order to campaign on something – anything – that people actually give a damn about.

“We want to know what matters most to you, and what should be done,” he pleads, desperately, in a new video.

Let us pause for a moment and savour the man’s absurdity, chutzpah and brazen hypocrisy.

Here is a guy who, for the last decade, has been telling us that climate change is the most important issue of our time.

That’s why he spent millions of his personal fortune in the last two election cycles promoting liberal causes and supporting Democrat candidates: in order – as  he puts it on the website of his NextGenClimate SuperPac – to “prevent climate disaster.”

So what exactly has happened to make this great green philanthropist change his mind?

Did the planet stop warming? [well yes, actually, it pretty much did for the last 20 years, but that’s another story…]

Did mankind suddenly see sense and abandon the selfishness, greed and refusal to amend his lifestyle which has caused carbon-dioxide to reach levels unprecedented in the age of humans?

Did the mighty political power of all the nations who met in Paris to secure a climate deal in December 2015 result in an agreement so watertight and effective that the world was saved from the clutches of ManBearPig?

Nope. What happened was that this shyster opportunist – as I reported here, part of his vast fortune comes from his earlier investments in Big Coal – has simply reached the very expensive conclusion that no one gives a damn about the greenies’ imaginary climate problem.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Everything is the fault of the ‘Far Right’. Everything… | James Delingpole

September 3, 2014

Andrew Norfolk is the heroic, crusading Times chief investigative reporter who broke the Rotherham child sex story. But admirable though he surely is, does anyone else find something a bit disturbing about this statement he made this week?

“I didn’t want the story to be true because it made me deeply uncomfortable. The suggestion that men from a minority ethnic background were committing sex crimes against white children was always going to be the far right’s fantasy story come true. Innocent white victims, evil dark-skinned abusers. Liberal angst kicked instinctively into top gear.”

The thing that disturbs me is this: that Norfolk was apparently less discomfited by the enormity of the crime itself than he was by the spectre of the “far right’s” likely response. I’m sure he didn’t mean it to come out that way. I’ve no doubt he cares deeply about the suffering of the children he interviewed in the course of his investigations.

But the fact that he even raised the issue speaks volumes about the mentality of the liberal-left: so great is its fear of the Far Right Bogeyman that it will do almost anything avoid incurring its wrath – even, in some cases, if it means turning a blind eye to rape, fraud and worse.

Read the rest at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. Climategate investigated by – WTF? – the ‘National Domestic Extremism’ team
  2. It’s YOUR fault the kittens and puppies will drown, Daddy!
  3. But gays AREN’T normal…
  4. Climategate: Obama’s boot boys strike back

 

ManBearPig, Climategate and Watermelons: A Conversation with James Delingpole

James Delingpole is a bestselling British author and blogger who helped expose the Climategate scandal back in 2009. Reason.tv caught up with Delingpole in Los Angeles recently to learn more about his entertaining and provocative new book Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colors. At its very roots, argues Delingpole, climate change is an ideological battle, not a scientific one. In other words, it’s green on the outside and red on the inside. At the end of the day, according to Delingpole, the “watermelons” of the modern environmental movement do not want to save the world. They want to rule it.

Watch it on Reason.tv.

Related posts:

  1. On the anniversary of Climategate the Watermelons show their true colours
  2. Climategate: Green Agony Uncle ‘Dear James’ answers your Copenhagen questions
  3. Climategate: James Randi forced to recant by Warmist thugs for showing wrong kind of scepticism
  4. 24 Hours of ManBearPig

6 thoughts on “ManBearPig, Climategate and Watermelons: a conversation with James Delingpole”

  1. Gordon says:5th October 2011 at 10:09 ammanbearpig, watermelons and climategate are about the only three words delingpole can manage. words like positive feedback, interglacial cycles, thermodynamics etc will utterly confuse this man who doesn’t do science.
    1. Holly Bromley says:24th October 2011 at 5:36 pmYour argument is proof that you have not read his book. Give it a read then come back and make an intelligent argument.
  2. Drew Spencer says:6th October 2011 at 3:25 pmAhh the same old “he doesn’t do science” argument. James is an established ‘journalist’. You can’t even find the shift key, mate.
  3. Gordonrear says:10th October 2011 at 1:58 amOK, an established mickey mouse journalist (blogger) who doesn’t do science or objective truth whose vocabulary is limited to manbearpig, watermelon and climategate. Happy mate?
  4. John Fourie says:20th October 2011 at 11:13 pmJust came to your website to say that you are the lowest form of life. Lying and over exaggerating without even understanding the basics. Dont read anything this man says people he only wants you to go to his website to get some click, he is what we call an internet troll and does not deserve a second of your time. Please die so that the world can be a better place.
  5. JB says:25th October 2011 at 9:42 amJames does exactly what he condemns in this video, he distorts evidence. I don’t feel he’s interested in open debate unless it furthers his career. If you read his articles he’s more than happy to skew information, to suit his own agenda. Even if it could be proved 100% that global warming was manmade, he would still deny it. As pretty much is whole career is based discrediting everything, and anything that could be related to and with global warming.Such as writing over emotional arguments based almost entirely on his view that wind farms are vulgar. And according to him have a negative impact on the environment where he takes his country walks. He only seems concerned about the environment if it affects him personally;

    James and his followers have their heads stuck in the sand, resist and don’t want to accept change. Regardless of which team regarding global warming you are on. The fact is fossil fuels are a finite resource that is becoming more and more expensive to produce. Why not then invest in new technologies that make use of abundant energy sources such as sun, wind, wave etc. Not necessarily to save the planet, but to create jobs and new industries.

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

Three Reasons Why Our Economy Is Heading for the Rocks

1. The BP oil spill. It’s much, much, MUCH worse than we think.

I personally have no sympathy whatsoever for BP. No Big Oil company has been more assiduous in sucking up to ecotards, bigging up the “alternative [to] energy” industry, promoting belief in ManBearPig. But I do feel sorry for the pensioners and shareholders dependent on BP for £1 in every £6 of their dividends.

2. Dismal ManBearPig-worshipper Tim Yeo MP being made chairman of the new Energy and Climate Change committee.

Politics.co.uk bears the grim tidings: (Hat tip: Bishop Hill)

Energy and climate change committee – Tim Yeo (Con)

Yeo has easily made the transition from the environmental audit committee, which he chaired in the last parliament, after that committee’s chair passed to Labour hands. He beat Philip Hollobone despite declaring an impressive range of interests, including a non-executive directorship of Groupe Eurotunnel, a non-executive chairmanship of AFC Energy and a consultant role for Regenesis.

Oh dear. The majority of Tory MPs who DON’T believe in Man Made Global Warming had their one and only chance and they blew it. The job should have gone to Philip Hollobone who could have been relied on to inject a note of realism into Chris Huhne’s certifiable energy policy – which will hamper the UK economy with at least £18 billion per annum of totally unnecessary “climate change” expenditure.

3. CGT v the Laffer Curve

In the Spectator the great US economist Arthur Laffer explains in terms even a Brasenose PPE graduate can understand exactly why raising CGT has exactly the opposite effect of the one intended: ie it stifles economic growth AND reduces tax revenues. Obviously one wouldn’t expect equality-obsessed class agitators like Vince Cable to grasp this point which is why equality-obsessed class agitators like Vince Cable should never have been allowed anywhere near our economic decision-making process. For this almost the entire blame falls on David Cameron: for having such a hang up about his class background; for lacking the moral courage to make the case for lower taxation, preferring instead to earn cheap popularity by being seen to “soak the rich.”

Related posts:

  1. Cameron and Osborne are giving public schoolboys a bad name
  2. ‘Trougher’ Yeo: we mustn’t laugh…
  3. 10 Reasons Why It Won’t Be So Bad When The Tories Get In
  4. Shock US Senate report: left wing ‘Billionaire’s Club’ using green groups to subvert democracy, control the economy

2 thoughts on “Three reasons why our economy is heading for the rocks”

  1. David says:17th June 2010 at 2:30 pm“In the Spectator the great US economist Arthur Laffer explains…” ::reads Spectator article::
    !
    Aha! Very true. Makes perfect sense!

    “…in terms even a Brasenose PPE graduate can understand…”

    Yeah. Unfortunatly, this is where I begin to disagree with you though. People such as these don’t even know how to read. Maybe a pretty video can help them?

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

    Wait, no. Nevermind. I tried to help, but all I’ve realized is that not even a video could persuade them, let alone attempts at education via reading. Throw in all the colors, logic, HISTORICAL FACTS, diagrams, or powerpoint , or you want, people with the class envy disease are nigh-incurable. So sad. So true.

    Dammit we tried huh?

  2. John of Kent says:19th June 2010 at 7:38 amTwo other reasons why our economy is heading for the rock (on them already actually):-

    1) Europe, we both pay too much to the EU for nothing in return and have allowed our economy to be tied to closely to the Eurozone which is now collapsing.

    2) We don’t make anything anymore. You cannot have a successful economy that relies on importing all our goods from China and pays for theis with the crashed finance industry and parasitic service industries. Economic success is reliant on the making of profit by turning raw material into finished goods and thereby creating value through manufacture. We don’t do this anymore in Britain, even much of the rest of Europe has more manufacturing than the UK. Our remaining industries (pharmaceuticals for example) are rapidly being offshored as we speak.

Comments are closed.

Millionaire Chris Huhne Finds New Ways to Waste Your Money

A man so dangerously wrong. . .

Chris Huhne, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Photo: Reuters)

Chris Huhne, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Photo: Reuters)

I’ve been trying to think which politician on earth I would rather have less in a cabinet post in the current Coalition than Chris Huhne. And with the possible exception of Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Il or Salma “Mrs Duckham” Yaqoob, I really can’t think of any.

Here he is this morning on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme talking from Luxembourg where he is at a summit of European Environment Ministers. Apparently blithely unaware how hard up we all are and how we’re on the brink of a double dip recession, multi-millionaire Chris “Seven houses” Huhne is demanding that the EU jeopardises its recovery still further by hampering business and consumers with even stiffer carbon emissions reductions targets.

Where before the EU was committed to 20 per cent CO2 reductions within ten years, Huhne now wants it increased to 30 per cent. According to the EU’s calculations this will only cost another 11 billion Euros extra: 11 billion Euros being, of course, a mere bagatelle to a man as loaded as Chris Huhne.

But why spend all this money in the first place? Because, according to Huhne, if the CO2 reduction figure stays at 20 per cent, it

Makes it all the more risky that we will not be able to keep global temperatures below the two degree limit which scientists reckon to be the real danger point at which we tip into potentially disastrous weather events.

Every word of that statement is the most fantastical bilge and the fact that Huhne was capable of uttering it in a clear, confident voice shows just what a dangerously ill-informed zealot the man is.

The “two degree limit” is an entirely arbitrary figure devised by EU bureaucrats. If global temperatures were to rise by twice that amount, the benefits would far outweigh the downsides in terms of improved crop growth, lower morbidity due to milder winters, increased rainfall, and so on.

Extreme weather events do NOT increase with global temperature rises.

The precise relationship between CO2 and global temperatures is still ill-understood by scientists. They don’t even know how much of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic and how much has been released from the oceans as a result of warming periods many hundreds of years ago.

The idea that “scientists” – whoever “scientists” are – believe that whether the EU can cut its plant food (aka CO2) production by 20 per cent or 30 per cent will make the blindest bit of difference to “climate change” is absurd beyond measure.

Chris Huhne is a man so dangerous and wrong in every way, and his presence in the Cabinet so stinging an indictment of Dave Cameron’s judgement and of the shoddiness of his compromise with the slimy Liberal Democrats that it almost makes one yearn for the happy, enlightened governance of Ed Balls, John Prescott and Stephen Byers. In fact I do: come back New Labour, all will be forgiven, just so long as you promise to cast the dreadful Huhne into outer darkness. (Oh, and Vince Cable, please).

Related posts:

  1. Chris Huhne’s favourite yoghurt ingredient
  2. Climategate 2.0: Lawson squishes Huhne
  3. What BBC Radio 2’s Chris Evans thinks about global warming
  4. Government’s £6 million ‘Bedtime Story’ climate change ad: most pernicious waste of taxpayers’ money ever?

28 thoughts on “Millionaire Chris Huhne finds new ways to waste your money”

  1. A. Phillips says:12th June 2010 at 4:13 pm“They don’t even know how much of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic and how much has been released from the oceans as a result of warming periods many hundreds of years ago.”Complete rubbish: “Measurements of carbon isotopes and falling oxygen in the atmosphere show that rising carbon dioxide is due to the burning of fossil fuels and cannot be coming from the ocean.”

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-coming-from-ocean.htm

    “The idea that “scientists” – whoever “scientists” are – believe that whether the EU can cut its plant food (aka CO2) production by 20 per cent or 30 per cent will make the blindest bit of difference to “climate change” is absurd beyond measure.”

    It’s about managing risk. More C02 = greater risk of catastrophe.

  2. Mike Borgelt says:12th June 2010 at 8:43 pmUnfortunately for your hypothesis, A. Phillips, the isotope balance and falling oxygen observations are not explained so simply. Suggest you read E.M Smith’s take on the isotope balance argument. Search for “Chiefio”. He pretty comprehensively demolishes it.As for your last statement about managing risk and “More C02 = greater risk of catastrophe.”, we are still arguing using abstruse and exotic statistical measures about how much or even if any warming has occurred due to slightly increased CO2. Any effect from CO2 is extremely difficult to discern, let alone predict catastrophe from.

    Also James is quite correct, even if we all agreed (which will be around about when Hell freezes over) that a little extra CO2 was a problem, none of the measures proposed, including having the EU commit to a 30% cut instead of 20%, will have any measurable effect and are therefore pointless.

  3. A. Phillips says:12th June 2010 at 10:40 pmMike,EM Smith is a blogger, who describes himself as a ‘technical managerial sort.’ His claims have not been peer reviewed, or subject to any kind of scientific scrutiny. He has not demolished anything.

    We can argue about mitigation, targets etc. – those are political questions.But pretending there is no risk (against the strong weight of evidence) is not a valid position at all.

  4. Mike Borgelt says:13th June 2010 at 3:33 amI think you’ll find the guy running the skeptical science site is a blogger also. What makes his opinions worth more than E.M.Smith’s?As for evidence – what evidence? There is no evidence at all that CO2 is causing anything at all.
  5. A. Phillips says:13th June 2010 at 7:59 amMike, that was a guest article by an oceanographer. That doesn’t mean he’s right, of course, but he’s familiar with the science, and he explained it very clearly, and also raised a serious problem for Chiefio et al: What happens to the 30 billion tonnes of C02 we release each year, by burning fossil fuels? If it’s not accumulating in the atmosphere, or dissolving into the oceans (another very serious problem), where does it go?Before you say, “plant food” please consider:

    “…Land use and biomass changes certainly soak up a lot of CO2, some it simply regrowth of forests etc, but the point is that the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere clearly demonstrates that they do not soak up enough.”

    “There is no evidence at all that CO2 is causing anything at all.”

    Yes there is. Ignoring it does not make it go away.

  6. John Hindley says:13th June 2010 at 10:19 amEvery word of this article is the most fantastical bilge and the fact that Delingpole was capable of writing it in a clear, confident style shows just what a dangerously ill-informed zealot the man is.
  7. Gus Walters says:13th June 2010 at 12:46 pmFine arguements all. But ‘selectively’ choosing research and conclusions that agree with your own philosophy, though human, is quite adolescent. Awaken to open-minded research and decisions, and please use some common sense, if any is left in this world. If all the maximum reductions in CO2 emissions were met, the reduction in global temperature would be so slight as to be completely insignificant. And that fact comes from thousands who are peer reviewed. Wait. I apologize for using that term, since it has come to be defined as ”Reviewed by peers who agree with me.”Yes, man has done some air polluting, and some terrible land and water polluting. But when it comes to global warming and climate change, a phenomenon much more complicated and mysterious than many are willing to admit, nature is in control, not man. Mankind should spend his efforts and money adapting, for world and local climates will continue to change, in all different unexpected ways, regardless his activities.

    Remove self-loathing and politics from AGW and Climate Change, and you have a background story of scientific arguements over when cooling will replace warming. Hmmmm.

  8. orkneylad says:13th June 2010 at 4:14 pmJames, a game-changing must read IMHO:2010 Antarctica Peer-Reviewed Research: Ice Core Data Confirms Medieval Period Warmer Than Present

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/06/2010-antarctica-peerreviewed-research-ice-core-data-confirms-medieval-period-warmer-than-present.html

    “Scientists using the latest analysis techniques, conducted a high resolution analysis of the ice core retrieved from Antarctica’s Dome C station. The Dome C is located on the eastern half of Antarctica, on the polar plateau with an elevation of 10,607 feet. (The more well-known Vostok polar station is located on the same plateau at a similar elevation.)

    What did this new high resolution analysis determine?

    1. The Medieval Warming period had temperatures that approached 1°C higher than current temperatures, in spite of lower CO2 levels.
    2. The Minoan Warming period had temperatures that possibly exceeded current temperatures by 1°C, in spite of lower CO2 levels.
    3. The previous interglacial period, approximately 130,000 years ago, had temperatures in excess of 4°C versus current temperatures, in spite of lower CO2 levels.

    Clearly, the new ice core data indicates that natural climate variations caused huge temperature variations in the past. Based on this empirical climate science, it would be safe to conclude that current climate changes are predominantly driven by natural forces, not human CO2 trace gas emissions.”

  9. Tom Forrester-Paton says:14th June 2010 at 8:49 amorkneylad – As I understand them, I’m not sure that these results allow you “safe(ly) to conclude that current climate changes are predominantly driven by natural forces, not human CO2 trace gas emissions.” I’d be more comfortable with “this research strongly disconfirms the theory that current climate changes are predominantly driven by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.” I know it’s a small point, but habitual false confirmation lies at the heart of M-B-P, (as A. Phillips obliges us by demonstrating) and we denialisti need to avoid the same trap.
  10. George says:14th June 2010 at 9:58 amorkneylad“Clearly, the new ice core data indicates that natural climate variations caused huge temperature variations in the past. Based on this empirical climate science, it would be safe to conclude that current climate changes are predominantly driven by natural forces, not human CO2 trace gas emissions”

    The argument is logically invalid, even if the premise were true. Otherwise the following argument of the same form would be correct:

    ‘The Black Death in the middle ages is estimated to have killed more of Europe’s population than World War 2. This means that deaths during World War 2 were not unusual, and hence must be due to natural causes, not man-made’

    Tom Forrester-Paton,

    Your semantics fail to improve things.

  11. John of Kent says:14th June 2010 at 10:31 amThe medieval warm period being warmer than today for one thing discredits Michael Mann and his colleagues who came up with the “hockey stick” graph. Thus another pillar of CAGW theory collapses. Plus the fact that CO2 only accounts for 3.3C of the alleged total GHG effect (water vapour accounts for the other ~30C that the earth is warmer than it should be). Doubling of CO2 from pre- industril levels will only add at most 0.5C. Hardly anything to worry about.As for comparing the black death to WWII, that is the most useless argument I have ever seen. Clearly, most deaths in WWII were caused by millitary action and were therefore human caused deaths, we have historical and media proof of this. The Black Death was due to a biological infection of some kind, however, which agent was the cause is unsure.

    There is no real evidence at all that CO2 levels in the future can cause catastrophic warming. Certainly no evidence for this in the geologic record of climate versus past CO2 levels. However, there is plenty of geologic evidence to suggest that our climate is currently nearly as warm as it can get being at or near the end of an interglacial period and that the climate can naturally get warmer than it currently is without harming any ecosystems.
    Therefore the most likely climate change is to a colder climate, and this is the change that is to be feared. Cold, not warmth hold the real danger for life on Earth and our civilisation in the future.

  12. George says:14th June 2010 at 10:56 amJohn of Kent,“As for comparing the black death to WWII, that is the most useless argument I have ever seen.

    I think that’s the point.

    We could rewrite orkneylad’s post thus – “Clearly, the new ice core data indicates that natural climate variations caused huge temperature variations in the past. Based on this empirical climate science, it would be safe to conclude that natural climate variations caused huge temperature variations in the past.”

    Now that makes sense.

    There is no real evidence at all that CO2 levels in the future can cause catastrophic warming. Certainly no evidence for this in the geologic record of climate versus past CO2 levels

    Google “K/T boundary”.

    Doubling of CO2 from pre- industril levels will only add at most 0.5C. Hardly anything to worry about.”

    Google “positive feedback”. As you point out, water vapour is the main culprit.

  13. John of Kent says:14th June 2010 at 12:19 pmGeorge, sorry, you are talking nonsense. There is more to scientific knowledge than making Google searches.The K-T boundry is evidence of the asteroid collision that killed the dinosaurs 76 or so million years ago. It is a layer of Iridium found around the world. Nothing to do with CO2. Iridium is a rare metal on the earth, common in asteroids.

    As for water vapour being a “culprit”- that is also nonsense. It merely makes the earths temperature stable and comfortable for life on earth. There has been no evidence of water vapour feedback causing catastrophic warming in the past when the earths climate was warmer. It cannot do so, or the earth’s climate would be so unstable that life would have been impossible.

    Also, water vapour if its alleged GHE fedback on itself then CO2 would not be needed for a catastrophie to occur. A temperature rise (from whatever cause) would evaporate more water from the sea into the atmosphere, this would cause more warming and set up a feedback of ever escalating temperatures and water vapour levels. This has never happened – CO2 or not- an can never happen for two reasons:-

    1) More water vapour forms more clouds (low level) this cools the climate.
    2) Clouds rain using up the energy in the hydrological cycle.

    There is the natural thermostat in the earths climate- clouds and rain. Basically weather.

    If you want to Google again see Dr Roy Spencer and Prof Richard Lindzen on these negative feedbacks. Also Ferenc Miskolczi on the saturated greenhouse effect.

    This means more CO2 added to the atmosphere has an ever diminishing effect. So called GHG’s do not “trap” energy they merely slow its progress to space. To claim otherwise goes against the laws of physics, in particular, thermodynamics.

    CO2 is vital for life on earth. It is the green gas. Add more CO2 to the atnosphere and nature will flourish. The so called “green: movement has attempted to turn the truth upside down for political ends.

  14. orkneylad says:14th June 2010 at 12:37 pmTom Forrester-Paton says:
    “I’d be more comfortable with “this research strongly disconfirms the theory that current climate changes are predominantly driven by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.”Point taken, I agree that’s a more balanced statement.
    ____________
    George says:
    “The Black Death in the middle ages is estimated to have killed more of Europe’s population than World War 2. This means that deaths during World War 2 were not unusual, and hence must be due to natural causes, not man-made’”

    It’s not the same thing & you know it, your duncicality seems to know no bounds.

    Best,
    OL

  15. orkneylad says:14th June 2010 at 12:55 pmto add……
    Data of past event X shows past result Y, thereofore Y in present likely to be result of present event X.& your Black Death / WWII analogy:

    Past event X caused past result Y, & recent event P caused recent result Q. Ergo, Y = Q.
    dude, WTF?

  16. George says:14th June 2010 at 1:11 pmHi John of Kent,I’ve included some links in this post, but I’ve removed the first ‘h’ from each one to prevent waiting for this post to be moderated.

    Actually the K-T boundary took place approx 65 million years ago. The impact of the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs released vast amounts of CO2 from vaporising carbonate-rich rocks, pushing atmospheric CO2 levels up to approx 2,300ppm resulting in a climatic forcing of +12 W-m(-)2 that would have been sufficient to warm the Earth’s surface by 7.5°C, in the absence of counter forcing by sulfate aerosols. Paper here – ttp://www.pnas.org/content/99/12/7836.full.pdf+html

    You could also look up the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, which took place some 10 million years later. Same process, except this time probably as a result of methane released from the sea floor as a result of continental drift.

    Actually, there has been evidence of water vapour feedback causing catastrophic warming in the past. Here’s a study which highlights the importance of increased tropospheric humidity (water vapour) in amplifying a warming effect during the afforementioned Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum – ttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7016/full/nature03115.html

    Also, water vapour if its alleged GHE fedback on itself then CO2 would not be needed for a catastrophie to occur. A temperature rise (from whatever cause) would evaporate more water from the sea into the atmosphere, this would cause more warming and set up a feedback of ever escalating temperatures and water vapour levels. This has never happened…

    Actually that’s exactly what has happened. Past climate change provides excellent proof that climate sensitivity is high (probably around 3°C – ttp://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf) In fact, in order to explain previous changes in the global climate, we must account for positive feedbacks from a variety of sources, including water vapour. And it turns out that water vapour is in fact the largest positive feedback mechanism in the climate system – ttp://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3799.1 A good example is he amplifying effect of water vapor that was observed in the global cooling after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo, during which the cooling led to atmospheric drying which amplified the temperature drop – ttp://atoc.colorado.edu/~dcn/ATOC6020/papers/Soden_etal_727.pdf

    I’ve read a number of papers by both Spencer and Lindzen. Spencer’s work in particular seems important, however, nobody is denying the existence of negative feedbacks in the form of (for example) low-level clouds or mega-fauna. The question is whether negative feedbacks outweigh positive feedbacks. If they do, do you have another explanation for previous climate change?

    The same thoughts apply to Lindzen’s work, although I’m less assured of his ability. Ironically here’s Spencer critcising some of Lindzen’s work – ttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/03/spencer-on-lindzen-and-choi-climate-feedback-paper/

    Regarding CO2 saturation, observations continue to find an enhanced greenhouse effect as CO2 levels rise, see ttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

    Yes there is a diminishing return but the effect is approximately proportional to the logarithm of the concentration, meaning there is no true saturation point. You might consider that Venus’ atmosphere is over 95% CO2 and its surface temperatures are almost 500°C. That makes it hotter than Mercury, the closest planet to the Sun. If CO2 had a saturation point Venus should have reached it a long time ago.

  17. John of Kent says:14th June 2010 at 1:14 pmStrong evidence for the Medieval warm period being warmer than today shows:-1) Climate does change, gets colder and warmer, does not need man and CO2 to do so, climate change is natural.
    2) The 1C warmer climate did not lead to water vapour feedbacks or any other catastrophie that the global warmers allege. Neither did it cause an asteroid to strike the earth and kill the dinosaurs all over again.
    3) The natural climate of the earth due to its normal energy balance during this interglacial may actually be warmer than current temperatures.
    4) What exactly is supposed to be the average climate temperature of the earth?? If such a concept even has any meaning.
    5) The human race flourished during the middle ages- due to the MWP. Warmer is better!
    6) Climate is almost never stable, change is the norm.

    Recent mild warming over the past 150 years merely represents a recovery from the Little Ice Age which was the catastrophic cooling phase that followed the MWP. This appears to have been due to changes in solar activity as there was a dip in recorded sunspots at this time.

  18. George says:14th June 2010 at 1:16 pmorkneylad,Don’t get yourself in a muddle.

    Past event X caused past result Y, & recent event P caused recent result Q. Ergo, Y = Q.
    dude, WTF?

    If Y = death, and Q = death, then I think it fair to say that Y = Q. Disagree?

    Let’s call bubonic plague ‘X’, and death ‘Y’.

    So, past event X caused past result Y, therefore Y in present likely to be result of present event X?

    Don’t think so.

    Watch your Ps and Qs; that’s not scepticism.

  19. orkneylad says:14th June 2010 at 1:33 pmGeorge,Deaths from ‘viral’ event ‘X’ are not interchangeable with deaths from ‘war’ event ‘P’……I can only assume you’re just joking with me. 😉

    Your KTB link was interesting, however it appears their numerical work is all based on climate model simulation & not empirical observation of actual data. Since modelling & code is something I do have a lot of expertise in, I know it’s flaws & remain highly sceptical of results based on current methods of modelling conjecture.

    However, I’ve sent it off to my mum [MA geophys] for further analysis…….

    Best,
    OL

  20. John of Kent says:14th June 2010 at 1:33 pmVenus is another global warming myth. The high temperatures are due to the atmospheric pressure (95 atmospheres) and the length of the day heating the atmosphere directly and not to CO2 and the alleged GHE. Plus the suplhate clouds in the atmosphere are so thick that little sunlight gets to the surface to fuel any GHE. There is no water vapour on Venus. It is simply the sheer thickness of the atmosphere that causes Venus to be uniformly hot- which by the wayAs for alleged past water vapour feedback, this warming was not due to water vapour, as the feedbacks would have multiplied and fed back on themselves and led to the end of life on earth. So why did this not happen?? because it is impossible. The warming was due to changes in solar activity and to changes in solar insolation due to cloud cover changes. Water vapour is self limiting as I have said due to cloud formation. Read Lindzen and spencer again. Also look up Svensmark for more on clouds and solar activity and their role in the LIA.

    “The impact of the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs released vast amounts of CO2 from vaporising carbonate-rich rocks, pushing atmospheric CO2 levels up to approx 2,300ppm resulting in a climatic forcing of +12 W-m(-)2 that would have been sufficient to warm the Earth’s surface by 7.5°C, in the absence of counter forcing by sulfate aerosols. Paper here – ttp://www.pnas.org/content/99/12/7836.full.pdf+html”

    That is not true, the dinosaurs were killed by the combustion of the atmosphere following the impact and by the impact winter due to dust and sulphates in the atmosphere causing a deep freeze. If you look further back in time, CO2 has at numerous times been at levels of 5000ppm during an ice age!

    “Actually that’s exactly what has happened. Past climate change provides excellent proof that climate sensitivity is high (probably around 3°C – -snmip- A good example is he amplifying effect of water vapor that was observed in the global cooling after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo, during which the cooling led to atmospheric drying which amplified the temperature drop – ttp://atoc.colorado.edu/~dcn/ATOC6020/papers/Soden_etal_727.pdf


    No, the cooling was due to dust in the atmosphere for a couple of years. The atmosphere did not dry out that much! Sensitivity is low because more water vapour leads to more clouds which more than makes up for the alleged extra GHE. The references you gave have all come to the wrong conclusions based on the GHE dogma, and because it is an lazy way out for climatologists to blame GHG’s for everything where the truth is they really do not understand climate very well at all.

    Climate is driven by the sun and the stars and moderated by the oceans. there is no need to invoke imaginary “forcings” by CO2.

    Did you know that the greenhouse effect has never been proved?? It is only a speculative theory, and that physicists have recently published papers casting doubts upon the Arrenhius theory of greenhouse?

  21. George says:14th June 2010 at 2:05 pmorkneylad“Deaths from ‘viral’ event ‘X’ are not interchangeable with deaths from ‘war’ event ‘P’

    Exactly. Which is why past warming from total solar irradiance, solar UV irradiance, cosmic ray flux, Milankovitch cycles etc. is not necessarily comparable with current warming. That’s not to say it isn’t, it’s just to say we shouldn’t jump to conclusions. Even if the MWP does represent a period in which global temperatures were simultaneously warmer than the present day, the interesting question is why?

  22. orkneylad says:14th June 2010 at 2:24 pm“Even if the MWP does represent a period in which global temperatures were simultaneously warmer than the present day, the interesting question is why?”Of course that’s the next question that follows, yet denial of a global MWP has been part of the bedrock of AGW alarmism because it didn’t conform to the ‘politically acceptable’ CO2 hypothesis…….that stance is now a busted flush. Hopefully that why can now be addressed.

    “past warming from total solar irradiance, solar UV irradiance, cosmic ray flux, Milankovitch cycles etc. is not necessarily comparable with current warming. That’s not to say it isn’t, it’s just to say we shouldn’t jump to conclusions.”

    Agreed, but if it isn’t CO2 [based on this absence of a temperature corrolation] then we would be wise to assume the above solar irradiance, solar UV irradiance, cosmic ray flux, Milankovitch cycles etc as being the most likely culprit.

    The Science is never settled……

  23. George says:14th June 2010 at 2:37 pmorkneylad,I’ve always found that stance rather perplexing. I don’t think the existence (or not) of a MWP either proves or disproves the AGW theory. That said, I wouldn’t describe it as a ‘busted flush’ just yet.

    It’s undeniable that temperatures were warmer than today in certain areas at certain times, and I’d like to understand why that was. Re: global average temperatures, I think there’s a lot of ongoing disagreement; like you say, the science is never settled.

    We’d be wise to assume nothing. We’re currently just coming out of a solar minimum, and yet temperatures have continued to rise.

  24. George says:14th June 2010 at 4:03 pmJohn of Kent,“Venus is another global warming myth.

    Lengthy debate to be had there, for which I’m under qualified. There is actually water vapour in Venus’ atmosphere, although it only makes up 0.002%. There used to be a lot more, but Venus succumbed to a runaway water vapour greenhouse effect.

    Venus succumbed early to a “runaway water vapor greenhouse,” in which the increased water vapor content arising from increased temperature reached an end state with much of the ocean evaporated into the atmosphere. Once this happens, it is easy for the water vapor to decompose in the upper atmosphere, whereafter the light hydrogen escapes and oxygen either escapes or reacts with rocks. One hypothesis is that the weak magnetic field at Venus, which otherwise would protect the planet from the solar wind, is one reason for why the oxygen and hydrogen escaped faster into space. Once water is lost, the reaction that turns carbon dioxide into limestone can no longer take place, so CO2 outgassing from volcanoes accumulates in the atmosphere instead of staying bound up in the rocks. The end state of this process is the current atmosphere of Venus, with essentially no water in the atmosphere and essentially the planet’s whole inventory of carbon in the form of atmospheric CO2. Earth, in contrast, kept its water, which allowed the planet to keep most of its carbon inventory safely bound up in the crust. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus is approximately the same as the amount of CO2 bound up in the form of carbonate rocks on Earth today.

    From – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lessons-from-venus/

    As for alleged past water vapour feedback, this warming was not due to water vapour, as the feedbacks would have multiplied and fed back on themselves and led to the end of life on earth. So why did this not happen?? because it is impossible. The warming was due to changes in solar activity and to changes in solar insolation due to cloud cover changes.

    You answer your own question. Why did it not happen? Because increasing humidity is not the only driver of climate. As I’ve demonstrated, some warming has to be attributed to the positive feedback effect of water vapour, however, you are right in saying that the trigger for past warming was (almost always) solar activity (or Milankovitch cycles). When solar activity falls, so does temperature, bringing humidity down with it. This also explains why, as you point out, CO2 levels have in the past been high during an ice age (although never at 5000ppm – the late-Ordovician would have been a contender but this recent paper – ttp://geology.gsapubs.org/content/37/10/951.abstract – demonstrates that CO2 consumption increased during the mid-Ordovician as a result of continental weathering, however levels were held up by volcanic outgassing. This volcanic activity dropped off towards the late-Ordovician, however weathering remained high. This caused CO2 levels to fall below 3000 ppm, an event not evident in the Geocarb III model). As CO2 is not the only driver of climate, it is perfectly possible to have relatively high levels of CO2 while having relatively low global temperatures. When the sun is less active, the CO2-ice threshold is much higher. For example, if the CO2-ice threshold for present-day Earth is 500 ppm, the equivalent threshold during the Late Ordovician (450 million years ago) – when the solar constant was about 4% less than current levels – would be 3000 ppm. Royer has demonstrated that when you combine the radiative forcing from CO2 with solar variations there is a close correlation with temperature stretching back to the early Phanerozoic. See Fig.2 p.4 – ttp://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf

    The most recent period when CO2 levels were as high as today was around 15 million years ago, during the Middle Miocene. CO2 levels were at about 400 ppm. What was the climate like at the time? Global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today. Sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher. There was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland.

    That is not true, the dinosaurs were killed by the combustion of the atmosphere following the impact and by the impact winter due to dust and sulphates in the atmosphere causing a deep freeze.

    Perhaps I should have been more clear when referred to, “The impact of the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs“, that the dinosaurs weren’t all standing directly under the meteorite at the time, and that I was refering to the consequences of the impact. Quoting from the study I provided – http://www.pnas.org/content/99/12/7836.full.pdf+html – “This finding reinforces previous evidence for major climatic warming after the KTB impact and implies that severe and abrupt global warming during the earliest Paleocene was an important factor in biotic extinction at the KTB.”

    Re: Mount Pinatubo

    No, the cooling was due to dust in the atmosphere for a couple of years.

    Partially correct. The cooling was certainly triggered by the dust released into the atmosphere, which was then amplified by the drop in levels of water vapour. See paper – ttp://atoc.colorado.edu/~dcn/ATOC6020/papers/Soden_etal_727.pdf

    The references you gave have all come to the wrong conclusions based on the GHE dogma, and because it is an lazy way out for climatologists to blame GHG’s for everything where the truth is they really do not understand climate very well at all.

    Climate is driven by the sun and the stars and moderated by the oceans. there is no need to invoke imaginary “forcings” by CO2.”

    Sorry, do you have some academiccredentials that I should be made aware of? Am I to take your word over the work of the scientists I have quoted, who have had their peer-reviewed work published in distinguished journals? I hope I can.

    Yours,

    George

  25. Natsman says:14th June 2010 at 8:42 pmWell, I know which argument makes the most sense to ME, a comparative layman.
    George, you ARE the weakest link – goodbye…
  26. Pointman says:15th June 2010 at 1:11 pm@Natsman says:
    June 14, 2010 at 8:42 pmSeconded.

    Pointman

  27. Dom says:15th June 2010 at 9:56 pmJames,
    well done for cutting through the bs. It’s always refreshing to read someone who isn’t taken in by the utter drivel of global warming alarmism.
  28. Roger C says:26th June 2010 at 12:42 pmThe debate was surely about Chris Huhne. I do care about preserving resources, energy security, pollution, and the thought of global warming – I still find him dangerous.He does have this big target – but no real ideas. At the moment it is all about turning the light bulbs off and improving insulation. Both good ideas – but really not new – and we have those pretty much in place already – ie if you wanted to improve your insulation – you could do – and there are grants available for the less well off. His programme will not help reach the 20% target let alone the 30% – I am fairly sure that he will spend most of parliament sorting out his bill and taking little action.

    The best point was that we are all “comparative laymen” – and the answer is that as individuals we do not know the answer to global warming – and we are probably split on who we like and who we do not. However:

    Fossil fuels are becoming more expensive to extract (I think that is a fact)
    We have less fuel in the UK (which is also a fact)
    I quite enjoy clean air (Do you?)
    Rainforests do contain valuable resources – and it would be good not to cut them all down (or to put pressure on them to be cut down through demanding goods that will initiate deforestation – e.g. palm oil)
    Good insulation and careful use of fuel is good from a monetary perspective – it keeps the pound in your pocket – put a jumper on if you are cold.
    Alternative energy technologies are useful – they may indeed be cost effective alternatives in the coming years as other fuel becomes more scarce or more expensive to extract.

    More contentiously I am not a big fan of nuclear power. In the same way that many posters are “enviroscepic”, I am nuclear sceptic. Can they really make it safe? (I think probably) Can they deal with the waste? (I think probably not)

    Nuclear power plants take a long time to build and commission. It is unlikely that this government will provide subsidy for them. In this situation it is unlikely that we will get loads of nuclear power plants in the short run.

    What would be more embarrassing would be an energy crisis – where we cannot produce enough energy for the countries needs. This seems to be a real issue – although short term I am more concerned with prices.

    I am disappointed that global warming is a headline grabber for Chris Huhne – I would prefer him to be dealing with practical things concerning energy – rather than false targets. Also the negative reactions Global warming seems to get – often put people in a space where they talk about the ifs and buts and ignore practical stuff like gas is now 4p a kW – and rising. We are not going to be able to simply put prices down

Comments are closed.

The Royal Society: too little, too late

A revered institution has become a mindless cheerleader.

The other night I had the great pleasure of dinner with Professor Bob Carter. He told me that when he goes on speaking tours, there’s only one question he ever gets asked to which he is unable to provide a satisfactory answer. It goes something like this:

“Thank you Professor Carter, that was all very interesting. But please can you tell me why you expect us to take your opinion seriously when it is contradicted by most of the world’s leading scientific organisations, including the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society?”

Funnily enough, I replied, that’s exactly what I’m planning to write a book about. “How did a scientific theory so feeble and ill-supported by any hard evidence yet become the dominant political idea of our age with so much support from people who really ought to know better?”

One thing’s for certain. When the history of this outbreak of mass hysteria comes to be written, few organisations will emerge with more egg on their face than the standing joke that is the Royal Society.

For years it has acted as cheerleader for the AGW lobby but has now been forced to backtrack after complaints from 43 of its members that it has been exaggerating the scientific certainty about the existence of ManBearPig. Its current president Lord Rees is trying to salvage what dignity he can be making out that this rethink of its position was always part of the plan:

Lord Rees said the new guide has been planned for some time but was given “added impetus by concerns raised by a small group of fellows”.

“Nothing in recent developments has changed or weakened the underpinning science of climate change. In the current environment we believe this new guide will be very timely. Lots of people are asking questions, indeed even within the Fellowship of the Society there are differing views. Our guide will be based on expert views backed up by sound scientific evidence,” he said.

However he denied accusations that the national academy of sciences has ever stifled debate or that the case for man made global warming is in doubt.

To which the only possible answer is: Yeah, right.

It wasn’t always this way. For the three centuries after its foundation in 1660, the Royal Society was the world’s pre-eminent scientific institution. Its members and presidents included: Sir Christopher Wren, Samuel Pepys, Robert Boyle, Robert Hooke, Sir Joseph Banks, Sir Isaac Newton, Sir Hans Sloane, Thomas Huxley, Joseph Hooker, Joseph Lister, Ernest Rutherford.

Its alumni’s achievements included designing St Pauls Cathedral, laying groundwork for classical mechanics, discovering law of gravity and three laws of motion, coining word “cell” for basic unit of life, Hooke’s law of elasticity, Boyle’s law, inventing drinking chocolate, creating basis of Natural History Museum’s collection, introducing numerous plant species to the Western World, helping popularise evolutionary theory, devising antiseptic surgery, pioneering nuclear physics.

So what went wrong?

Nigel Calder blames its politicisation sometime in the 1960s. He quotes this “advertisement” which for two centuries 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.

Yet under the presidencies of Lord May and Lord Rees, it has lost all credibility by abandoning objectivity and nailing its colours to the mast of the (now rapidly sinking ship) RMS Climatitanic.

In 2005, as Gerald Warner reminds us, it produced its “A guide to facts and fictions about climate change”, “which denounced 12 “misleading arguments” which today, post Climategate and the subsequent emboldening of sceptical scientists to speak out, look far from misleading.”

Large chunks of this, Bishop Hill has suggested, seem to bear the grubby fingerprints of Sir John Houghton, the fanatical warmist who was formerly head of the Met Office and the Hadley Centre and who was the first chairman of the IPCC scientific working group responsible for giving the AGW scare its official kick-start.

The Royal Society is also the alma-mater (sort of: if ex-press officers count) of rabid pit bull Bob Ward, now spokesman for the warmist Grantham Institute, who can often be heard on the wireless getting very cross with people who don’t believe in ManBearPig. (An increasingly tough job, given that this now means almost everyone).

Related posts:

  1. Royal Society: doh!
  2. Climategate: the whitewash begins
  3. ‘Everything dead by tomorrow!’ warns Zoological Society of London
  4. ‘ManBearPig is real!’ declare top climate scientists. ‘And to prove it here’s a photo-shopped image we found on the internet of a polar bear on a melting ice floe.’

3 thoughts on “The Royal Society: too little, too late”

  1. Neil Craig says:30th May 2010 at 4:31 pmThe politicisation may be explained by the fact that Lord May’s previous job was as the government’s chief science advisor. Advisors are chosen not because of their competence but for their willingness to advise the media that the government are right.

    Or it may be because the Royal Society received about £53 million from government in 2008 (rising much faster than inflation). You do not have to believe in deliberate corruption to realise that people tend to honestly come to believe things their income depends on.

    A summary on my blog http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2009/08/royal-society-fakecharity.html based on figures on the Wikipedia entry which has, perhaps surprisingly, subsequently had all such figures deleted.

  2. Julian Braggins says:31st May 2010 at 6:08 amPerhaps the Royal Society rule,
    “… 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.”
    came into existence a few short years after the then president of the Royal Society Lord Kelvin stated “These heavier than air machines will never fly” and realised that a consensus of that opinion would have been disastrous for the Society, apart from being unscientific in proffering consensus as proof.
  3. Michael Harris says:31st May 2010 at 2:23 pmOf course the real reason they all cling to the theory, in spite of reason itself, is that many people depend on our response to the theory ,either for their livelihood, or funding, or a mixture of both.Also ,like Al Gore,many people are, or are going to be enriched through the sale of carbon credits and the rest, the contemporary version of the mediaeval indulgences. Faced with lots of moolah, logic will always take a back seat, and their defence will become more and more hysterical.

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

Only morons, cheats and liars still believe in Man-Made Global Warming | James Delingpole

May 19, 2010

Well of course I would write a headline like that having just spent the last three days in Chicago at the Heartland Institute’s 4th International Conference on Climate Change. This is the event the cackling, cloak-wearing, befanged AGW-denying community attends every year to glorify in their own evil. And naturally, in the wake of Climategate, a mood of uproarious triumphalism has prevailed as distinguished skeptical scientists, economists, and policymakers from around the world – Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Ian Plimer, Bob Carter, Fred Singer.. you name them, they’re here – have gathered to dance on the smouldering ashes of the mythical beast ManBearPig.

Except we shouldn’t use that word “sceptic” any more. Richard Lindzen – Godfather of Climate Realism – told us so in one of the keynote addresses.

“Scepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition,” he said. “Current global warming alarmism hardly represents a plausible proposition.” Not least, he pointed out, because the various activist scientists, greenies and government institutions pushing AGW theory have failed to “improve their case over 20 years.” So paper thin are the AGW movement’s arguments that pretty much the only defences left to them are desperate techniques like the appeal to authority (“the Royal Society believes in AGW and the Royal Society is, like, really old and distinguished, so AGW must be true”) and cheap slurs.

Consider, as examples of the latter technique, how this conference has been reported in the liberal media. Both the BBC and the Huffington Post have decided to write off the expertise of the dozens of PhDs and professors speaking at this event to concentrate on the issue that really matters: it was funded by Big Oil. (Except it isn’t. Unfortunately Big Oil stopped funding the skeptical side of the argument a long time ago. The Heartland Institute is a conservative leaning think tank funded by a number of business donors, and the main funder of the conference is a local libertarian millionaire who just happens to want a bit of openness and honesty in the debate on AGW. But hey, never let the facts get in the way of a libtard story).

The other main objection I heard – from the BBC’s Roger Harrabin – is how utterly ridiculous it was that a total know-nothing like James Delingpole was speaking on a “Science” panel with meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, climate expert Fred Singer, and economist Ross McKitrick (co-destroyer – with Steve McIntyre – of Michael Mann’s hockey stick). Indeed, when I introduced myself to him, he snapped back “I’m not sure whether I should shake your hand. I want to punch you.” He sounded jolly cross indeed – and ranted that I was utterly irresponsible and had disseminated lots of lies – though he later apologized to me saying he was jet-lagged and had confused me with Christopher Booker. Hmm.

Anyway, I agree with him. As I said when I gave my speech, it was entirely inappropriate that a humble hack like me should be on a panel with such great men – like a lowly swineherd suddenly finding himself translated to Mount Olympus. Then again, I said, it wasn’t such a bad idea that I was there to inject a note of reality to the proceedings. The truth is, I said, that the scientific debate is over. The scientists on our side of the argument have won (which is why no Warmist will dare debate Richard Lindzen, and while Al Gore won’t debate anyone at all: they know they’d lose). Problem is, I went on, this debate was never really about science anyway. AGW is and always have been a political process. It’s the political war that we’re fighting now and it’s going to be much much harder to win.

Especially when you look at the results of our recent General Election which I still find so monumentally depressing I’m not altogether sure I can bring myself to fly home.

Related posts:

  1. I’d rather have Monckton in a foxhole with me than Monbiot
  2. Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’!
  3. Why we can all stop worrying about ‘Global Warming’ for a bit
  4. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion