In Praise of Patrons – Particularly Mine

God, I enjoyed my book launch party last week. (Though not as much as some people, eh, Toby?) So much so that I’m not sure I can ever forgive myself. I keep thinking not of the fun I had but of all those friends I wish could have been there but weren’t. My fault, totally, in most cases: I’m horrendously disorganised when it comes to party invitations — and it’s entirely possible that you’re one of the people I love most in the world but forgot to invite because, hey, I’m just a bit useless that way.

Anyway, this party. As you’ll probably be aware — and if not let me spell it out — the launch was for — the launch was for this incredibly readable, well-researched, funny but also ‘serious and significant’ (says Matt Ridley in The Spectator — and who I am to disagree with so distinguished an expert in so important a publication?) book I recently published. It’s called Watermelons: How Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children’s Future.

I think the main reason the party went so well was that, invitations apart, I had nothing to do with the organisation.

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. In praise of peer-review on Amazon
  2. In praise of Lord Tebbit
  3. Lib Dems: now even less popular than the BNP
  4. Loyal American children break into spontaneous praise of the Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama

17 thoughts on “In praise of patrons – particularly mine”

  1. Nige Cook says:23rd March 2012 at 7:43 pm“I keep thinking not of the fun I had but of all those friends I wish could have been there but weren’t. My fault, totally, in most cases: I’m horrendously disorganised when it comes to party invitations … When at school I learned that even a talent as great as Shakespeare could only make ends meet by fawning before toffs like the Earls of Pembroke and Southampton I remember being appalled. But as I grow older and wiser — and the times grow more difficult — I realise that there is nothing shaming or unfair about patronage. It’s merely an honest acknowledgement of how the world works. … I’m less overjoyed by the simultaneous deaths of my two main sources of income — publishing and print journalism — but even here I think there are grounds for cautious optimism.

    “At my launch a friendly City type and his charming wife told me how interesting they thought my life was. I in turn told them how much I’d like their money.”

    This pandering to Mammon will infuriate the miserable self-deluded commies who frequent your website.

    Remember, James, that proper lefty Marxist liberalism insists that money is dirty, greasy stuff you’re far better off without. True happiness is abject poverty. If you were a billionaire you’d waste the rest of your life cruising the Caribbean, watching sunsets while sipping Martinis and complaining about boredom.

  2. Martin Lack says:27th March 2012 at 11:46 amHere’s a poster for you to display at your next book launch (not).
  3. Martin Lack says:27th March 2012 at 3:39 pmAnd here’s another…
  4. Martin Lack says:27th March 2012 at 4:15 pmDear James,

    I know you will cite the Met Office as being part of some anti-libertarian plot to install worldwide Socialist governance but, will you please do us all a favour and suspend your belief in conspiracy theories just long enough to take on board some new information:

    “A project running almost 10,000 climate simulations on volunteers’ home computers has found that a global warming of 3 degrees Celsius by 2050 is ‘equally plausible’ as a rise of 1.4 degrees. The study addresses some of the uncertainties that previous forecasts, using simpler models or only a few dozen simulations, may have over-looked. Importantly, the forecast range is derived from using a complex Met Office model that accurately reproduces observed temperature changes over the last 50 years. The results suggest that the world is very likely to cross the ’2 degrees barrier’ at some point this century if emissions continue unabated. It also suggests that those planning for the impacts of climate change need to consider the possibility of warming of up to 3 degrees (above the 1961-1990 average) by 2050, even on a mid-range emission scenario. This is a faster rate of warming than most other models predict.”
    Citizen science looks at future warming uncertainty.

    N.B. The ability of these computer models to recreate historical trends over the last 50 years is not evidence of fudge factors having been applied: It is evidence of model validation, which – along with calibration and sensitivity analysis – is an integral part of establishing the accuracy of such modelling techniques. You can – or should – trust me on this because, unlike you, this is what I have been doing for the last 20 years or so (i.e. using probabilistic computer modelling in environmental risk assessments).

    Your beloved marketplace of ideas is a dangerous fallacy; of which your success in getting your ill-informed unscientific opinions plastered all over the media and infecting people’s minds is profound evidence. And for what purpose? You may think you are acting in the public interest but, unfortunately, like everything else in Watermelons 2.0, this is an inversion of reality: As Peter Jacques (University of Florida) has pointed out, it is precisely because environmental scepticism is not in the public interest, the tobacco industry invented the sound science versus junk science debate (now being used to great effect by the fossil fuel and energy industry) to confuse people and prevent sensible regulation of their product.

    1. Eworrall says:31st March 2012 at 9:35 amAnyone can retrofit fit any curve by adding enough adjustment knobs to the model , but fitting an old data series is no guarantee of predictive skill. And a model which requires a monster supercomputer array to run has a lot of adjustment knobs.

      Predictive skill is the test of the validity of a theory. And so far, the predictive skill of climate models has been a flat bust. The most likely explanation for this lack of skill, despite decades of research, is that they have selected the wrong forcing (CO2) as the dominant driver of climate.

  5. Angus says:31st March 2012 at 9:05 amGeneral Motors Decides Climate Change Is Real, Pulls Support From Heartland Institute
    I am sure James will have a tantrum over this.
  6. Letusthink says:5th April 2012 at 9:44 amPublishing has a huge influence over our lives and James has a great platform over us as publishers pay him money to write articles. Does James really care what he writes about as long as the cheques keep rolling in?
    1. EricW says:5th April 2012 at 12:57 pmThe Warmists have all the big money – multi billion dollar WWF, Greenpeace, EU climate budgets, as well as all the national backing for Climate Change efforts, such as the new UK Climate Change Fund. Even big oil can’t compete with that kind of money.
  7. Letusthink says:5th April 2012 at 9:53 amThis denial is complex, involving a variety of defensive response from the familiar ‘climate change is a myth’ to the more understandable (but ultimately no more useful) ‘but I need my car for my job’. It is of course no coincidence that the same people who are deeply wedded to high fossil fuel use . . . are the ones most likely to deny the reality of climate change . . . there is nothing so difficult as trying to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it. This is classic denial: no one wants to hold a mental image of themselves as bad or evil, so immoral acts are necessarily dressed up in a cloak of intellectual self justification.
    1. EricW says:5th April 2012 at 12:58 pmI wonder how much money the CRU scientists would get if politicians were convinced that Climate Change is not a threat? It would certainly be the end of their multi million pound government research grants.
  8. Letusthink says:5th April 2012 at 1:52 pmEworrall – “all the big money” doesn’t really mean very much. They don’t exactly have a pot of money sitting around in a bank account. And what do you mean by “compete”. What is the competition here? Do you mean in convincing people about the truth about global warming? OK, unfortunately it is a bit of a competition, but what I don’t understand is how you can set it out so rigidly . . . We don’t want people to believe in manmade global warming . . . why is that helpful? To protect certain interests? To protect human intectualism? Because you have a deep seated love of the ‘truth’. I just can’t see why you would get so passionate about it unless you were earning a nice crumb from embracing denialism. Good luck to you.
    1. EricW says:5th April 2012 at 6:33 pmI’m glad you think hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, for Warmist propaganda doesn’t really mean very much. I’d like to be that rich.

      As for why I am a “denialist”, the reason is simple – I believe, from reading the Climategate emails, and my own research, that Warmist climate science is corrupt, and that the CO2 theory is persisting for political rather than scientific reasons.

      I also think that if you guys truly get the upper hand, more than you have already, a lot of people will die. There are already casualties thanks to biofuel policies – even the UN admits that biofuel subsidies are exacerbating the risk of famine. . Making energy more expensive, through expensive renewables programmes, would kill even more people – all for a cause which is based upon scientific fraud.

      A lot of people died in the 20th century because of scientific fraud. I’d like to avoid repeating that mistake, if possible.

  9. Letusthink says:5th April 2012 at 9:56 pmEWorrall – I think for a few billion dollars is not really here or there when the national US defence budget was over $600 billion in 2010. There will of course be mistakes made along the way as we feel our way into the right policies. Interestingly enough – how many people die in car accidents every year? Cars are not only polluting our planet but killing our citizens in accidents everyday in a more direct way. I just can’t believe scientists/politicians have come up with some elaborate giant fraud – life is too short.

    1. EricW says:6th April 2012 at 6:28 amCar accident casualties are not a justification for ignoring the consequences of policies which cause mass famine in the third world. The famine can be alleviated with the stroke of a politician’s pen, while car accidents are a more intractable problem.

      As for scientists getting it wrong or behaving fraudulently, it unfortunately happens all the time. The scientific method, with it’s standards of openness and reproduceability, was developed to try to prevent episodes of mass delusion. When the method is abused, by scientists concealing data and trying to suppress critics, then science becomes dysfunctional, and theory is no longer verified by facts.

      Such abuse is institutional in the dysfunctional climate science community.

      Note I am not saying the Climategate scientists dont believe in global warming – their problem is they believe too much. Since they already know

      1. EricW says:6th April 2012 at 6:36 amA climategate email you might find interesting – Mr. Smith tries to pressure Ben Santer into revealing method and data behind hid models.

        Climategate Email 1233326033.txt

        > The American Physical Society on line statement reads (in part):
        > “The success and credibility of science are anchored in the willingness
        > of scientists to:
        > 1. Expose their ideas and results to independent testing and
        > replication by others. This requires the open exchange of data,
        > procedures and materials.
        > 2. Abandon or modify previously accepted conclusions when confronted
        > with more complete or reliable experimental or observational

        1. Eworrall says:6th April 2012 at 6:52 amBen Santer is finally forced to publish some of his data. He still does not publish his method. He feels the need to write an apologetic email to colleagues in the climate science community.

          Climategate Email 1229468467.txt

          > I just wanted to alert you to the fact that Steven McIntyre has now made
          > a request to U.S. DOE Headquarters under the Freedom of Information Act
          > (FOIA). McIntyre asked for “Monthly average T2LT values for the 47
          > climate models (sic) as used to test the H1 hypothesis in Santer et al.,
          > Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical
          > troposphere”. I was made aware of the FOIA request earlier this morning.
          > McIntyre’s request eventually reached the U.S. DOE National Nuclear
          > Security Administration (NNSA), Livermore Site Office. The requested
          > records are to be provided to the “FOIA Point of Contact” (presumably at
          > NNSA) by Dec. 22, 2008.

          > Over the past several weeks, I’ve had a number of discussions about the
          > “FOIA issue” with PCMDI’s Director (Dave Bader), with other LLNL
          > colleagues, and with colleagues outside of the Lab. Based on these
          > discussions, I have decided to “publish” all of the climate model
          > surface temperature time series and synthetic MSU time series (for the
          > tropical lower troposphere [T2LT] and the tropical mid- to
          > upper-troposphere [T2]) that we used in our International Journal of
          > Climatology (IJoC) paper.

          > After publication of the model data, we will inform the “FOIA Point of
          > Contact” that the information requested by McIntyre is publicly
          > available for bona fide scientific research.
          > Unfortunately, we cannot guard against intentional or unintentional
          > misuse of these datasets by McIntyre or others.

          >This will make it difficult for McIntyre
          > to continue making the bogus claim that he is being denied access to the
          > climate model data necessary to evaluate the validity of our findings.

          1. Eworrall says:6th April 2012 at 7:06 amBen Santer reveals he wants to hoard method and data secrets because he sees other scientists outside his group as “competitors”, instead of welcoming fresh viewpoints in his search for truth. This attitude seems to be common in the Climate Science community, which is what I mean, when I describe it as dysfunctional.

            Climategate Email 1231257056.txt


            Can any competitor
            simply request such datasets via the U.S. FOIA, before we have completed
            full scientific analysis of these datasets?

Comments are closed.

Ten Things You Don’t Want to Happen in 2012, but Which Probably Will

My predictions for 2012

1. After the Arab Spring and the Islamist Winter will come Armageddon Summer. It might happen as early as spring but that season has been bagged already. At Islington dinner parties, on the BBC and in the Guardian — after cursory acknowledgement has been made of all the dead innocents — the conclusion will be reached that Israel is to blame. As if its very existence wasn’t provocation enough, Israel has consistently — and deliberately — mocked its poor, struggling neighbours with its outrageous displays of democracy, accountability and economic growth.

2. Boris will make some spectacular gaffe. Perhaps he will suggest, outrageously, that…

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. What will happen to the convicted rioters
  2. A US president with wandering hands? It would never happen
  3. The BBC: Official Voice of Ecofascism
  4. Exposed: the self-inflicted Hamas ‘massacre’ blamed by the media on Israel

One thought on “Ten things you don’t want to happen in 2012, but which probably will”

  1. Nige Cook says:18th January 2012 at 5:03 pmRegarding Armageddon Summer, North Korea, India and Pakistan have all tested nuclear weapons, but Israel and Iran haven’t (although they are both producing plutonium all the time due to neutron capture in U-238 in their nuclear reactors). So it could be that North Korea will be the first to use them, but the Middle East. (America never tested the simple Hiroshima nuclear bomb before dropping it; the Trinity test was for the complicated implosion bomb dropped later on Nagasaki, not the Mk1 Hiroshima gun assembly weapon.) So nuclear weapons have been used in conflict without any prior nuclear test. South Africa stockpiled Hiroshima type nuclear weapons for a while but never tested them.

    What’s shocking is that ever since 1945, a wide range of pressure groups have falsely exaggerated the effects of the nuclear weapons in a way that fosters the illusion that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were typical or template explosions, despite the fact that the city centres were over 40% area covered with overcrowded wood frame houses, each with a charcoal brazier and plenty of paper screens, bamboo furnishings, etc. Colonel Tibbets who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima explains in his autobiography “The Tibbets Story” that he was well aware of the incendiary problems because they had firebombed all the German cities and 93 Japanese ones. The secret 1947 U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey report number 92 on Hiroshima, volume 2, gives a survey of 1,000 survivors who said the firestorm was due to overturned charcoal braziers in wooden houses. (The heat flash only set black coloured blackout curtains on fire out to 2500 feet radius from ground zero, white colours reflect the heat and don’t ignite, and nobody puts blackout curtains in their windows nowadays!) Problem is, it was secret, and the unclassified report (issued in 1946) obfuscated, making it appear as if the heat set alight the wood directly (it can’t, as the heat flash is so brief that wood just ablates slightly, creating a smokescreen with no sustained fire). City centre buildings today are a lot tougher and less inflammable than the wooden housing slums of Hiroshima, so it is entirely possible for people to survive. 75% survived in Hiroshima despite the complete surprise there and the firestorm afterwards.

    Instead of discussing the facts rationally, the politicians prefer groupthink “consensus” in which the facts are removed from public debate by secrecy classification. This was all very well to help deter Stalin, but bearing in mind the fact Russia later tested more powerful weapons than America (up to 50 Mt), there is little military case for keeping the facts secret today, it’s purely a matter of political correctness:

    1. Keep the basic facts secret/limited in distribution to government contractors only (in manuals like EM-1, Capabilities of Nuclear Weapons). Issue to the public only non-quantitative or vague obfuscation that omits hard evidence from Hiroshima and nuclear tests. Keep everything secret.

    2. Allow the public “debate” on civil defence to begin and end with Hiroshima firestorm photo propaganda and lies by Rotblat/CND being a genuine basis for public education. (Remember CND’s 1982 book “Civil Defence: The Cruellest Confidence Trick”, Duncan Campbell’s “War Plan UK”, and SANA – Scientists Against Nuclear Arms – who in 1992 after the cold war became “Scientists for Global Responsibility” fighting natural climate change with hot air.)

    3. Appease aggressors using Chamberlain’s argument in the 1930s, that if we don’t appease aggressors we will all cease to exist, we’re doing God’s work by shaking Hitler’s hand and talking peace with him, because peace at any price to the Jews is ethical, and Churchill is immoral.

    The Americans are starting to face the truth that Glasstone’s Cold War book on nuclear weapons effects is not an adequate basis for the terrorist and jihad threat today:

    “Appeasement seldom works in the long term … appeasement will not prevent every possible attack.”

    – Robert C. Harney, “Inaccurate Prediction of Nuclear Weapons Effects and Possible Adverse Influences on Nuclear Terrorism Preparedness”, Homeland Security Affairs, volume V, No. 3, September 2009, pp. 1-19 (quotation from page 18)

    “If all residents in the hazardous fallout region adopt a shelter-in-place strategy, the total number of acute radiation casualties is estimated to be ~ 3,600, as compared to ~ 100,000 casualties if all are outdoors and unsheltered. Some further reductions in casualties can be realized if those in the poorest shelters transit to better shelters soon after the detonation.”

    – Larry D. Brandt and Ann S. Yoshimura, Analysis of Sheltering and Evacuation Strategies for a Chicago Nuclear Detonation Scenario, Sandia National Laboratories, Report SAND2011-6720, August 2011, page 5.

    “We have shown that common estimates of weapon effects that calculate a ‘radius’ for thermal radiation are clearly misleading for surface bursts in urban environments. In many cases only a few unshadowed vertical surfaces, a small fraction of the area within a thermal damage radius, receive the expected heat flux.”

    – R. E. Marrs, W. C. Moss, and B. Whitlock, Thermal Radiation from Nuclear Detonations in Urban Environments, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, UCRL-TR-231593, June 2007, page 11.

    Dr G. Andrew Mickley explains how workers who returned to Nagasaki after surviving at Hiroshima were able to use their experience to survive the second nuclear explosion, and to help others to prepare, in his paper “Psychological Factors in Nuclear Warfare”, Chapter 8 in Textbook of Military Medicine; Part I, Warfare, Weaponry, and the Casualty; Volume 2: Medical Consequences of Nuclear Warfare, U.S. Army, 1989, pp. 184-5:

    “The benefits of training are confirmed by the remarkable experiences of nine persons who survived the Hiroshima bombing and then fled to Nagasaki in time for the second atomic bomb. They remembered very well what they had done that allowed them to live, and they quickly instructed others in Nagasaki: “Yamaguchi’s lecture on A-bomb precautions, he pointed out later, was not lost upon his colleagues. With the young designer’s words still fresh in their minds [on 9 August 1945, in Nagasaki] they leaped for the cover of desks and tables. “As a result,” said Yamaguchi, “my section staff suffered the least in that building. In other sections there was a heavy toll of serious injuries from flying glass.” (Reference: Robert Trumbull, Nine who survived Hiroshima and Nagasaki, New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., 1957.)” –

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

Good news! Sea levels aren’t rising dangerously

This week’s Spectator cover star Nils-Axel Mörner . . .

. . . brings some good news to a world otherwise mired in misery: sea levels are not rising dangerously – and haven’t been for at least 300 years. To many readers this may come as a surprise. After all, are not rising sea levels – caused, we are given to understand, by melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice – one of the main planks of the IPCC’s argument that we need to act now to ‘combat climate change’?

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. Copenhagen: an utter waste of everyone’s time, energy and money with a carbon footprint the size of Texas
  2. Great news: the people responsible for Amazongate, Glaciergate, and Africagate trousered £3 million of your tax money
  3. Official: Icelandic volcano with unpronounceable name was caused by Man Made Global Warming
  4. Pope Catholic; night follows day; IPCC found telling pack of lies about sea level rises

14 thoughts on “Good news! Sea levels aren’t rising dangerously”

  1. Brian Rose says:8th December 2011 at 10:57 am


  2. Nigel Cook says:8th December 2011 at 12:15 pm

    Between 8000 and 7000 years ago, sea levels rose 11.5 metres (1150 cm), or 1.15 cm/year, without killing life on earth. The current rate of rise is 0.2 to 0.4 cm/year, depending on which measurements you use. Sea levels were 120 metres lower some 18,000 years ago, at the height of the last ice age. 450 million years ago, sea levels were 400 metres higher than today. That’s natural variability for you. Those who try to artificially keep nature in status quo don’t understand that it doesn’t exist. Change is the basis for everything. There is no balance of nature, and no natural stability other than negative feedback from cloud cover which cancels out CO2. The ecofascists have no baseline marker to call “natural” because the world is ever changing.

  3. Brian Rose says:8th December 2011 at 1:12 pm“Those who try to artificially keep nature in status quo don’t understand that it doesn’t exist. ”

    Who are “those”? No-one with half a brain would ever think that nature would remain static. All the more reason to rely on proper research, not loonies like Morner who believes in dowsing (and looked a proper berk when challenged to prove it), and that he has discovered “the Hong Kong of the Greeks” in Sweden.

    1. Nigel Cook says:8th December 2011 at 3:28 pm“Who are “those”? No-one with half a brain would ever think that nature would remain static.” – Brian Rose

      Michael Mann’s hockey stick curve was faked to show constant temperature until CO2 began rising. IPCC/NASA gurus on the Horizon BBC2 “Science under Attack” propaganda film claimed that humanity emits 7 times more CO2 than nature, when in fact natural sources of CO2 emit 30 times more (even the IPCC 4th assessment report lists in its un-hyped small print that humanity’s emission is 29 Gt of CO2 from all fossil fuels etc, compared to 771 Gt from all natural land and ocean emissions). It’s well within the natural climate fluctuations of CO2, and the scare-propaganda relies entirely on censoring out the evidence of natural variability by tricks like switching temperature proxies at 1960 and 1980 so as to try to produce a hockey stick curve.

      Before 1960 they use tree rings as the major proxy, which is false because tree growth is sensitive to cloud cover and rainfall, not particularly CO2 levels. From 1960-80 they used temperature station records near expanding “heat islands” like industrial factories and cities. After 1980 they used satellites which can’t tell the temperature under the cloud cover where all negative-feedback from cloud cover actually occurs. No prizes for guessing that the satellite “temperature data” didn’t properly include negative feedback from the extra cloud cover resulting from the extra evaporation of water due to rising CO2. They’re complete fanatics, who don’t donate a single brain cell to objectivity, let alone half a brain!

      1. Gordonrear says:9th December 2011 at 6:56 amNige, did you copy and paste every debunked and/or scientific conspiracy argument found on the internet into your reply?
        1. Anonymous says:9th December 2011 at 7:39 amWe dont have to invent stories about conspiracies – they’re all in Climategate, in plain view. Only an idiot or a fanatic can fail to see how damning the evidence against the climate community is.

          Take this gem for example – the WWF brokering a deal between Climategate Scientists and the Australian CSIRO on how much they should lie about the risk of extreme weather.

          I’m sure you will get some comments direct from Mike Rae in WWF Australia, but I wanted to pass on the gist of what they’ve said to me so far.

          They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative
          approach to the risks than they are hearing from CSIRO. In particular, they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events beefed up if possible.

          1. Nigel Cook says:9th December 2011 at 1:31 pm“… [Dr Andy] Dessler has … used models which DO NOT ALLOW cloud changes to affect temperature, in order to support his case that cloud changes do not affect temperature!”

            – Dr Roy Spencer, ex-NASA climatologist,

            All of cheats, liars and charlatans ALWAYS start talking about intelligent design or religion to avoid the science using ad hominem attacks, and when you point out that this led to the holocaust, they ALWAYS then claim they are not attacking people’s beliefs, they are just conflating one thing with another in an ad hominem smear campaign of racial hatred disguised as objectivity:

            “Ad hominem attacks on people’s religious views are not science. Eugenicists like Medical Nobel Laureate Alexis Carrel (the first to propose gas chambers for “ethnic cleansing” in his 1935 bestseller, “Man the Unknown”) dismissed critics for being Jews. Making ad hominem attacks doesn’t count, I’m very sorry to tell you dear.”

            These ad hominem attackers know nothing of science, but dominate the media and politics scene.

            We need to censor out those who avoid the science and try to reject criticisms on the basis of conflating “science credentials” with personal preferences concerning irrelevant issues like religion or the best filling in a doughnut.

        2. Nigel Cook says:9th December 2011 at 8:46 amAGW is debunked by Dr Roy Spencer: negative feedback from H2O and how it is being censored out by circular arguments, you guys will be as popular as eugenicists, so watch out. If you warm the ocean surface a bit (which covers 71% of the globe, unlike a greenhouse) the evaporated water forms extra clouds which cool the altitudes below the clouds and due to convective rising of warm air there is no mechanism for vertical mixing so the surface stays cool. In a “greenhouse” this can’t happen due to a glass ceiling, which all IPCC models implicitly assume. You eugenicists just want to profit from the green carbon credits, admit it! Actually the climate is always varying so there is 50% chance of rising temperatures, 50% of falling temperatures. This reduces the statistical value of correlations of CO2 and temperature when you take account of the fact that there is a 50% chance of an apparent “correlation”. It’s complete bullshit, and always has been:

          “… [Dr Andy] Dessler has … used models which DO NOT ALLOW cloud changes to affect temperature, in order to support his case that cloud changes do not affect temperature!”

          – Dr Roy Spencer, ex-NASA climatologist,

          1. Brian Rose says:9th December 2011 at 12:06 pmOh dear. That would be the same Roy Spencer who is an advisor to the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and a signatory to “An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming”, which tells us

            “We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.”

            Incidentally the junk science that is Intelligent Design has been criticised by, among others, Ian Plimer, who needs no introduction here I am sure.

            Even accepting that the AGW supporters like Mann or Jones are charlatans does not redeem equal (or rather greater) charlatans like Morner; surely Nige you don’t believe in dowsing? Or intelligent design? Of course they might simply be right about AGW and wrong about dowsing etc (indeed, I would maintain Plimer was right about intelligent design, but rather shoddy when it comes to AGW – deliberately reversing findings of papers, relying on discredited sources etc – again this is not fatal to the anti-AGW thesis but nor does it help it) but it’s not much of an advertisement for Morner’s scientific credentials, is it?

          2. Nigel Cook says:9th December 2011 at 12:40 pmAd hominem attacks on people’s religious views are not science. Eugenicists like Medical Nobel Laureate Alexis Carrel (the first to propose gas chambers for “ethnic cleansing” in his 1935 bestseller, “Man the Unknown”) dismissed critics for being Jews. Making ad hominem attacks doesn’t count, I’m very sorry to tell you dear.
          3. Brian Rose says:9th December 2011 at 12:58 pmYour Alexis Carrel reference should win a prize for the most irrelevant comment in any comment thread anywhere in the history of the internet. I have no problem with anyone’s religious views. I do have a problem when they try and pass them off as science, such as intelligent design, which has as much scientific basis as the flying spaghetti monster, or “intelligent falling” (the deliberate parody of ID). The fact that Spencer advances such nonsense does not speak well of his credentials as a scientist, any more than Morner’s belief in Dowsing advances his.

            I can just imagine what you would say about a pro-AGW “scientist” who supported ID or dowsing – why the double standard for the sceptics?

          4. Nigel Cook says:9th December 2011 at 1:06 pm“Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.” – George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty Four, Chancellor Press, London, 1984, p. 225.
          5. Brian Rose says:10th December 2011 at 8:17 pmThat about sums up Nils Morner, and anyone who takes him seriously.
  4. Nigel Rogers says:21st December 2011 at 4:30 pmdamn those sea levels!

Comments are closed.

Gore Fakes ‘Proof’ of Man Made Global Warming Shock

Watts Up With That has achieved a truly astonishing scoop. It seems that the world-renowned climatological expert Al Gore may have faked a “high school physics” experiment “proving” that Man Made Global Warming is fact, not fantasy.

Oh all right, I’ll turn off the sarcasm.

What I think is most interesting is not so much that Gore has been caught out telling porkie pies, nor that the TV crew faked every last detail of the experiment. Faking it is what TV does all the time, I’m afraid. As for Al Gore and extravagant untruths well, it’s scorpions, frogs and rivers, is it not? No, what’s so thoroughly cherishable about this story is the forensic attention to detail which Anthony Watts has brought to bear on it.

Read it for yourself and relish every moment. I particularly like the bit where Wattsy goes out to buy the exact same equipment used in the experiment and proves that those thermometers can’t possibly have been filmed rising inside the jars because they’re just not blurry enough. You might call this obsessive. I call it our salvation.

The point that can’t be made often enough about the internet is that it represents our best and perhaps only hope of outmanoeuvring the lies, bullying and control of the political establishment. Nowhere is this truer than with the Man Made Global Warming scam. Had it not been for the internet, Climategate would not have been broken, nor the earlier work of McIntyre and McKitrick disseminated, nor a community created in which scientific experts (and interested laymen) all over the world were able to discuss climate science freely without the risk of being defunded, or having their journal closed down or being ostracised by their colleagues. But though the internet was a necessary condition for this to happen, it was not a sufficient one. The other vitally important ingredient was the trainspotterish diligence of men and women like Anthony Watts, and Richard North and Donna Laframboise and Joanna Nova.

Why is this trainspotterish diligence so essential? Because one of the main planks of the defence used by the climate alarmist establishment against sceptics is that they have all the expertise on their side, all the PhDs, all the notable scientific institutions, and that therefore their “authority” trumps the feeble witterings of all those nonentities, crazed Oxford English graduates, and other such verminous specimens who dare to speak out against the mighty, unimpeachable wisdom.

What the internet has proved in these debates, time and again – from Glaciergate to Amazongate to Polarbeargate – is that when the rebellious amateurs of the sceptical blogosphere go head to head with the climate establishment, the bloggers always win. Not as a result of invective or snarkiness or any of the other things that bloggers also do quite well: but on the actual hard science and raw evidence. Look at almost any tussle between, say, WUWT on the one side, RealClimate on the other, and you’ll notice that when it finally boils down to the irreducible truth, the side that emerges triumphant is the sceptical one, not the alarmist one. It’s partly because the facts are on our side (so we jolly well ought to win if we’re doing our job even remotely properly), but also because, being the underfunded underdogs, we’ve been forced to raise our game to a higher standard than that of our rather complacent, smug opposition.

Related posts:

  1. Global Warming? Yeah, right
  2. Global Warming: is it even happening?
  3. Al Gore’s five loaves and two fishes
  4. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion

3 thoughts on “Gore fakes ‘proof’ of Man Made Global Warming shock”

  1. tkadm30 says:30th September 2011 at 12:56 amthey faking “proofs” every day now in montreal and canada! in fact al gore should have started there to collect “data” with all the chemtrails they’re spraying on a daily basis…. if this is not an engineered proof of deliberate climate modification then i don’t know what i’m speaking about.
  2. John Fourie says:20th October 2011 at 11:14 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.
  3. John Fourie says:20th October 2011 at 11:14 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.

Comments are closed.

Why Aren’t There More Rewards for Being Right?

A Conservative friend of mine has a favorite exasperated phrase for our political class: “There just aren’t enough bullets.” He doesn’t mean it literally. Like me – more or less – he’s a peace and love kind of guy. What he’s expressing is frustration that the fools in power who make mistakes which impact on all our lives never seem to pay any real price for messing things up.

In this week’s UK Spectator, political journalist Peter Oborne gives a good example of this. He names the Guilty Men who, not so long ago, were urging Britain to scrap the pound and adopt the Euro as its currency. Hindsight tells us with absolute clarity that this would have been a disaster. But there were many of us who knew that perfectly well at the time – and often said so.

And how were we treated? As completely lunatics, that’s how. We were called “swivel-eyed” and “Little Englanders”. We were dismissed as reactionary eccentrics completely out of touch with the real world, that’s how.

Here’s just one example, taken from the Observer columnist Andrew Rawnsley’s column on 31 January 1999: ‘On the pro-euro side, a grand coalition of business, the unions and the substantial, sane, front rank political figures. On the other side, a menagerie of has-beens, never-have-beens and loony tunes.’ Most of Mr Rawnsley’s ‘substantial, sane, front-rank political figures’ came together 12 years ago at the launch of the Britain in Europe campaign to take us into the euro — Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson, Michael Heseltine, Ken Clarke, Charles Kennedy, Danny Alexander.

Guilty Men takes its name from a pamphlet published in 1940, naming the myriad Establishment figures who’d pursued a policy of Appeasement with Hitler. Needless to say, those who wanted to stand up to him – and who warned that war was inescapable, in much the same way an apocalyptic collapse in Europe is now – were of course treated “those in the know” as dangerous loons. Foremost among those dangerous loons was Winston Churchill.

Today we see exactly the same thing going on with Climate Change.

As someone who has been on the right side of these arguments (I’m sure you can all suggest plenty of US examples of similar instances) I hope I don’t sound too peevish when I ask: “Where’s my reward? How come the bad, wrong guys always get away with it – and the good guys get nothing more than the satisfaction of being right?”

Sure being right is nice. But I do wish you could monetize it.

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. Happy Climate Fools’ Day
  2. ‘Budget for growth’? Wot budget for growth?
  3. Nick Clegg’s riot inquiry panel is beyond a joke
  4. Vote Blue, Go Green, Ruin Britain

3 thoughts on “Why aren’t there more rewards for being right?”

  1. Bernie says:27th September 2011 at 9:09 pmDon’t call the fools in power fools. What about that genius Gordon Brown who as Chancellor of the Exchequer sold off half of England’s gold supply at $275 the ounce. How do you like that for forward vision?
  2. Nige Cook says:29th September 2011 at 8:23 pmWatch Brown refuse to admit to making an error by selling gold at rock bottom price: claims it’s the Conservatives fault he made a loss by selling off that gold, because the Conservatives were selling off assets, and he just “diversified into gold”.

    This kind of obfuscating dishonesty is what you get all the time at the lower levels of society, such as the rock bottom state comprehensives and universities. Nobody every makes a mistake. They’re all educated enough to be able to come up with some convoluted excuse or explanation that allows them to fail to learn from their error. Would he have felt differently if it had been his own personal money he flushed down the lavatory? :)

  3. John Fourie says:20th October 2011 at 11:14 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.

Comments are closed.

Sun Causes Climate Change Shock

August 28, 2011

Cartoon by Josh

Cartoon by Josh

If Michael Crichton had lived to write a follow-up to State of Fear, the plotline might well have gone like this: at a top secret, state of the art laboratory in Switzerland, scientists finally discover the true cause of “global warming”. It’s the sun, stupid. More specifically – as the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark has long postulated – it’s the result of cosmic rays which act as a seed for cloud formation. The scientists working on the project are naturally euphoric: this is a major breakthrough which will not only overturn decades of misguided conjecture on so-called Man Made Global Warming but will spare the global economy trillions of dollars which might otherwise have been squandered on utterly pointless efforts to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions. However, these scientists have failed to realise just how many people – alarmist scientists, huckster politicians,  rent-seeking landowners like (the late Michael Crichton’s brilliant and, of course, entirely fictional creation) the absurd, pompous Sir Reginald Leeds Bt, green activists, eco-fund managers, EU technocrats, MSM environmental correspondents – stand to gain from the Man Made “Climate Change” industry. Their discovery must be suppressed at all costs. So, one by one, the scientists on the cosmic ray project find themselves being bumped off, until only one man remains and must race against time to prove, etc, etc…

Except of course in the real world the second part wouldn’t happen. No one would need to go to the trouble of bumping off those pesky scientists with their awkward, annoying facts and their proper actual research. That’s because the MSM and the scientific “community” would find it perfectly easy to suppress the story anyway, without recourse to severed brake cables or ricin-impregnated hand-washes or staged “suicides”.

This is exactly what has happened with the latest revelations from CERN over its landmark CLOUD experiment, whose significance Lawrence Solomon explains here:

The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.

The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.

In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

So if it’s so great, why aren’t we hearing more about it? Well, possibly because the Director General of CERN Rolf-Dieter Heuer would prefer it that way. Here’s how he poured cold water on the results in an interview with Die Welt Online:

I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.

Nigel Calder, who has been following the CLOUD experiment for some time, was the first to smell a rat. He notes:

CERN has joined a long line of lesser institutions obliged to remain politically correct about the man-made global warming hypothesis. It’s OK to enter “the highly political arena of the climate change debate” provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmark’s heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation.


The once illustrious CERN laboratory ceases to be a truly scientific institute when its Director General forbids its physicists and visiting experimenters to draw the obvious scientific conclusions from their results

Lubos Motl, too, detects some double standards here:

One could perhaps understand if all scientists were similarly gagged and prevented from interpreting the results of their research in ways that could be relevant for policymaking. However, the main problem is that many people who are trying to work on very different phenomena in the climate are not prevented from interpreting – and indeed, overinterpreting and misinterpreting – their results that are often less serious, less reliable, and less rigorous, perhaps by orders of magnitude, than the observations by the European Organization for Nuclear Research.

Moreover, this sentence by Heuer

One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many really a proof of his prejudice. Whether the cosmic radiation is just one player or the only relevant player or an important player or an unimportant player is something that this very research has been supposed to determine or help to determine. An official doesn’t have the moral right to predetermine in advance what “one has to make clear” about these a priori unknown scientific results.

But then, as Lawrence Solomon reminds us, this was never an experiment the scientific establishment wanted to happen in the first place.

The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory cre dence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.

The mobilization to rally the press against the Danes worked brilliantly, with one notable exception. Nigel Calder, a former editor of The New Scientist who attended that 1996 conference, would not be cowed. Himself a physicist, Mr. Calder became convinced of the merits of the argument and a year later, following a lecture he gave at a CERN conference, so too did Jasper Kirkby, a CERN scientist in attendance. Mr. Kirkby then convinced the CERN bureaucracy of the theory’s importance and developed a plan to create a cloud chamber — he called it CLOUD, for “Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets.”

But Mr. Kirkby made the same tactical error that the Danes had — not realizing how politicized the global warming issue was, he candidly shared his views with the scientific community.

“The theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century,” Mr. Kirkby told the scientific press in 1998, explaining that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature.

The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes’ groundbreaking theory.

Still, as you’d expect, the BBC remains dutifully on-message.  Read this report by its science correspondent Pallab Ghosh and you’ll be left in little doubt that a) the latest results are dull beyond measure  and b) that if they do mean anything at all, it’s that global warming is still very much man-made. Here’s their tame expert, Reading University’s Dr Mike Lockwood, on hand to provide them the perfect pull-quote:

Does this mean that cosmic rays can produce cloud? – No”

PS Welcome to all you American readers brought here by Drudge. Please come again. And if you want to read more about how the environmental movement got so powerful, how the junk scientists got away with it for so long, and why so many people fell for the biggest most expensive scam in history, you might enjoy my new book on the subject – Watermelons: the Green Movement’s True Colors. (Also available on Kindle)

Related posts:

  1. ‘Climate Change’: there just aren’t enough bullets
  2. ‘Climate change sceptics have smaller members, uglier wives, dumber kids’ says new study made up by warmists
  3. Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con trick
  4. Campaign Against Climate Change: a Christmas appeal

2 thoughts on “Sun Causes Climate Change Shock”

  1. William STEWART says:29th August 2011 at 2:51 pmI agree with the Dane…
    Only,… did some one forget to throw into the equation the three cubic miles of exhaust gases that all cities, over 5 million large, throw into the atmosphere every day… That much colloidal ‘Soot” must be a big part in the man-made entry…
  2. James Stevens says:30th August 2011 at 5:51 pmHow do you reconcile your interpretation of the paper – that there is no man made global warming – with what the paper actually says – that the study is not complete enough to determine either way. That is why the group is so reluctant to enter the political debate. It isn’t because of “political correctness” but because they KNOW (better than you or the global warming deniers) that their study does not disprove the idea of man made global warming.

    In fact, not only does the actual paper itself say that the study needs to be repeated to look at the impact of all aerosols in the air (instead of just the 3 they looked at), and until that is done, nobody can say what the impact of humans is.

    From CERN’s own press breifing: “This result leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could also influence climate. However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed.”

    But I guess facts just get in the way of cherry picking to fit your own predetermined views. If you cared about actual facts then “No one would need to go to the trouble of bumping off those pesky scientists with their awkward, annoying facts and their proper actual research.”

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

Freeman Dyson v the ‘Independent’

The Independent  isn’t very “independent”

Winchester and Princeton scholar Dyson: hell, what does he know about AGW?

Winchester and Princeton scholar Dyson: hell, what does he know about AGW?

So says perhaps the world’s greatest living theoretical physicist Professor Freeman Dyson in a truly glorious exchange with the fervently warmist newspaper’s fervently warmist science editor Steve Connor. (H/T Mitcheltj)

Professor Dyson says:

I wish that The Independent would live up to its name and present a less one-sided view of the issues.

He’s talking, of course, about the ‘Independent’s’ stance on AGW. Of all the British media, not even the Guardian’s Environment pages have quite matched the zeal with which the Indie has promoted the great Man Made Global Warming narrative. Professor Dyson – born in Britain 87 years ago, a scholar at Winchester but a naturalised American, now based at Princeton university is not altogether convinced that the Indie’s alarmism has any factual basis whatsoever.

Here are some of the highlights. (Yes, it’s familiar stuff: but how good it is to see a man of Professor Dyson’s standing and intellect expressing it with such confidence and clarity).

On how the measures currently being taken against “climate change” are doing far more harm than good:

I am saying that all predictions concerning climate are highly uncertain. On the other hand, the remedies proposed by the experts are enormously costly and damaging, especially to China and other developing countries. On a smaller scale, we have seen great harm done to poor people around the world by the conversion of maize from a food crop to an energy crop. This harm resulted directly from the political alliance between American farmers and global-warming politicians. Unfortunately the global warming hysteria, as I see it, is driven by politics more than by science. If it happens that I am wrong and the climate experts are right, it is still true that the remedies are far worse than the disease that they claim to cure.

On the intolerance of Warmists:

You complain that people who are sceptical about the party line do not agree about other things. Why should we agree? The whole point of science is to encourage disagreement and keep an open mind. That is why I blame The Independent for seriously misleading your readers. You give them the party line and discourage them from disagreeing.

With all due respect, I say good-bye and express the hope that you will one day join the sceptics. Scepticism is as important for a good journalist as it is for a good scientist.

On the narrow-minded dogmatism of Warmists and the lack of a ‘consensus’:

Among my friends, I do not find much of a consensus. Most of us are sceptical and do not pretend to be experts. My impression is that the experts are deluded because they have been studying the details of climate models for 30 years and they come to believe the models are real. After 30 years they lose the ability to think outside the models. And it is normal for experts in a narrow area to think alike and develop a settled dogma. The dogma is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. In astronomy this happens all the time, and it is great fun to see new observations that prove the old dogmas wrong.

Unfortunately things are different in climate science because the arguments have become heavily politicised. To say that the dogmas are wrong has become politically incorrect. As a result, the media generally exaggerate the degree of consensus and also exaggerate the importance of the questions.

On how the great AGW threat is based on nothing more than flawed computer models and unsupported assumptions:

First, the computer models are very good at solving the equations of fluid dynamics but very bad at describing the real world. The real world is full of things like clouds and vegetation and soil and dust which the models describe very poorly. Second, we do not know whether the recent changes in climate are on balance doing more harm than good. The strongest warming is in cold places like Greenland. More people die from cold in winter than die from heat in summer. Third, there are many other causes of climate change besides human activities, as we know from studying the past. Fourth, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is strongly coupled with other carbon reservoirs in the biosphere, vegetation and top-soil, which are as large or larger. It is misleading to consider only the atmosphere and ocean, as the climate models do, and ignore the other reservoirs. Fifth, the biological effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are beneficial, both to food crops and to natural vegetation. The biological effects are better known and probably more important than the climatic effects. Sixth, summing up the other five reasons, the climate of the earth is an immensely complicated system and nobody is close to understanding it.

I look forward to the expert responses below explaining why this foolish old man has got it all wrong. After all, unlike top expert Sir Paul Nurse, Professor Dyson has never even managed to win himself a Nobel Prize.

Related posts:

  1. Delingpole to be appointed Independent’s environment correspondent
  2. Why from now on I’m flying Ryanair
  3. Oh no, not another unbiased BBC documentary about ‘Climate Change’…
  4. At last: expert Sir David King expertly reveals true identity of Climategate ‘hackers’

18 thoughts on “Freeman Dyson v the ‘Independent’”

  1. Chris P says:26th February 2011 at 2:50 amJames – are you really that stupid. When you have heart disease do you seek out an expert on dermatology?

    You are just os incredibly dumb about science it’s not funny.

    He’s a THEORETICAL PHYSICIST – an old one. Not a climatologist.

    Bangs head on table.

  2. Nige Cook says:26th February 2011 at 12:08 pmChris – if you have your heart removed after experiencing the symptoms of ingestion by a consensus of experts who have been duped into exaggerations and then lies by the smell of money (large funding grants), you’re worse off than before.

    Freeman Dyson has first hand experience of censorship at the hands of experts when presenting Feynman’s path integrals. Dyson first showed that Feynman’s path integrals provided a formal way to generalize the Schwinger-Tomonaga calculations to any problem in quantum field theory, in his famous paper “The Radiation Theories of Tomonaga, Schwinger and Feynman”. Dyson suffered greatly from abuse from the consensus of all the famous but bigoted physicists of 1948 for doing this, which caused him severe depression, as he explains in the video “Convincing Oppenheimer”:

    Just to summarize what Feynman and Dyson did for any non-physics readers, in 1925-6 Schroedinger and Heisenberg came up with a false theory of quantum mechanics which used a classical (non-quantum!) electromagnetic field, and introduced the falsehood of intrinsic indeterminancy via the abuse of the uncertainty principle, which it applied directly to real (on-shell) particles like photons and electrons. This approach is non-relativistic due to the Hamiltonian energy operator, that results in a wave equation which puts space and time on different footings.

    Dirac in 1927 overcame this at the expense of doing away with classical fields and replacing them with quantum fields. This is 2nd quantization, since the chaotic electron orbits are produced by the mechanism of the quantum force fields (each force field interaction with an on-shell particle like an orbital electron is a physically discrete event represented by a Feynman diagram, not a smoothly operating classical field). Dirac’s 2nd quantization spinor Hamiltonian replaced E=mc^2 by E=+/-mc^2, and thereby predicted antimatter, which was discovered by Anderson in 1932 (the positron). Feynman then replaced the Hamiltonian with the action principle, and showed that all indeterminancy is produced by a sum over paths of the many different random interactions of a particle with the surrounding quantum field. An electron moves chaotically in the atom because the Coulomb force isn’t classical but is a quantum field:

    ‘Bohr … said: “… one could not talk about the trajectory of an electron in the atom, because it was something not observable.” … Bohr thought that I didn’t know the uncertainty principle … it just made me realize that … [they] … didn’t know what I was talking about, and it was hopeless to try to explain it further.’

    – Dr Jagdish Mehra, The Beat of a Different Drum: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman, Oxford, 1994, pp. 245-248.

    The whole of the “wavefunction collapse/quantum entanglement” religion is 1st quantization epicycles, which was debunked in 1927 by Dirac. Yet it lives on because, like epicycles, obfuscation is always preferred by professors of mathematical physics (teaching equations without mechanisms seems more exciting for students, who want to believe that physics is a replacement for metaphysical religion). Professor Alain Aspect’s alleged proof of entangled photons was just proof of the entanglement of 1st quantization by Bell’s Theorem, as criticised by the late Caroline Thompson in her 1999 arxiv paper “Subtraction of ‘accidentals” and the validity of Bell tests”: “In some key Bell experiments, including two of the well-known ones by Alain Aspect, 1981-2, it is only after the subtraction of ‘accidentals’ from the coincidence counts that we get violations of Bell tests. The data adjustment, producing increases of up to 60% in the test statistics, has never been adequately justified.” Feynman explained the why the 1st quantization uncertainty principle is junk physics very clearly:

    ‘… with electrons: when seen on a large scale, they travel like particles, on definite paths. But on a small scale, such as inside an atom, the space is so small that there is no main path, no “orbit”; there are all sorts of ways the electron could go, each with an amplitude. … we have to sum the arrows to predict where an electron is likely to be.’

    – Richard P. Feynman, QED, Penguin Books, London, 1990, Chapter 3, pp. 84-5.

    ‘I would like to put the uncertainty principle in its historical place … If you get rid of all the old-fashioned ideas and instead use the ideas that I’m explaining in these lectures – adding arrows [path amplitudes] for all the ways an event can happen – there is no need for an uncertainty principle!’

    – Richard P. Feynman, QED, Penguin Books, London, 1990, pp. 55-56.

  3. JimmyGiro says:27th February 2011 at 2:23 amChris P wrote:
    “When you have heart disease do you seek out an expert on dermatology?”
    “He’s a THEORETICAL PHYSICIST – an old one. Not a climatologist.”

    Good points Chris, with all these different sciences, makes you wonder where all the “scientific consensus” comes from?

    Then again: “You are just os incredibly dumb about science it’s not funny.”

    Science is the method, not the subject. When baby climatologists first venture from their mothers pouch, and splash about in the font of knowledge, they must at some stage learn the ancient black arts of computer modelling, because, as the dusty old Prof would have it, there ain’t no analytical solutions in them there clouds and stuff. And guess who taught the first climatologists about computer modelling?

  4. Martin Lack says:28th February 2011 at 5:11 pmDear Sirs,


    Dear Sirs,

    Whilst I note your policy of not discussing individual moderation decisions, this is not a moderation issue as you have (apparently) suspended my entire blog without warning.

    If so, surely I am entitled to an explanation for such draconian action. However, I would much prefer that you give me an opportunity to put right whatever was wrong: If you have indeed suspended or deleted the entire blog because of a complaint about the banner to my blog, surely I should be given the opportunity to modify it (which I was in fact going to do tomorrow anyway)? Otherwise, this is not moderation, it is summary execution without a fair trial

    I look forward to receiving a substantive explanation at your very earliest convenience.

    Martin Lack.

  5. Nige Cook says:28th February 2011 at 5:55 pm“Those who warn of serious environmental consequences for planet Earth if humankind does not radically change its ways are not trying to spoil anyone’s fun or freedom; they are merely pointing to the truth of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. that energy cannot be created nor destroyed) and the reality of Entropy (i.e. that energy conversion leads to increasing disorder in the Universe).”

    – Martin Lack,

    Science isn’t about “truth” but about facts. There are no “laws” of science, just facts, which are obfuscatingly represented by “laws” and are scientifically explained by mechanisms. CO2 is causing an increase in cloud cover and fall in water vapour, which is a “greenhouse” gas 30 times more important than CO2. All you’re doing is trying to ignore the facts and assert your own opinions, which appear to be identical to the ignorant propaganda of Al Gore. It’s pretty important to keep Gaddafi off the negotiations for the future of Libya or he’ll just bog the discussion down with deliberately confused propaganda. It’s the same for global warming. I notice that you don’t want to discuss the science, just to repeatedly “attack” Delingpole’s journalistic “authority” status to report facts, which for my money is a million times higher than the status of Dr Nurse, Dr Phil “Hide the Decline” Jones, or Dr von Braun of NASA CO2 emission propaganda.

    James Delingpole makes the point very clearly at the end of the entry on “Global Warming” in his book How to be Right: “if the climate change doom mongers are really so sure all the evidence is on their side, why are they so keen to stifle any arguments which threaten to prove them wrong?”

    The answer is money and dictatorship status. Loonies want to go on stealing taxpayers funding for biased “research” papers which deceive the readers and support a hardened orthodoxy originating from the Nazis. The key problem in science is not censorship per se, but the censorship of objective and scientific (not ad hominem) criticisms. I think the only way forward is to enforce the censorship of science-abusing liars. The deference to “authority” in the case of eugenics propaganda by Nobel Laureate Alexis Carrel in 1935, where he lied that gas chambers were needed to prevent a disaster, shows clearly the dangers of permitting pseudoscience to take hold.

  6. James Delingpole says:28th February 2011 at 6:01 pmDear Martin Lack, Thank you for providing the funniest comment in the history of this blog. On the Telegraph website you had a blog with the strapline “Delingpilovshite” – or similar – which you claim you were just on the verge of taking down when, whoops!, you got censored by the cruel and harsh moderators. My heart bleeds.
    all the best James
  7. Martin Lack says:1st March 2011 at 9:26 amHi James,

    Thank you for (at last) acknowledging my existence. I think you were confusing strapline and URL. It was the URL that was a bit cheeky (deliberately so) but is this a reasonable justification for you having got my entire blog removed? If it was not you, who else have I offended? As for the banner photo and purely factual text, yes, I was going to change it today.

    Unlike many of your posts which I believe can be proven to be misleading; and many of your contributors who are extremely abusive much of the time, I suspect that the only thing that was really offensive about my blog is that neither you nor they were unable to falsify anything I posted on it.

    So why don’t you demonstrate your committment to free speech and get my blog re-instated? Or are you going to give me more of that “silent treatment” that you gave Sir Paul Nurse?



  8. Nige Cook says:1st March 2011 at 9:57 am“Unlike many of your posts which I believe can be proven to be misleading; and many of your contributors who are extremely abusive much of the time …” – Martin Lack

    Factual, Martin. Factual, not abusive. It’s significant that you can’t find or name any specific examples, but instead prefer the more slimy route of trying tarnish everything and everyone with facts that contradict you with a gigantic smear campaign.

    “So why don’t you demonstrate your committment to free speech and get my blog re-instated?” – Martin Lack

    I don’t Churchill had to offer to promote or collaborate with enemy propaganda in order to demonstrate his commitment to “freedom of speech”. You can get a soapbox anywhere. Similarly, I don’t have to invite ad hominem hecklers to abuse me during a talk, just to “prove” I believe in freedom of speech. The excuse you were just a “bit cheeky” doesn’t wash! This isn’t a game, the hundred billion a year being squandered on pseudoscience needs to be redirected to humanity as soon as possible. Your mud-slinging is not helping.

  9. Martin Lack says:1st March 2011 at 10:33 amNige Cook-
    1. The URL was a joke; but the content of the blog was not offensive or abusive.
    2. Unfortunately all the evidence for my assertions is currently unavailable to me or anyone else.
    3. I was not slinging any mud and it is laughable to accuse me of being abusive, when it has been me that has been on the receiveing end of numerous very personal abusive remarks and/or ridicule.
    4. So, I repeat my question, why has my entire blog been removed because of for a stupid URL (that many might not even have noticed) when abusive comments such as the first one in this thread, “James – are you really that stupid. When you have heart disease do you seek out an expert on dermatology?… You are just so incredibly dumb about science it’s not funny…“, are allowed to go unpunished.
    5. Anyway, who are you, his media representative?
  10. Nige Cook says:1st March 2011 at 10:51 am“Unfortunately all the evidence for my assertions is currently unavailable to me or anyone else.” – Martin Lack

    That’s very convenient. Don’t you save anything you write? What is the website server databse is wiped out by a virus? Anyway, Martin, I quoted a comment you made earlier when you claimed falsely that the 2nd law of thermodynamics implies rising entropy and a heat death from global warming.

    Actually, the relevant “law” is not the ever rising entropic “heat death” of the universe from CO2, but instead is Le Châtelier’s principle for a reaction in physical chemistry: the disturbance of the equilibrium of greenhouse gases H2O and CO2 by CO2 injections acts to oppose the change to the equilibrium, and thus to cancel out the effect on temperature from the increase in CO2. A slight change of ocean temperature (after a delay caused by the high specific heat of water, the annual mixing of thermocline waters with deeper waters in storms) ensures that rising CO2 reduces infrared absorbing H2O vapour while slightly increasing cloud cover (thus Earth’s albedo), as evidenced by the fact that the NOAA data from 1948-2008 shows a fall in global humidity (not the positive feedback rise presumed by NASA’s models!), plus the need for Dr Phil Jones to bravely “hide the decline” in the tree ring data (due to the fact tree ring growth is slowed by increased cloud cover/global dimming). I’m nobody’s representative; just trying to understand the mentality of science deniers, e.g. why you ignore/ridicule life-saving physical facts?

  11. Martin Lack says:1st March 2011 at 11:19 amNige, I promise I will re-read your posts and answer your questions but, having done a BSc(Hons) in Geology (1983-86) and an MSc in Hydrogeology (1989-90), I am now doing an MA in Environmental Politics – so I really do not have time for this right now but, suffice it to say (for now) that Climategate was a scam; whereas AGW is real: 60 million years of geological history tells us that much (if we are willing to listen).
  12. Nige Cook says:1st March 2011 at 11:39 amHi Martin, thanks and good luck with your MSc in environmental politics. However your claim “Climategate was a scam; whereas AGW is real: 60 million years of geological history tells us that much” seems naive to me since humans haven’t been around for 60 million years and the A in AGW stands for Anthropogenic (man-made)!

    You do come across like Nobel laureate Carrel’s “scientific” eugenics propaganda in the 1930s, using authority as a scientific argument, and conveniently not having the time to get into the nitty gritty details of science. That’s precisely the attitude of Nurse, Jones, et al.

    If you studied the effects on climate of mountains formation and the Miin your geology modules, you shoule be aware that the variations of CO2 during Earth’s geological record were all caused by rapid temperature changes by means other than CO2 variations, such as cycles in the Earth’s orbit or geological processes that created large mountain ranges. These variations produce the climate change, which in turn caused an imbalance between CO2 absorbers and emitters. Rainforests (CO2 sinks) can be killed off by temperature fall rates which can be compensated for by the migration of CO2 emitting animals. A drop in global temperature caused an increase in the atmospheric CO2 level indirectly, due to the fact that rainforests cannot migrate as quickly as animals, and are therefore more likely to be killed. An increase in global temperatures had the opposite effect, allowing dense rainforests to proliferate faster than the rate of increase of CO2 emitting animals. Therefore, the fossil record correlation between CO2 and temperature is not due to CO2 driving temperature!

    If CO2 AGW theory is correct, the climate would be so unstable that H2O itself would have caused a runaway “greenhouse effect”, without needing CO2:

    “Since the Earth’s atmosphere is not lacking in greenhouse gases, if the system could have increased its surface temperature it would have done so long before our emissions. It need not have waited for us to add CO2: another greenhouse gas, H2O, was already to hand in practically unlimited reservoirs in the oceans.”

    – Dr Miklos Zagoni, CO2 cannot cause any more “global warming”: Dr Ferenc Miskolczi’s saturated greenhouse effect theory, SPPI Original paper, December 18, 2009, page 4.

    The mechanism which prevents H2O vapour from overheating the world is cloud cover, due to the easily provable fact that heated moist air rises, expanding, cooling and condensing into cloud cover in the rarified air at higher altitudes. Existing climate models with a positive feedback from H2O are plain wrong, since they don’t allow the heated water vapour to rise, forming clouds that contribute to global dimming, offsetting CO2 effects on temperature.

  13. Martin Lack says:2nd March 2011 at 12:19 amNige,

    You asked me to respond to your specific question so I will do so as briefly as possible:

    With regard to the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Entropy, I accept that all knowledge in science is provisional and potentially falsifiable, buy I do think it is fair to point to the consequences of these two generally-accepted scientific facts, as indeed I did, in the context of the Limits to Growth argument:”…The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth’s limits. Current economic practices which damage the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations, cannot be continued without the risk that vital global systems will be damaged beyond repair…” However, given that we are talking now about AGW, I will not say anymore; and consider this aspect of the discussion closed.

    It is ironic that a climate change denier should ask someone to be factual, when your entire thesis is based on deliberate misinformation and obfuscation and, apparently, it doesn’t matter how many times your arguments are debunked; you people are seemingly incapable of doing anything other than repeating them. However, if you want facts try these:

    The concept of the so-called “greenhouse effect has been known for over 115 years and clear evidence of a year-on-year rise of CO2 linked to the burning of fossil fuels for at least 50 years (i.e. Keeling’s data from Hawaii). Surely, no-one in their right mind would continue to argue that the planet is not warming up? If so, is this warming due to natural variation? No it is not… By 1850AD, both global average temperatures and CO2 levels were as high as they had been at anytime in the last 400,000 years. Despite the variation due to ice ages (180 to 280 ppm CO2), geologists and biologists agree that our presence on the planet today is due to the relative climatic stability of the last few million years. The last time CO2 levels exceeded 400 ppm, mass extinction of species resulted. It may take 400 years, but the fossil record tells us that it will happen unless we stop releasing 400 million years worth of fossilised carbon back into the atmosphere faster than it or the sea can possibly soak it up. James Lovelock would no doubt say, “Gaia has limits to what she can cope with.”

    One of the most often repeated objections of AGW deniers is that global temperature changes have always preceded CO2 changes. However, the fact of the matter is that the two things are mutually reinforcing – changes in one cause changes in the other. Therefore the fact that we have now caused such a massive increase in CO2 levels makes changes in temperature inevitable.

    If you accept that the temperature change (and increased frequency of extreme weather events of all kinds) is real, but you do not accept that CO2 is the cause, you must come up with a plausible alternative explanation. Sadly, this cannot be sunspot activity because variance in this is short-term and causes variation in UV radiation – which does not have a warming effect. Furthermore, if the Sun was the cause, the whole atmosphere would be warming (i.e. from the outside inwards). However, the reverse is true, indicating warming from the ground-up (i.e. reflected radiation trapped in). Furthermore, the interface between the warmer troposphere and cooler stratosphere is moving slowly upwards. All of this is consistent with AGW/CO2 being the cause.

    Also, if you accept that the climate is changing, water vapour cannot be to blame because it is not increasing at anything like the rate at which CO2 is doing so. Similarly, methane from cows (etc) is posited as a much bigger problem because methane is more than 20 times more potent as a GHG. Sorry but cows have always done what cows do and, in any case, they are just another part of the carbon cycle. In case you hadn’t noticed, the only new aspect to this carbon cycle is the anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels. However, the methane release we should be really scared of is that from the thawing permafrost. Again, this is a new phenomenon and, as with more photosynthesis from plants, has a mutually reinforcing (positive feedback) effect; accelerating the rate of climate change.

    I have already dealt with the proposition that the warming effect is not significant – both ice core data and the fossil record tell us that it is unprecedented in at least the last 55 million years (when the Himalayas began to form) and very significant. So, will the benefits of warming outweigh the advantages? Who are you kidding? Rising sea levels, desertification, forest fires, plagues of insects… Those most likely to be effected are those least able to adapt. Oh, and we will have to wait 400 million years for the next batch of fossil fuels (from all those flooded forests) to become available!

    Technology will come to the rescue(?) May be, but is it worth the risk? Freeman Dyson may criticise Sir Nicholas Stern for not discounting the cost of future expenditure on mitigation but, excuse me, which one of them is the economist? Stern knew exactly what he was doing: He did not use this economic tool because we are not talking about our grandchildren’s ability to buy a house; we are talking about action that needs to be taken now to minimise the effects of climate change. Finally, climate change contrarians claim that we shouldn’t wreck the economy in order to solve a problem that may not be that serious. This is ridiculous. The problem is very clearly very serious.

    If this was a Court of Law, the case against CO2 and fossil fuel burning has been proven beyond reasonable doubt and, if this were a simple cost-benefit analysis, the case is also very clear – the risks of not tackling the problem vastly outweigh those of taking action (or mass extinction of species will eventually result). This was the conclusion of Sir Nicholas Stern; and it is ridiculous for a non-economist to try and suggest that he was wrong.
    I have decided not to litter this post with hyperlinks to the sources upon which I rely but, much of it is based on the best summary I have yet found on the Internet, which is the American Institute of Physics website.

    It is ridiculous to suggest that non-scientists like James Delingpole could possibly be more reliable than peer-reviewed science. On the contrary, information sloshing around on the Internet is invariably unreliable. For example, “reality returns” (a regular on JD’s Telegraph blog) recently posted the following reply to me there. However, having done some digging, I have found out that both his assertions were very misleading…
    1. “In considering any claim to scientific consensus, it seems appropriate to note the following statement by Dr Benjamin Santer, author of the 2007 IPCC report chapter on the detection of greenhouse warming – who is not a sceptic (to my knowledge): ‘It’s unfortunate that many people read the media hype before they read the chapter on the detection of greenhouse warming. I think the caveats are there. We say quite clearly that few scientists would say that the attribution issue was a done deal… “ AIthough I did not think that Ben Santer had ever doubted the reality of AGW, at very least, this quote is 12 years out of date because (if he actually said it at all) he was referring to AR2 in 1995 not AR4 in 2007.
    2. “The [IPCC has] misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Dr Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and UN-IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was ‘only a few dozen experts’, he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography. Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate are disingenuous’, the paper states unambiguously, adding that ‘they rendered the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism…’.” I have since found out that Mike Hulme’s views (June 2010) were misquoted/misrepresented

    Unfortunately, all this just goes to show how right George Monbiot was to say that, “…people like Lord Monckton, Ian Plimer, Christopher Booker and James Delingpole act as an echo-chamber for each other’s discredited beliefs.”

    Here endeth the lesson.

  14. Nige Cook says:2nd March 2011 at 9:20 amMartin, you’ve ignored every fact again! You haven’t responded to anything stated. You falsely stated in your earlier comment that AGW has evidence going back 60 million years, when humans haven’t even been around for 60 million years. You ignore the fact that the earth’s climate is always varying, so the probability of a temperature rise correlating with CO2 emission is 50%. You ignore the fact that correlation doesn’t imply causation. You ignore the fact that the H2O positive feedback theory is wrong by NOAA data for 61 years from 1948, which shows a fall in water vapour, not a positive feedback (increase) due to CO2 emission. You write:

    ‘The concept of the so-called “greenhouse effect has been known for over 115 years and clear evidence of a year-on-year rise of CO2 linked to the burning of fossil fuels for at least 50 years (i.e. Keeling’s data from Hawaii). Surely, no-one in their right mind would continue to argue that the planet is not warming up? If so, is this warming due to natural variation? No it is not… By 1850AD, both global average temperatures and CO2 levels were as high as they had been at anytime in the last 400,000 years. Despite the variation due to ice ages (180 to 280 ppm CO2), geologists and biologists agree that our presence on the planet today is due to the relative climatic stability of the last few million years. The last time CO2 levels exceeded 400 ppm, mass extinction of species resulted.’

    You provide no evidence that the earth is a “greenhouse”, which it obviously isn’t, no matter how many people claim the opposite. No greenhouse contains H2O cloud cover that increases as CO2 levels rise! No greenhouse has oceans that evaporate slightly faster when CO2 levels rise, increasing cloud cover slightly and cancelling out temperature effects.

    The CO2 level in the atmosphere is currently increasing due to burning fossil fuels, that correlation is fine since Hawaii is well away from direct sources of CO2 pollution. The error is in the temperature record, not the CO2 record. You can’t scientifically assert that there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature driven by CO2 increases. You’re putting up a smokescreen of obfuscation by ignoring the proved errors in AGW theory which are (a) H2O feedback and (b) the temperature record. The alleged accuracy of tree-ring growth as proxy of temperature is disproved by the biological fact that tree growth is critically sensitive to sunshine exposure, not just temperature. This is one reason why the tree ring record after 1960 hasn’t correlated with thermometer readings: global dimming. Then there is the problem of the direct temperature measurements, affected by the heating up of expanding upwind towns and cities, and the the bias in satellite temperature assessments that can’t observe the Planck temperature of the surface through cloud cover. The fact you don’t know that the temperature data is all a gross fiddle debunks your case!

    “It is ridiculous to suggest that non-scientists like James Delingpole could possibly be more reliable than peer-reviewed science. On the contrary, information sloshing around on the Internet is invariably unreliable.”

    Why is it ridiculous that outsiders can see the groupthink lies more clearly than insiders? The claim that outside criticisms are “invariably unreliable” is just what Gaddafi would say about criticism. It’s devoid of content. You’ve proved that you don’t know the facts from the misleading statements you’ve made, and then you defer judgement to the decision of consensus, or as you put it “peer-reviewed science”. This is precisely what the Creationists did.

    “If this was a Court of Law, the case against CO2 and fossil fuel burning has been proven beyond reasonable doubt …”

    Sea levels have risen 120 metres over the past 18,000 years, a mean rate of rise of 12000/18,000 = 0.67 cm/year. This is just an average; at some times the rate of rise was a lot faster than 0.67 cm/year. Over the past century sea levels have risen 20 cm, or 20/100 = 0.20 cm/year. The maximum rate of rise has been about 0.4 cm/year.

    The climate change record is abused by lying propaganda as a core foundation for the allegation that today’s climate change rate is unprecedented, which it clearly is not. The roots of the AWG lie are the previous “coming ice age” lie of the 1960s, Ernst Hass’s “Common Opponent Sought … and Found?” article in the Nov 1968 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: “Why should we not replace the present arms race among nations with a common fight against a global opponent.” It’s the old Nazi “Reichstag fire” trick of using a lie about a threat as a means to take dictatorial control, crush all dissenters, and be hailed a hero into the bargain.

    Your opening Limits to Growth quotation is purely the Nazi living space myth: we’re all going to starve if exponential growth continues, which simply ignores the fact that the extra humans can produce extra food. You assume that the increased population will behave like sitting ducks, doing nothing. The best rebuttal to this is a critical reading of Clarke’s 1971 Science of War and Peace which begins with a table showing the allegedly exponential rise in war casualties from 1820, alleging 5.4 million deaths in war from 1820-99, 43 million from 1900-49, and extrapolating to predict 360 million deaths in WWIII before 1999. Well, we know one error from extrapolation there.

    But there is another error, too. Between 1851-64, 20 million were killed in the Taiping Rebellion in China, so his claim of only 5.4 million war deaths from 1820-99 is wrong. Just like AGW today, during the Cold War falsified war history was used to fit exponential rise scaremongering.

    “I have already dealt with the proposition that the warming effect is not significant – both ice core data and the fossil record tell us that it is unprecedented in at least the last 55 million years (when the Himalayas began to form) and very significant.”

    The geological record refutes your argument about CO2 driving temperature. The original version of GEOCARB suggested that the atmospheric CO2 abundance was over 15 times higher 460 million years ago than it is now, and at that time the mean global temperature was 7 C higher than now (22 C compared to an assumed global mean temperature now of 15 C). Some 210 million years ago, the CO2 level is estimated to have been 5 times the current level, and the mean global temperature was estimated to have been 5 C warmer than now (20 C compared to 15 C assumed as today’s global mean temperature). Even just 100 million years ago, there were no continuous ice caps at the poles (just winter snow): all the ice melted in the summer at the poles, and deciduous rain forests existed within 1,000 km of the poles.

    One example of a climatic change caused by normal geological processes is the formation of the Tibetian plateau which effectively cooled the whole planet by strengthening the monsoon system in southern Asia and forming the Himalayas. Beginning about 50 million years ago (and continuing to the present day), the drift of the continental plates has caused the continents of India and Eurasia to collide, pushing up oceanic crust from the bottom of the sea to form the Himalayan mountain chain and the Tibetian plateau. Similarly, the Alps are the result of a collision beginning 120 million years ago between Africa and Eurasia, and also had an effect on global climate.

    The temperature changes caused by such natural phenomena can cause CO2 levels to vary by killing off CO2-absorbing rainforests which can’t move, while CO2-emitting animals can migrate to compensate for the climatic change. Hence, there can be a true correlation between temperature and CO2 levels, even where there is no mechanism for CO2 levels to affect temperature: the opposite mechanism has occurred, in that a changing climatic temperature has resulted in a variation of CO2 levels!

    Yet another example of a mechanism for natural climatic change is the Earth’s orbit which undergoes three cycles named after Milutin Milankovich, the Serbian astronomer who in 1941 worked out how the planets perturb one another’s orbits.

  15. Martin Lack says:2nd March 2011 at 12:02 pmNige,
    I am amazed how much time you have to spare, I am not so lucky (and had to stay up into the early hours of this morning to respond). Did you actually bother to read anything in my last post? It was an entirely logical point-by-point refutation of all the arguments but forward to suggest that carbon dioxide is not causing the climate change we are now seeing. If you are a physicist, I will not give you a lecture on physics but, given my qualifications and experience, will you please reciprocate by not trying to impress me with your knowledge of either the rock cycle or water cycle…
    However, for the record, I did not say “AGW has been happening for 60 million years”, which would have been patently ridiculous. What I said was, “AGW is real: 60 million years of geological history tells us that much…” The two are not the same, and I have explained myself fully already on this point.
    Please, please, please, do not lecture me on the difference between causation and correlation. The only positive feedback loops I have invoked are those existing between CH4 release from permafrost and temperature change; and between CO2 and temperature change. With regard to the latter, my point was that, whereas Milankovitch cycles caused the ice ages by causing temperature changes then CO2 changes, the fact that we have now caused CO2 changes will result in temperature changes precisely because the two are mutually reinforcing and it does not matter which happens first.
    I am aware of the fact that the “greenhouse” analogy is imperfect but if you want to argue that CO2 is not the cause of global warming why don’t you go and live on Venus (where temperature and pressure are now both 90 times those here on Earth).
    I think you will find the sea level rise over the last 18,000 years was due to us coming out of the last ice age. Therefore, if the temperature rises now by a further 4 Celsius then, by your own argument, we are in serious trouble.
    Why don’t you remind me that the global population will probably stabilise at 9 billion by 2050 (everyone else does) and miss the point (everyone else does). We cannot make perpetual efficiency improvements in consumption. Therefore, perpetual growth must lead to accelerating rates of resource depletion. That was my point.
    The same people that are now trying to find fault with the AGW consensus, tried to convince us smoking was not dangerous. If anything in “Merchants of Doubt” (Oreskes and Conway, 2010) is false, they should be sued to the maximum extent possible in US Law. However, I would be willing to bet my house on the fact that they won’t be sued, because it is all true. When Rachel Carson exposed the hyper-expensive – and ultimately ineffective – folly of using extremely toxic chlorinated hydrocarbons to control weeds and pests, big business attacked her in exactly the same way that the fossil fuel lobby has tried to deny the reality of AGW (like King Canute trying to hold back the tide).
    However, just as the publication of “Silent Spring” led to sense prevailing by the imposition of strict controls being imposed on the use of dangerous chemicals, I believe denialism is doomed. I just hope the Earth is not.
  16. Nige Cook says:2nd March 2011 at 2:23 pmMartin, I don’t have any time to waste, and you ignored every point and you do the same again!

    “Did you actually bother to read anything in my last post? It was an entirely logical point-by-point refutation of all the arguments but forward to suggest that carbon dioxide is not causing the climate change we are now seeing.”

    I answered your post which ignored all the facts that debunk AGW, but you still make no mention of the flaw in the greenhouse theory, the false positive feedback from H2O proved by NOAA data:

    As the CO2 and CH4 (methane) level goes up, H2O vapour in the atmosphere falls which – because H2O is 30 times more important than CO2 as a “greenhouse gas” offsets the effect of CO2 on temperature, while cloud cover and albedo increases because warmed moist air rises to form clouds, further cooling the world.

    “… please reciprocate by not trying to impress me with your knowledge of either the rock cycle or water cycle …”

    I’m not trying to impress you, I’m trying to get you to learn why the natural variations in temperature have nothing to do with CO2. “What I said was, “AGW is real: 60 million years of geological history tells us that much…” The two are not the same, and I have explained myself fully already on this point.” The geological record, as I explained, refutes AGW. The CO2 in the atmosphere responds to temperature changes that kill off rainforests. If the temperature rises and rainforests become deserts and die, then the CO2 level in the atmosphere rises because the vegetation is no longer locking up CO2 from the atmosphere. Similarly, if temperatures fall, vegetation spreads and atmospheric CO2 level fall because CO2 is locked up in vegetation. You don’t grasp this fact because you claim wrongly:

    “With regard to the latter, my point was that, whereas Milankovitch cycles caused the ice ages by causing temperature changes then CO2 changes, the fact that we have now caused CO2 changes will result in temperature changes precisely because the two are mutually reinforcing and it does not matter which happens first.”

    Not so, the atmospheric CO2 (and indeed CH4 from permafrost) responds to temperature changes! It doesn’t drive climate, but is driven by climate. It has no effect on temperature because the shift of atmospheric H2O cancels out variations on CO2 and CH4 on temperature. Then you write:

    “I am aware of the fact that the “greenhouse” analogy is imperfect but if you want to argue that CO2 is not the cause of global warming why don’t you go and live on Venus (where temperature and pressure are now both 90 times those here on Earth).”

    This is actually evidence against AGW, because Venus takes 243 days to rotate so is baked on one side facing the sun without respite for all that time, and is closer to the sun that the Earth, and its total atmospheric surface pressure of 93 atmospheres (96.5% CO2), so whereas the mass of Earth’s atmosphere is 10 tons per square metre of surface area; on Venus it’s 930 tons per square metre, mainly CO2. What counts in producing the greenhouse effect on Venus are the differences to the Earth, such as the lack of oceans on Venus (Oceans cover 71% of Earth’s surface area), and the much higher total atmospheric pressure. All that happened on Venus to turn its atmosphere to CO2 was the reduction of carbonate rock by the intense solar heating, from being closer to the sun and taking 243 days to rotate. The scorched limestone rocks, i.e. CaCO3, were decomposed by the high temperature into lime, CaO, plus CO2, thus releasing further CO2 into the air!

    You omit the opposite example of the planet Mars. Mars is similar to Venus in having a large fraction of its atmosphere composed of CO2: 96% in fact. However, this is quite different to the runaway greenhouse effect of Venus. Mars has a low total surface air pressure, only about 0.64% of Earth’s, and the nitrogen partial pressure is about 5,800 times smaller than Earth’s. In particular, Mars has a mean surface temperature much smaller than Earth’s, a chilly −46 °C. This is obviously caused in part by the extra distance from the sun and in part by the low total atmospheric pressure, despite the large percentage of CO2. Nevertheless, it is clear that if there is a runaway greenhouse effect on Mars, then Mars is very cold as a result. While Venus is ideal political propaganda for global warming from CO2, Mars is less satisfactory! Even though there is no proved instance of life on Mars, the climate there is still changing as recorded by NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor:

    “… for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars’ south pole have shrunk from the previous year’s size, suggesting a climate change in progress.”

    – NASA, September 20, 2005: Orbiter’s Long Life Helps Scientists Track Changes on Mars.

    Like Mars, climate changes on Earth are natural. So why haven’t the massive natural changes in climate on the Earth triggered a runaway greenhouse effect like Venus? Answer: the “greenhouse” gases are in stable equilibrium, with H2O falling as CO2 and CH4 increase, and vice-versa! This is an example of Le Châtelier’s principle of disturbed equilibria.

    “Since the Earth’s atmosphere is not lacking in greenhouse gases [water vapor], if the system could have increased its surface temperature it would have done so long before our emissions. It need not have waited for us to add CO2: another greenhouse gas, H2O, was already to hand in practically unlimited reservoirs in the oceans. …” – Dr. Miklos Zagoni.

    Next you claim:

    “I think you will find the sea level rise over the last 18,000 years was due to us coming out of the last ice age. Therefore, if the temperature rises now by a further 4 Celsius then, by your own argument, we are in serious trouble.”

    My whole point is that we’re been coming out of an ice age for 18,000 years, so the probability that we’re in a warming spell would seem to be over 50% at present (climate is always either warming or cooling). Therefore, the CO2 correlation with alleged temperature rises is meaningless. The second sentence is completely misleading. Nobody predicts such a temperature rise, you don’t say what time scale, or the mechanism involved. The climate will vary in the future naturally! We can’t stop all the mechanisms. Oceanic plates are still pushing up mountain ranges, the Gulf stream conveyor could vary naturally (it does start and stop occasionally, causing climatic change). The big lie is to pretend every natural change is “unnatural” and due to humanity, the use this lie to waste taxpayers money on ego-massaging BBC and Guardian journalists with green eco-fanatics pension funds. Instead, we have to live with the natural variability of nature.

    “Why don’t you remind me that the global population will probably stabilise at 9 billion by 2050 (everyone else does) and miss the point (everyone else does). We cannot make perpetual efficiency improvements in consumption. Therefore, perpetual growth must lead to accelerating rates of resource depletion. That was my point.”

    You’re simply wrong in claiming that humans are not innovative and enterprising enough to make “perpetual efficiency improvements in consumption”, and to claim that adding to the human population is a problem. Provided that the added population can contribute to food production, there is no problem. Malthus assumes that population increases exponentially, but that food production increases more slowly than exponentially! That’s his false assumption. Provided the two increase at the same rate, everyone goes on eating. Your error, time after time, is the same thing: starting with a false assumption and believing in it like a divine dogma.

  17. Martin Lack says:2nd March 2011 at 3:05 pmI am – and always have been – a fan of Monty Python but, I think I prefer to watch the Is this the right room for an argument?” sketch, rather than to take part in it. So, thanks all the same but, I must decline your kind invitation; as I really do not have the time to spare.

    You can believe in your conspiracy theory; and I will believe in mine. However, whereas yours requires a multifarious global cosnpiracy to exist; mine only requires a small number of extremely influential scientists to exist and propogate doubt and disinformation (as you and your well-meaning kind do the rest).

    I think this “discussion” (lol) is now over; as both of us clearly believes the other to be delusional. However, I do not think we have long to wait to see who is right (it will certainly be within my children’s lifetime – if not my own).

  18. Bill says:3rd March 2011 at 6:35 amML many of your comments are just ignorant. To pick just a few:-

    -Earth’s temperature has not been “unusually stable while humans have evolved over the past few million years”. For the past 2.5m years climate has been usually unstable with a sucession of glacials and interglacials, that are otherwise uncommon in geological history.
    -CO2 has been way above 400ppm for allmost all of geologic history except the last few million years. Despite that, mass extinctions have been rare, (about every 20 to 30m years or so). I have not heard of CO2 being advanced as the reason for any mass extinction except possibly the PETM.
    -We are not releasing 400m years of sequestrated carbon – only a quite small portion of it.
    Most sequested carbon is in shale and limestone deposits which cannot be burnt.

    I could go on and on, suffice to say I think your claim that you have a geology degree is just bullshit. Anyone with a backgroung in geology could not be as ignorant as that. If you do actually have a degree, that is very sad commentary on British universities.

Comments are closed.

Warmists: ‘We Can’t Win the Game, So Let’s Change the Rules’

True believer eco-loon warmistrydodo

Willis Eschenbach’s recent guest post at Watts Up With That? on the current state of ‘Climate science’ should be made compulsory reading in every classroom, every university science department, every eco-charity, every environmental NGO and in every branch of government. They won’t like it up ’em, that’s for sure.

What Eschenbach says is so pure and simple and obvious you’d need to be as dumb as Chris Huhne not to get it:

The theory linking man-made CO2 with dangerous global warming is dead. It has been falsified. It has run smack bang into a “null hypothesis.” It has met its Waterloo. It has bought the farm. It has gone for a Burton. It has cashed in its chips, fallen off its perch, gone south, gone west, shuffled off this mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the Choir Invisible.  Man-made Global Warming has ceased to exist.

Eschenbach wrote his post in response to a bizarre speech prepared by Dr Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), which he intended to deliver to the American Meteorological Society. Trenberth is the arch-warmist perhaps best known for writing the Climategate email which went:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.

When Trenberth’s speech was pre-published on the internet it caused something of a stir, both for the way large chunks of it had been taken almost verbatim from another scientist and for its use six times of the word “denier”. (Thanks to some kindly advice proferred by Steve McIntyre, Trenberth has now significantly altered his speech. But not – as I incorrectly reported earlier – by changing his six uses of the word “deniers” to “sceptics”. That loaded word deniers he has kept, which gives you an idea of the man’s zealotry. And also his foolishness: a good many in his audience at the AMS, being meteorologists rather than “climate scientists” tend very much to fall into the sceptic camp).

What Eschenbach focuses on, though, is Trenberth’s absurd demand that the “null hypothesis” on AGW theory be reversed. That is, instead of having to prove AGW exists, what people should now be required to prove that it doesn’t exist. (!)

Here’s an excerpt from Eschenbach’s hilarious demolition of this nonsense:

Gotta love the style, though, simply proclaiming by imperial fiat that his side is the winner in one of the longest-running modern scientific debates. And his only proffered “evidence” for this claim? It is the unequivocal fact that Phil Jones and Michael Mann and Caspar Amman and Gene Wahl and the other good old boys of the IPCC all agree with him. That is to say, Dr. T’s justification for reversing the null hypothesis is that the IPCC report that Dr. T helped write agrees with Dr. T. That’s recursive enough to make Ouroboros weep in envy.

Do read Eschenbach’s post in full.

Eschenbach goes on to offer a long list of things climate ‘scientists’ should do if they’re ever to be taken seriously again:

Stop avoiding public discussion and debate of your work.

Stop secretly moving the pea under the walnut shells.

Enough with the scary scenarios, already.

Speak out against scientific malfeasance whenever and wherever you see it.

Stop re-asserting the innocence of you and your friends.


Will any of this happen? It’s about as likely, I’d say, as my winning gold in the 100 metres at the 2012 London Olympics. The reason for this is that “Climate Change” has long since abandoned any connection it had now with actual science. It is an ideology. A religion. A psychopathology.

That’s why the people on this planet now inhabit two parallel universes.

On the one hand are the true believers, such as NASA’s Dr James Hansen, who believes his compatriots are “barbarians”, that US democracy is “dysfunctional” and that the best way to sort out the world’s carbon problems would be to invite some kind of global, Chinese-led eco dictatorship. These true believers also include this eco-loon at Treehugger who appears to admire China’s no-nonsense way of meeting its five-year energy-efficiency targets: by “cutting power to industry and imposing rolling blackouts.”

According to the Treehugger this is brutal, statist, anti-human example is something we could learn from:

It’s worth noting the difference in political culture: What do you think would have happened if the US had such an energy-reduction target to hit, but a sagging economy got in the way?

I can tell you with some certainty: We would have missed that mark.

Then, on the other side of the planet, living in a parallel universe, are the rest of us. We look at James Hansen’s quotes and think: “Hang on a second. This is the guy in charge of one of the world’s four main climate data sets. He’s paid for by the US taxpayer, supposedly to represent US interests. And he’s a scientist who’s supposed to be politically neutral. Is it just me – or has one half of the world gone totally mad?”

Or as Dr Kevin Trenberth might say if only he weren’t so committed to the wrong cause, “This AGW sham. It’s a travesty!”


I’ve been urged – and rightly so – to draw your attention to the equally brilliant refutation of AGW at WUWT (commissioned by the GWPF) by the mighty Dr Richard Lindzen. (H/T D Simmons)

When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence, and donations are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for ‘saving’ the earth. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further. The case of ENRON (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative in this respect. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities; so was the late Lehman Brothers. Goldman Sachs has lobbied extensively for the ‘cap and trade’ bill, and is well positioned to make billions. It is probably no accident that Gore, himself, is associated with such activities. The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense. Archer Daniels Midland (America’s largest agribusiness) has successfully lobbied for ethanol requirements for gasoline, and the resulting demand for ethanol may already be contributing to large increases in corn prices and associated hardship in the developing world (not to mention poorer car performance). And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake.

Related posts:

  1. ‘Climate change sceptics have smaller members, uglier wives, dumber kids’ says new study made up by warmists
  2. Why the BBC will always be wrong on Climate Change
  3. Climategate 2.0: the Warmists’ seven stages of grief
  4. Warmists overwhelmed by fear, panic and deranged hatred as their ‘science’ collapses

8 thoughts on “Warmists: ‘We can’t win the game, so let’s change the rules’”

  1. Soi Disant says:20th January 2011 at 8:42 amHere’s a constant: Denialists will… deny. Failing any perceived success with that, some of them will call silly names.

    What, exactly is an Eco Loon? I’ve seen, and listened at different times across the water in the late evening and very early morning to the cries of the Common Loon, the Red-Throated Loon, the Pacific Loon and the Great Northern Loon (genus _Gavia_), but I’ve never heard of the Eco Loon. Is this meant to be some sort of insult?

    How odd.

  2. Chris P says:20th January 2011 at 4:20 pmJames

    You are nuts. Global warming is real and you are stupid. How many more freaking articles does National Geographic, Nature, New Scientist, Smithsonian, Scientific American and a bazillion others have to write before you’ll even read one of them.

    You have your head up your rear end. You aren’t a qualified scientist and wouldn’t know a scientific fact if it hit you on the head.

    You’re a “Talking head”.

  3. Steve M says:24th January 2011 at 10:23 pmJames,

    You are a scaremongering idiot. Climate change driven by human activity is real – your tactic of confusing the public to raise your own profile is despicable. Get off the stage and stop your posturing and allow scientists (real scientists) to at least approach the problem and to attempt to develop solutions or at teh very least ameliorations !!

    There are lies, huge lies and damned journalistic fairy tales !!!

    Clown !

  4. Keith Rossiter says:24th January 2011 at 10:25 pmLovely to see Mr Delingpole twitching, like a butterfly fluttering its last on the end of a pin, in tonight’s Horizon programme. The calm, reasoned and scientific approach left him speechless. For one glorious moment there I thought he might even say something along the lines of: “Hmmm. Well, I’ll have to go away and think about your argument.” (the consensual approach to cancer treatment). But no: he was just getting his breath back.

    It was shameful, though, and embarrassing to see a fellow journalist behaving like the worst kind of second-rate politician when cornered.

  5. Velocity says:24th January 2011 at 11:40 pmA wise old sage (veteran investor) I read every day across in Northwest Connecticut, USA is currently ‘basking’ in -10 to -20 Degrees weather. Two huge snowfalls and so cold between that the snow didn’t clear so just piled up and there’s a 3rd downfall predicted shortly.

    Kevin Trebert and James Hansen are both Yanks, you’d think these dreamers would look out of their padded cells just occasionally to see how things are working out on their global warming predictions!

  6. Velocity says:24th January 2011 at 11:50 pmChris P

    You’ve got your head up your arse too and born yesterday from what I can see. Why do you think Nature, Nat Geographic et al have scare stories on their front and inside pages?

    Trying to sell rags with shock stories is a well worn path don’t you think!

    And every enviro journalists tucked in the backroom as a lessor topic 20 years ago suddenly found a story they could run with, upped their status and even got themselves on the front pages in mainstream newspapers.

    The born losers of environmentalism have ‘never had it so good’ have they, unless you were born yesterday?!!

  7. Groper says:25th January 2011 at 6:29 amVelocity and Delingpole only live on headlines… of their choice. They forget Europe had an unusually warm Autumn prior to the snow dumps. Then Greenland is having an unsually warm winter. And they don’t understand annual global averages either. Just how cold it feels in their front room.

    But you can’t expect denialists to look at things in context…

  8. Rod Dhillon says:25th January 2011 at 12:00 pmI saw you on Horizon last night… got shown up big time!!
    So funny!

    Mate….you’re not a Journalist…you’re a Sensationalist….you’re a perfect example that bullsh*tting can make you money.

Comments are closed.

Signs that show Man Made Global Warming is Definitely Still Happening

A Farewell to Snow

Poo? In your woods? Then AGW definitely, truly exists!

Poo? In your woods? Then AGW definitely, truly exists!

As your boiler breaks down, your pipes freeze, your car won’t start, your Ocado delivery fails to arrive, your train is cancelled, your neck is broken after slipping on black ice and you lie in an emergency ward waiting for a doctor to turn up only to learn that they’re all off today because of the weather, you might be forgiven for thinking that all this has something to do with global cooling, changes in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the decline in sunspot activity perhaps auguring a new Maunder minimum.

But you couldn’t be more wrong.

“It’s all actually a sign that man made global warming is very much a live issue and that there’s more of it happening than ever,” says a top scientist, who holds the British record for securing grant-funding for global warming research projects so he must know what he’s talking about.

“Look at the Met office,” the scientist goes on. “They’ve just told us that 2010 is the hottest year since records began in 1850 and even though the stupid Central England Temperature record tells us something quite different and even though the year hasn’t actually finished yet they must know what they’re talking about and they definitely can’t have fiddled the data because the Met office is part of the government and they wouldn’t lie or get things wrong which is why that barbecue summer was such a scorcher.”

The big problem is, the scientist said, is that the public are really stupid. They think just because Dr David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit said in the Independent in 2000 that soon there’d be no snow because of global warming, when what he actually meant was that soon there’d be lots of snow and that this would be “proof” of global warming. The interviewer just missed out the word “proof” that’s all because journalists are lazy that way.

Then the scientist issued a cut-out-and-keep guide of Signs That Show Man Made Global Warming Is Definitely Still Happening And That Cancun Won’t Be An Almighty Flop.

1. Warm weather

2. Cold weather

3. In-between weather.

4. Dark skies at night

5. Light skies in the morning

6. An unpleasant moist/damp/wet sensation when it rains

7. Ice appearing when the temperature drops below zero

8. Clouds rolling across sky in all sorts of funny shapes, some days like cotton wool, other days in streaks, and on some days not there at all.

9. Ursine subarboreal toilet activity

10. Strong new evidence of ultramontane sympathies at the Vatican

Related posts:

  1. My holiday is being ruined by global cooling. But try telling that to the ‘scientists’
  2. 10 reasons to be cheerful about the coming new Ice Age
  3. Global Warming: is it even happening?
  4. Why Man-Made Global Warming is a load of cobblers; Pt 1

16 thoughts on “Signs that show Man Made Global Warming is Definitely Still Happening”

  1. Galatian says:4th December 2010 at 12:31 pmClimate change is still happening. How do I know? Your old chum Marcus B was in rip-roaring form on The Now Show (3rd December) and Marcus definitely knows as he went to Exeter University and has made a career telling unfunny jokes.
  2. Orde says:4th December 2010 at 3:22 pmYes it was a bravura performance from ‘Prigsmug’ who knows all about the collecting and analysis of data, and what’s been happening to temperatures world wide this year.Funny how people like him who profess to fight established stereotypical opinions are so ready to stereotype others who hold contrary beliefs.
  3. Velocity says:4th December 2010 at 5:11 pmOrdeThat’s because all British ‘comedians’ (if you can call endless boring piss-taking funny!) are lefties.And what do lefties do? They don’t think for themselves, they just swallow the Party line unthinkingly, unblinkingly and stuck on ‘repeat’ spew it out verbatim. Worker drones, the lights are on but nobodies home…. a room full of 1984… in lock-step with Lennon and not a new thought since (despite the endless proof socialism stinks every time).

    We need a friggin clear out of these tedious leftie loon comedians, isn’t the country a big enough clown show? But what chance when the Bent Broadcasting Co answers to the Gov’t and EU for their money and ITV are regulated to hell.

    Every possible alternate appears on Channel 4 the bleating scum raise their fat ignorant gobs to fever pitch

    After 14 years of Labour Marxism there’s warehouses full of material, everything from crappy public transport, killer NHS hospitals, shite education, cues at airports that can’t stop a guy with plastic in his y-fronts to mind-numbing health and safety.

    The British Totalitarian State runs like a joke in summer then falls apart into total national farce at 0 Degrees Centigrade when a snow flake falls . I’d make up some jokes but my tummy’s a little full of heavy duty battery acid!

  4. Velocity says:4th December 2010 at 5:22 pmJames,Here’s some more evidence of that 2 Degrees warming;Prague, Czech Rep. -7 (7 Degrees colder than Av.)
    Munich, Germany -10 (8 Degrees colder than Av.)
    Moscow, Russia -11 (8 Degrees colder than Av.)
    London England -2 (5 Degrees colder than Av.)

    When +2 above average is actually -7 Degrees colder than average you know the (leftie) loons have taken over the asylum… all 3 Parties are insane, and there is the Mental Health Act to work with?!!

  5. David Weaver says:5th December 2010 at 8:13 pmRemind us again James – what are your scientific qualifications? What journals have you submitted to? How’s your knowledge of Popperian philosophy of science?What’s that – you don’t have ANY scientific qualifications? And yet the Telegraph keep paying you? And you have the temerity to accuse those who disagree with you of being morons?Until you have a Ph.D. in some climate related subject, please be quiet and let the big boys and girls get on with their work. That is all.
  6. Velocity says:6th December 2010 at 2:33 amDavid AGWeaver,I didn’t notice PhD after your initials? …don’t tell me, its IOU, you’re a socialist right?How society works (except lefties) is the public listens to the experts because they do their job and we do ours. If 2 sets of experts disagree we let them carry on fighting it out (its been 10 years now tooth and nail).

    Eventually time shows some experts arguments hold water over the years and some turn out to be Gov’t funded lying scumbag crones. 60% of the British public now don’t believe this shite, it may have something to do with year after year of snow after year after year of “mild warm winters” and “not a snow flake to be found” BS.

    Hasn’t Al Gore, the IPCC’s Rajendra Pachuari, NASA’s James Hansen, Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann and the entire crew of hysterical climate loons at the Met Office and Uni of East Anglia not been caught dropping enough porkies (lies) for the penny to drop for you?

    I’d just like to know what initials were awarded to your brain you can’t work out the cheats (RIP for brain dead)???

    Answers on a Postcard to; Which Side Is Lying?, ‘It’s Snowing & Freezing (Again!!!)’ when they said it would be ‘Warm & Mild’ Complaints Department, University of East Anglia & Socialist Retards.

  7. David Weaver says:6th December 2010 at 12:17 pm@Velocity – I have a degree in Computer Science. I would think that would make me eminent more qualified scientifically than James Delingpole since a large part of my degree focused on pattern recognition in large quantities of information (for example large quantities of information dealing with… hmm, let’s see.. climate change for instance). What are your qualifications exactly?Incidently I am not a socialist. Since when did someone’s scientific opinions dictate their politics?Oh and kudos for the ad hominem attack. You’ll notice that unlike you I am attacking the issue not the person. I asked a simple question regarding James Delingpole’s scientific qualifications.
  8. Velocity says:6th December 2010 at 12:48 pmDavidSo with your computer science Degree you KNOW how inaccurate global climate modelling is don’t you? You understand what all the sceptics are saying about GCM’s not even being able to mimick past Temps, and being inaccurate predicting future Temps, and being totally untrustworthy as a model to rely on for policy advise… don’t you?With your qualies and rigorous application of State educated mush you fully understand the sceptics point that GCM’s not factoring in cloud albedo as a negative (cooling) effect it is stupid, and double-dumb because it leads to runaway warming predictions. Precisely what the GCM’s are doing, consistently (wrong) predicting over-heating.

    You know this for a fact because reality has exposed this patent fact, as all the sceptics have said it would, contrary to the shrill inaccurate incompetent AGW’ers stroies. We’ve had the PROOF, 10yrs of Uni of EA and UK Met GCM’s predicting warm benign winters and we’re had (in reality) no such thing, quite the opposite, it’s freezing.

    Haven’t we?

    If the CGM’s predicted these colder winters they’d be validated. The patent hard cold fact is reality has invalidated the computer models, for precisely the reasons the sceptics said it would. AGW is invalid, as is tree ring sampling. Invalid junk science. That’s how science works, scepticism is how science works

  9. David Weaver says:6th December 2010 at 1:47 pmTo quote wikipedia – citation needed. Please link to the relevant journals that support your argument.I am curious – what do you think of Judith Curry? She is clearly critical of the methodologies of the IPCC but at the same time also has contributed much research indicating that climate change is still an irrefutable fact (only the outcomes are uncertain). How does she fit into your view that all scientists are engaged in a massive conspiracy?I am perfectly willing to accept that the outcomes are uncertain, but the fact that the climate is changing is uncontested in the scientific community.

    None of what you say detracts from the fact that I have more scientific qualifications than James Delingpole though.

  10. Velocity says:6th December 2010 at 4:44 pmDavid AGWeaverThe fact you have greater qualifications than probably James and I combined should point you to the fact you’re qualified to uncover the holes in Co2 theory.But clearly it doesn’t give you more common sense. From my 20yrs in business I can smell BS in a very short time in the main. Al Gore, Pachuari et al just keep lying, don’t they? The AGW crews (crones) science just keeps falling apart at the seams, doesn’t it? The models keep being invalidated, don’t they?

    How much crapology do you need see in front of your very eyes for the falsehood of this AGW sham junk bunkum to sink in buddy boy?

    And no nobody dispute climate change. Correct. The problem is the AGW crew (crones) have been trying to alter the climate. The Hockey Stick tried to eradicate known science, known data to eliminate a reality, the Medieval Warm Period. Meanwhile at the other end they tried to inflame the warmth, until someone advised them their Temp stations were suffering from urban heat island effect.

    They’ve done more than prop up a dead-end theory, validate and invlaid measure like tree ring data, they’ve actually tried to re-write (pervert) actual known science.

    Yes it is a “global conspiracy”. But like all conspiracies it is individuals acting corruptly and spreading the disease through that most corrupt organism on the planet, government. It is Gov’t funding that has spread this disease. They should all be taken aside, individual by individual, and jailed for their part.

    In the case of politicians, it runs into £$€ Millions and Billions of public money defrauded from the public purse

  11. Frank Tavos says:7th December 2010 at 4:34 pmDavid AGWeaver:Give up before Velocity embarasses you some more. You lost the argument about 5 posts ago.
  12. Leigh Waters says:10th December 2010 at 1:41 pmCooeee there is no debate that globally the temperatures are rising. This isn’t a theory, this is something you can look back on recorded temperatures and plot them out on a neat graph and see that year after year GLOBALLY things are getting warmer (it’s not all about little ol Blighty). Here’s one of those graphs: the obvious upward trend)The bit people are arguing about is whether it is man who is causing the temperatures to rise or it’s a natural occurance, not whether temperatures are rising at all!

    I suppose you have to think of something to blog about, so sometimes blog about things you know aren’t true.

  13. ge0050 says:10th December 2010 at 5:21 pmAGW = $$. Plain and simple. Using taxpayers money to move factories from places where labour costs are high, to places where labour costs are low. Factory owners used to resist this, because of the expense. Sometimes they even had to clean up the polution to stay in business.However, with ETS, the TRADING portion allows them to trade their “pollution”.It works like this. A factory in the UK is polluting. It will have to pay $$ millions to clean up. However, if it moves to India where CO2 emmissions are lower, then it can apply for the taxpayers to pay for the move under the ETS.

    This is a win win for the company. They don’t need to clean up their polution. The UK tax payer gets the bill for the factory moving. The workers in the UK lose their jobs and are replaced with low cost workers in India.

    The benefit to the UK is that that pollution is reduced. However, 6 months later the pollution from India is carried by the winds back to the UK, so in the end there is no change in global pollution. We have simply moved the source of the pollution.

    If this was really about reducing global emissions, the program would be called ERS. Emissions Reductions System. It isn’t. The program is ETS. Emissions Trading System.

  14. AGWFRAUGHTWITHFAUD says:11th December 2010 at 12:39 amVelocity…I think I am in love with you…and yes, I am a scientist who has worked with GCCM’s and knows that you are correct. Most super-computers today can’t handle all the data, let along give you a good trend on a planet that is 4.5 billion years old.4.5 billions old vs 5,000 years of data?
  15. AGWFRAUGHTWITHFAUD says:11th December 2010 at 12:46 am“is still an irrefutable fact.I am perfectly willing to accept that the outcomes are uncertain, but the fact that the climate is changing is uncontested in the scientific community.”I think I would like your degree to be given back, my tax money has been swindled to no good use. Does anyone see a massive error of logic here?

    A bit of Discrete Mathematics revision will do you good, David Weaver!

  16. Velocity says:16th December 2010 at 11:06 amLeigh AGWaters,Ever heard the saying, “Lies, Damn Lies and Government Statistics” ?Well you’re quoting from a world average mean temp, a figure no scientist can fathom how it’s arrived at.

    So while “little Old Blighty” is indeed freezing its not all on its lonesome is it? Take Cancun in Mexico, go to the World Weather Org website, check through all the spot temps in each country. Like Cancun you’ll find an average per place of some -5 to -8 Degrees colder than average.

    I’ve been checking over the past few weeks. here’s my list of -5 to -8 degrees colder than average; Geneva Switzerland, London England, Budapest Hungary, Berlin and Munich Germany, Prague Czech Rep., Moscow and St Petersburg Russia, Washington USA and of course Cancun Mexico.

    So tell me Einstein, if ALL these places are -5 to -8 Degrees colder than average, where the f**k is Earthtrends measuring its data points?

    Give me a country suffering 2 degrees warmer mush for brains????

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. 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?

    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.