Slugger O'Toole

Conversation, politics and stray insights

Green Party propose sacking climate deniers: Vegetarian Stalinism?

Sat 15 February 2014, 9:04pm

Northern Ireland may have been spared the absolute worst of the weather this year (though the last couple of days have been bad) but the South West of England and South Wales have been extremely badly affected with the Somerset Levels heavily flooded. Then more recently the Thames Valley has been affected. Whether this flooding is actually worse than previous years has been disputed and the suggestion (made on Question Time on Thursday night) that the media only started to get interested when areas near London were affected.

There are many explanations for these floods varying from lack of dredging to climate change (not necessarily mutually exclusive) via (somewhat surreally and not entirely Biblically) gay marriage. A number of solutions have been proffered. One of them is that of the Green Party who have proposed a ten point plan.

Most of it is pretty worthy, a bit dull and nebulous. The most interesting and controversial, however, has been:

Get rid of any cabinet Ministers or senior governmental advisors who refuse to accept the scientific consensus on climate change or who won’t take the risks to the UK seriously.

On the BBC the leader of the Green Party (Natalie Bennett) as surreally as Mr. Silvester (he of gay marriage as the cause of flooding) claimed that even those advisers with no connection to environmental issues should be sacked if they do not accept climate change. The BBC suggested the Chief Veterinary and Chief Medical Officers as posts unrelated to climate change and Ms. Bennett repeated her position.

Brendan O’Neill in the Daily Telegraph has pointed to the obvious parallel with McCarthyism and has suggested

Perhaps we should ask every aspiring civil servant, “Are you now or have you ever been a climate-change sceptic?”

Many on the right have accused the Greens of being Watermelons (green on the outside red on the inside). This seems more a case of slightly pathetic fluffy totalitarianism – a sort of Vegetarian Stalinism (pathetic only because it will never happen: if it were possible it would be quite sinister). It conjures up the idea of re-education camps for climate change sceptics. Presumably these would have to be in Brighton (centre of British Greenness) and would be a colder slightly naff (and much gayer) version of Guantanamo Bay run by Inquisitor in chief George Monbiot?

Personally my concern is that if the Green’s plan is implemented we need to ensure the climate change credentials of the Master of the Queen’s Music and the Poet Laureate: imagine if they were deniers?

Share 'Green Party propose sacking climate deniers: Vegetarian Stalinism?' on Delicious Share 'Green Party propose sacking climate deniers: Vegetarian Stalinism?' on Digg Share 'Green Party propose sacking climate deniers: Vegetarian Stalinism?' on Facebook Share 'Green Party propose sacking climate deniers: Vegetarian Stalinism?' on Google+ Share 'Green Party propose sacking climate deniers: Vegetarian Stalinism?' on LinkedIn Share 'Green Party propose sacking climate deniers: Vegetarian Stalinism?' on Pinterest Share 'Green Party propose sacking climate deniers: Vegetarian Stalinism?' on reddit Share 'Green Party propose sacking climate deniers: Vegetarian Stalinism?' on StumbleUpon Share 'Green Party propose sacking climate deniers: Vegetarian Stalinism?' on Twitter Share 'Green Party propose sacking climate deniers: Vegetarian Stalinism?' on Add to Bookmarks Share 'Green Party propose sacking climate deniers: Vegetarian Stalinism?' on Email Share 'Green Party propose sacking climate deniers: Vegetarian Stalinism?' on Print Friendly

Comments (87)

  1. aquifer (profile) says:

    The UK patent office does not accept applications that are in clear conflict with the laws of science, so sacking civil servants whose approach to managing the issue of climate change is to cross their fingers or to clutch at evidential straws, may be fair enough.

    I don’t think we let witch doctors work in the NHS.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  2. Neil (profile) says:

    Where does that logic take us? Can we have a full list of unacceptable opinions which may bar someone from election before we decide? We don’t let witch doctors work in the NHS but then we don’t vote for our medical consultants either.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  3. Turgon (profile) says:

    aquifer,
    The point is that the Green Party are calling for the sacking of all senior government advisors who are climate change sceptics whether or not their work has anything to do with climate change. This presumably means that these people would need to be asked their views on the subject even if it has no relevance to their work.

    Incidentally re witch doctors there is a homeopathic hospital in Bristol and London

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  4. IJP (profile) says:

    The Green Party recently suggested in the Assembly recently suggested public sector workers in Northern Ireland should be allowed to retire earlier than in Great Britain because “life expectancy in Kensington and Chelsea is 85 and in Belfast it’s 73″.

    This is, obviously, an outrageous parallel – easily reversible if, say, you compare Malone to Tower Hamlets.

    In fact, life expectancy in Great Britain is 81. In Northern Ireland it’s, er, 81…

    In effect, the Green Party’s above comments, recorded in Hansard, were deliberately misleading. Or a lie, as I would call it.

    Should they now be banned from public office for denying the truth about life expectancy?

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  5. FuturePhysicist (profile) says:

    Ian I believe your statistics apply to women, life expectancy is lower than 78 for men across the UK and Ireland. Rather than seeking to ban you from office, I condemn you to the knowledge you are likely to live two to three years shorter than you may’ve expected to!

    In terms of climate change skeptics to me this is politics and there is always an authoritarian element in politics. If the Green Party were in a position to make a political difference say a coalition where they got the environment ministry as was the case in the Republic of Ireland, why would appointing pro-Green civil servants be any different that Tories appointing pro-Tory and Labour appointing pro-Labour to these offices. Is that not Stalinist? Don’t Tories introduce anti-Trade Union legislation and Labour anti-Big Business if the electorate empower them to? Is that not Stalinist?

    I mean you don’t even need to belong to the Green Party or be left-wing to believe in climate change.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  6. Mick Fealty (profile) says:

    I for once, agree with FP. Anti science attitudes are part and parcel of politics. If voters acted purely on rational thought the Front Nationale would not have grown five fold since 2009. Golden Dawn are doing pretty well in Greece too. 

    On balance, it’s likely that climate change is already well underway. The use of the Thames barrier (slagged for a generation as an unnecessary white elephant ) has been in use more times in the last couple off years than the last forty.

    Because environmentalists have sometimes exaggerated the imminence of the problem by projecting the top end of the modelled predictions as indisputable fact they are easily dismissed (which is a deadly mistake). Their distance from the popular vote leads to easily ridiculed statements like that above.

    I doubt the governing factor in the Secretary of State’s mind is belief. More likely it’s that old politicians bind of resenting the short/medium term impact on current budgets of solving long term problems (ie, that they won’t get bankable credit with voters for). In Britain, where quarterly market values predominate over longer term investment cycles this probably more acute than elsewhere.

    This is where the ‘red’ nonsense comes from. Any effective action (even in the short term) requires a collective effort, and large resources. In a country which has built no new airports since 1946, selling any such collective action politically will be deeply problematic until enough voters are ‘inconvenienced’ by the general inaction. That Southern England is getting hit first and most severely, *might* help.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  7. DC (profile) says:

    Politics is an art not a science, no better example than the rough and tumble of democratic politics in Westminster as opposed to the dry work of the overly bureaucratic EU.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  8. GEF (profile) says:

    “Get rid of any cabinet Ministers or senior governmental advisors who refuse to accept the scientific consensus on climate change”

    One of the first to go would be : Sammy Wilson: “I still think man-made climate change is a con”

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/sammy-wilson-i-still-think-manmade-climate-change-is-a-con-28515999.html

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  9. Mick Fealty (profile) says:

    A couple years after he signed an EDM concerned with global warming. It’s the money he’s concerned not the climate.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  10. DC (profile) says:

    ‘In Britain, where quarterly market values predominate over longer term investment cycles this probably more acute than elsewhere.’

    It’s the same with privatising, the old criticism linked to that was about profiting. I think it’s worse than that. I think state services are privatised simply because they can borrow from the market and kick the can down the road, rather than face up to the fact that the UK economy probably needs to deflate and reset collectively. The government is able to evade its responsibility in facing up to this by privatising and allowing borrowing to go on and on – where the debt cycle is just ‘serviced’ ad infinitum.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  11. DC (profile) says:

    Here’s a good example of art v science, a ‘Lord’ versus a Professor.

    http://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/climate-change-denier-lord-lawson-is-an-expert-he-once-wrote-a-book-about-dieting/

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  12. DoppiaVu (profile) says:

    Ha! Nice link DC.

    I long ago noticed that the most prominent supporters of climate-change theory are scientists, whilst the most prominent climate-change skeptics are politicians. Which is possibly the most compelling argument for why climate change theory has to be correct.

    It’s hilarious, of course, that “The Greenest Government Ever” appointed a climate-change skeptic as Environment Secretary. But I guess the Greens are going a bit too far in the opposite direction.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  13. Zig70 (profile) says:

    I’m with Sammy Wilson. I have my doubts about climate change and other crystal ball users. Some of it is human ego about how important we are on this planet, some element of economics in cheerleading climate change. There is a lot of money to be made over it. To paraphrase David Attenborough, we are a bit of a parasite. Mother Nature will probably sort us out in her own unique way. Now, time to stock up on more cornbeef.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  14. jagmaster (profile) says:

    The trouble for me is that America has had it’s coldest winter in years so Global warming is a bit of a misnomer if it only involves a select number of countries instead of the whole world. Or have I misinterpreted the theory?

    Also don’t forget the Climate scientists who got trapped by expanding ice in the Antarctic a couple of months ago whilst attempting to gather evidence to support global warming, very embarrassing.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  15. Neil (profile) says:

    Global average temperature:

    https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

    Coldest winter’s mean fuck all with increasing average global temperatures, winters tend to be cold but hot summers drag the average temperature up, combined with increased extreme weather predicted due to increased water evaporation, hence more snow in cold weather and more rain and hurricanes/cyclones in warm weather. Ring any bells?

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  16. IJP (profile) says:

    FuturePhysicist

    Life expectancy is 81. Full stop.

    The logic of your point about men’s typically being 2-3 years below average (thus 4-5 years below women’s) would, by Green logic, mean that women should work to 70 but men only to 66…

    The real issue is that Greens denied reality. They seek to condemn others, but are unwilling to condemn themselves.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  17. Harry Flashman (profile) says:

    “Because environmentalists have sometimes exaggerated the imminence of the problem by projecting the top end of the modelled predictions as indisputable fact they are easily dismissed”

    But it’s not quite as simple as that is it Mick? It’s not a case of some fundamentally decent scientist perhaps over-egging the pudding a bit to draw public attention to an imminent crisis is it?

    There has been decades of wildly exaggerated, alarmist propaganda disseminated in an absurdly hyped-up manner using emotive, extremist and frankly dangerous language as well as fabricated evidence to push a theory that has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese.

    And to what end? Are we merely being cajoled into living a cleaner more energy-efficient life in order to have a better, healthier planet?

    Or are all the proposals aimed in exactly the same direction; greater state control over the individual, with more laws, more regulation, more state officials with more power to ban, tax, licence, restrict, censor and jail citizens who don’t toe the state’s line?

    Turgon is spot on that the Green movement suddenly bloomed after the collapse of communism as all the apparatchiks and useful-idiot academics and journalists suddenly saw a new outlet for their statist, controlling agenda.

    This is odd as the commies had always been in favor of heavy industry and to hell with the environment, while it was the commies’ statist, anti-individual, mirror-image the Nazis who had the green fetish, but then consistency never mattered when it came to statism and repression of free citizens.

    But let us even suppose that the global warmers are right (and in fact anyone below the age of 18 has actually been living in a consistently cooling planet) and the planet is warming, why is that necessarily a bad thing?

    The planet has warmed and cooled since men have walked upright and we have thrived, where is the evidence that the climate in, let’s say 1983, was the most sublime and only possible climate the earth could possibly sustain, what makes our climate the only option and not that of 1865, 1634, 1459, 1276, 987 or 600BC for that matter?

    Furthermore given that China and India are the world’s biggest carbon emitters (or will be soon) and given that Mount Kelud in Java emitted 200 million cubic meters of dust and ash and other forms of carbon into the atmosphere in a matter of hours last Thursday night, where is the evidence that banning, censoring and sacking people who are naturally sceptical about the claims of Big Government in the UK will have the slightest effect on global warming?

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  18. mrmrman (profile) says:

    People talk about climate change as though it is an inevitable progression towards the end of humanity – if we don’t do something now we’re all doomed.

    I really believe this science is actually feeding an ancient tradition of human paranoia to believe that the “end is nigh” – especially prevalent in comfortable societies with nothing else better to worry about.

    Lets be clear – although there are plenty of observations that temperatures are rising the science is NOT clear about where the climate going.

    Climate models which were predicting significant increase in temperatures have been shown to be incorrect. After initially denying they were wrong climate scientists have now conceded this fact and have begun looking for explanations for the discrepancies. A number of *newly discovered* mechanisms have been identified as possible causes.

    The point here is that if people are to be asked to change their behavior – the result of which will significantly affect their way of life – the science better be good i.e. definitive, beyond reasonable doubt. Climate science is a long way off this.

    Fundamentally the climate is a chaotic system and as such cannot be expected to behave in linear fashion. I’m reminded of the financial advice “past performance is not an indicator of future value”.

    As for the Green Party – more evidence that “science” and politics make uncomfortable bed fellows often engendering an authoritarian style of governance. Prof. Winston’s performance on BBC QT this week was an eye opener – (even though he admitted he was not convinced of evidence of actual harm) he suggested that road traffic cameras should be used to catch people smoking in cars.

    1984 anyone?

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  19. FuturePhysicist (profile) says:

    The real issue is that Greens denied reality. They seek to condemn others, but are unwilling to condemn themselves. I doubt Owen Patterson is condemning himself either, all is fair and all that.

    As for the Green Party – more evidence that “science” and politics make uncomfortable bed fellows often engendering an authoritarian style of governance.

    Yes, who could forget that authoritarian tyrant that was Benjamin Franklin!

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  20. Mc Slaggart (profile) says:

    mrmrman

    ” although there are plenty of observations that temperatures are rising the science is NOT clear about where the climate going.”

    I disagree with you but that is not the issue. What changes are we making that are not good in an off themselves?

    Less landfill, more efficient use of energy, …..

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  21. Charles_Gould (profile) says:

    IJP

    “Life expectancy is 81. Full stop. ”

    Aside from whatever Steven Agnew said, I think it is important to recognize the huge difference in life expectancy depending on income.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  22. David Crookes (profile) says:

    Thanks a lot, HF, for that dose of good sense.

    Thousands of academics are making careers out of the carbon-footprint hockey-stick Nazi science of manmade global warming. The idea that academics always pursue factuality in a disinterested manner belongs to the kindergarten. Academics tend to follow the money.

    Does anyone remember “The Doomsday Book”, according to which we were all doomed by 1980?

    Behind the hot air of the propagandists is a desire to control everyone. A world tax on “carbon”, or on anything else, will be the start of a world government.

    The embryo of a fascist world government already exists, and I’m not talking about the Irish Peatland Conservation Council. We didn’t need a fascist world government during the medieval warm period. We don’t need one now.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  23. Mc Slaggart (profile) says:

    David Crookes

    “Academics tend to follow the money.”

    I would agree.

    “a desire to control everyone”

    You need to explain which changes that are coming in more controlling than what went before?

    “Peatland Conservation”

    The EU wants Ireland to protect those bogs which have aspects not fond in the rest of the world (west Scotland has some as well). The rest they are more than happy for people to burn. What is it you think is wrong with that idea?

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  24. David Crookes (profile) says:

    Thanks, Mc Slaggart. The extent to which states are able to spy on their citizens is a new factor in the equation.

    Nothing wrong with conserving peatlands: I’m all for that. I was humorously pointing to another body whose initials are IPCC.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  25. Delphin (profile) says:

    You are right Harry and David, the Greens come across as control freaks and we have been hearing for years that we are all doomed. And yes scientists jump on the environmental gravy train, but the fact is atmospheric carbon dioxide is higher than it as been in at least 400,000 years. Another fact is- that causes the earth to absorb significantly more of the sun’s energy. It would be the opinion of atmospheric scientists that the increase in CO2 is due to man’s activities.
    The earth’s weather is driven by the transfer of the sun’s energy from the hot equatorial regions towards the cooler temperate regions. This is highly complex and difficult to model and predict., so how the increased energy due to the rise in CO2 will affect the climate is uncertain. What is certain is that it will have a significant effect. Since there is more energy in the atmosphere the most likely effects will be stronger winds and more rain.
    As a atmospheric physicist told me once, since we don’t understand it,(the atmosphere) it is best not to fuck with it.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  26. Jenny (profile) says:

    Turgon’s post is most peculiar. No serious debate about why the extreme weather and no constructive suggestions for how to address the problem. Just a wee bit of inconsequential Green bashing. Which I welcome, as it means we are making an impact. Some of the comments are a lot more interesting.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  27. Reader (profile) says:

    Jenny: Turgon’s post is most peculiar.
    Turgon’s post is a look at the Green Party proposal that people with unconventional beliefs should be dismissed from their post, whether or not those beliefs are relevant to their job. If the greens can do that, then so can the conservatives – correct? And UKIP?
    I’m a bit confused that you think Turgon should only post stuff that you want to discuss – it’s actually a pity that this topic has been diverted to a polite version of the same slagging match that can be seen on the Guardian or Telegraph websites most days.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  28. Delphin (profile) says:

    The original post was just trotting out the old Dr* Jeremy Clarkson line about the Greens being Nazis (only partially true). I would imagine being politicians, they want to appeal to their core vote and grab the attention of the media, so sacking climate change non-believers was a good ploy. Seeing they are not in power or likely to be, what they say is irrelevant – unlike our lot of control freaks – the SF/DUP who impose their beliefs about play parks and creation on us all.
    (* honorary doctorate in engineering you know- better give him his full title!)

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  29. mrmrman (profile) says:

    @McSlaggart

    The “economics” of recycling are based on bureaucratic impetus i.e. if we don’t recycle we will be charged fines by the EU.

    The great irony is that our modern economies are carbon based. Thus if it was truly carbon efficient to separate and recycle waste there would be a clear economic benefit.

    There are a few exceptions – aluminium and glass have been recycled for decades precisely because of the reason above.

    The case for separation of food waste to use in bio-reactors is also compelling.

    My point is lets do things because it makes sense i.e. has clear, proven benefits to ourselves and not because of a guilt fuelled ideology.

    @FuturePhysicist

    A modern example of science in politics would be China’s one child policy as means to reduce population growth rate. China certainly has a resource problem and unquestionably a one child policy is an effective (scientifically proven) means of population control.

    I have no doubt there some in Greens that would believe that this is a policy worth considering – I mean after all it would be a effective way to reduce our CO2 emissions.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  30. Mc Slaggart (profile) says:

    “The “economics” of recycling are based on bureaucratic impetus ”

    Ok lets stop recycling. I take you have a location to put all the extra rubbish?

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  31. FuturePhysicist (profile) says:

    @FuturePhysicist

    A modern example of science in politics would be China’s one child policy as means to reduce population growth rate. China certainly has a resource problem and unquestionably a one child policy is an effective (scientifically proven) means of population control.

    I have no doubt there some in Greens that would believe that this is a policy worth considering – I mean after all it would be a effective way to reduce our CO2 emissions.

    The UK has the Haldane Principle which is supposed to keep politics out of steering science, but if you feel science should stay out of politics elsewhere then effectively you would need to privatise health, environment and defence and scrap government scientific advisors. You would also have to stop people with physics or maths degrees getting involved in economic and financial modelling, while banking sectors take advantage.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  32. FuturePhysicist (profile) says:

    “The “economics” of recycling are based on bureaucratic impetus ”
    Ok lets stop recycling. I take you have a location to put all the extra rubbish?

    The whole purpose of recycling is to economise, ha ha. There are significant energy efficiencies in many cases, the cost difference from can mining from virgin bauxite mining in comparison aluminium can recycling, added to reduction in consumption and landfill.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  33. David Crookes (profile) says:

    A while ago Harry Flashman told us a fact.

    “…..Mount Kelud in Java emitted 200 million cubic meters of dust and ash and other forms of carbon into the atmosphere in a matter of hours last Thursday night.”

    Why has no member of the Climate Gestapo anything to say about such an important fact?

    It’s as if G G Simmons the P6 milk monitor runs into the headmaster’s office. “Sir, the P7s are firing bazookas in the quad! They’ve destroyed most of the teachers’ cars!”

    “Never mind, Simmons. That sort of thing happens, you know. Here’s what we’ll do. We’ll hand out a lot of lines to the boys in P2 who were firing ink pellets yesterday.”

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  34. Mc Slaggart (profile) says:

    David Crookes

    “Mount Kelud in Java emitted 200 million cubic meters of dust and ash and other forms of carbon into the atmosphere ”

    I take it you never did any farming.

    Most people who farm still put a crop in the field even after God destroyed the last one.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  35. mrmrman (profile) says:

    @FuturePhysicist

    I agree (and stated) that recycling Al makes good economic sense and thus has been done for decades. That’s clearly not true of all recycling.

    Obviously there is a huge body of science that benefited mankind enormously.

    My main point was not to trash *all* science (not even all climate science) but simply to say that just because a point is made in the scientific domain doesn’t mean that we should implement it in the political domain.

    Your example of people with physics and maths degrees in the banking sector is a case in point – it was precisely the convoluted financial derivatives and market predictor algorithms and led to the collapse of the financial markets.

    Now I’m not saying we should avoid heuristics in the banking sector – what I am saying is that over confidence in science (or more precisely lack of understanding of the *actual* process) has the potential to cause great harm.

    Just because something is based in scientific research doesn’t make it absolutely true or (for want of a better word) good.

    Science is just philosophy and at the end of the day.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  36. David Crookes (profile) says:

    Thanks, Mc Slaggart, and you’d be surprised, but I was at pains to point out an enormous difference in DEGREE.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  37. Mc Slaggart (profile) says:

    David Crookes

    “an enormous difference in DEGREE”

    We could be wiped out tomorrow with an asteroid coming from the direction of the sun. That does not change the fact that we need to try and make a difference.

    “At the head of all understanding – is realizing what is and what cannot be, and the consoling of what is not in our power to change.”

    Solomon ibn Gabirol wrote

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  38. DC (profile) says:

    It’s like this – there’s a War on Weather, you’re either with us or against us.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 1
  39. DC (profile) says:

    Using the binary of Bush –

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-23kmhc3P8U

    It’s time to declare. I’m with the Green party on this.

    Remember, there’s no in between.

    It’s time to pick sides on War on Weather.

    This will unfortunately rule out alliance party readers and commenters on here. But for everyone else – with us or against us…

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  40. Turgon (profile) says:

    Jenny,
    I think calling my post curious is a bit unfair.

    The Green Party has some policies of which I approve: some of which I do not – my views of their policies is irrelevant.

    The problem is that the Green Party want to be taken seriously. In many European countries they have been in or are in government. They are nowhere near that in the UK.

    With the floods they had an opportunity to capture a bit of the agenda proposing sensible policies and indeed advancing their climate change narrative. However, with the frankly silly idea of sacking people with whom they disagree about climate change but whose jobs have nothing to do with climate change policy they look very foolish and immature as a political party. They look frankly childish.

    If the Green Party wish to be treated as a serious party in the UK they need to avoid saying stupid things. UKIP have similar problems at times but Farage always manages to stay just on the right side of self parody: his underlings not always. For the leader of the Green Party to make a gaff like this and then on national media reinforce the suggestion shows a lack of media awareness and also a lack of real political ambition. It reinforces the stereotype of slightly pathetic control freaks who take themselves so seriously that ironically they cannot be taken seriously.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  41. DC (profile) says:

    ^with the enemy

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  42. mrmrman (profile) says:

    @DC

    Harumph!!

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JN99jshaQbY

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  43. Barney (profile) says:

    Harry Flashman wrote
    “There has been decades of wildly exaggerated, alarmist propaganda disseminated in an absurdly hyped-up manner using emotive, extremist and frankly dangerous language as well as fabricated evidence to push a theory that has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese.”

    It’s a bit ironic to claim the above on a thread with Stalinist in the title and making wildly unsupported claims in the voice of the teabaggers.

    While it seems an own goal to demand some form of political orthodoxy in appointments one can’t blame the Greens for stating what all parties do. In Britain there is currently a purge of Labour appointees by the Conservatives and their human shields the liberals. All political parties do it it’s dishonest to pretend they don’t. The worst they can be accused of is telling the truth.

    I don’t see the problem, denying man made climate change shows a total lack of basic education, illiterates or innumerates are not placed into positions of power whether their remit concerns literacy or numeracy or not.

    As regards the reality of man made climate change, the science is sound. Creating a market in carbon emissions is currently the only realistic way of curbing these emissions. Because naturally produced particulates and carbon are introduced into the atmosphere doesn’t mean that anthropogenic carbon can or should continue unimpeaded.

    I really don’t know what a climate Gestapo is.

    The big government argument is so ludicrously silly especially in a litigious society it’s not really worth point out except for the very strong correlation between GDP and size of gov or the equally strong relationship between regulation and wealth creation.

    Those who object to what they call big government clearly love the small government Somali model or are they just repeating a government subsidised lie.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  44. David Crookes (profile) says:

    Cracker, Turgon (8.10 pm).

    Remember the scientific orthodoxy about stomach ulcers? Caused by this, or by that, or by anything other than the thing that actually did cause them? Scientists had an orthodoxy, and we were all told that the science was sound. 21-whoopee-cushion salute!

    Scientists would make you laugh sometimes — especially when they say, “We used to think, but now we know….”

    If the climate panickers had truth on their side, they wouldn’t need to fiddle their results. Here is a simple question. Why have so many Harold Campings in the climatological world got everything spectacularly wrong?

    Here’s something we can do something about right now. Massive fines for people whose vehicles emit visible poisonous filth. Everyone knows it’s happening, and no one will do a thing about it. Far more fun to look at emotive great masses of ice crashing into the sea.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  45. Barney (profile) says:

    David would you like to explain why you think the science behind man made climate change is not correct or would you like to just type random nonsense?

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  46. Harry Flashman (profile) says:

    There’s nothing new under the sun

    @Barney

    “I don’t see the problem, denying man made climate change shows a total lack of basic education, illiterates or innumerates are not placed into positions of power whether their remit concerns literacy or numeracy or not.”

    I mentioned in another thread how we should resist the suffix ‘-ophobe’ being attached to points of view that people with the ‘correct’ viewpoint happened to disagree with. I pointed out that this was a tactic used by the Soviet Union to stifle dissent, anyone who questioned Soviet policy (or whatever passed for Soviet policy on any given day) was obviously mentally deranged so could safely be ignored, ridiculed or locked up.

    Now Barney happily reinvents another Soviet method of censorship. Step forward, Hero of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Comrade Trofim Lysenko.

    Lysenko came up with half-baked, pseudo-science that suited the Soviet Union and Joe Stalin, and so what he said was law. No one could disagree with Lysenko, anyone who did was an ignorant, illiterate, uneducated bumpkin and must be dismissed from public office, ridiculed and preferably jailed as an enemy of the people. Only Lysenko’s theories would be permitted to be discussed, only Lysenko’s scince could be taught.

    Well done Barney, you’d have made a good comrade.

    And people think we exaggerate when we say the Greens are an ill-disguised bunch of Stalinist whackjobs.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  47. Harry Flashman (profile) says:

    There’s nothing new under the sun

    @Barney

    “I don’t see the problem, denying man made climate change shows a total lack of basic education, illiterates or innumerates are not placed into positions of power whether their remit concerns literacy or numeracy or not.”

    I mentioned in another thread how we should resist the suffix ‘-ophobe’ being attached to points of view that people with the ‘correct’ viewpoint happened to disagree with. I pointed out that this was a tactic used by the Soviet Union to stifle dissent, anyone who questioned Soviet policy (or whatever passed for Soviet policy on any given day) was obviously mentally deranged so could safely be ignored, ridiculed or locked up.

    Now Barney happily reinvents another Soviet method of censorship. Step forward, Hero of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Comrade Trofim Lysenko.

    Lysenko came up with half-baked, pseudo-science that suited the Soviet Union and Joe Stalin, and so what he said was law. No one could disagree with Lysenko, anyone who did was an ignorant, illiterate, uneducated bumpkin and must be dismissed from public office, ridiculed and preferably jailed as an enemy of the people. Only Lysenko’s theories would be permitted to be discussed, only Lysenko’s science could be taught.

    Well done Barney, you’d have made a good comrade.

    And people think we exaggerate when we say the Greens are an ill-disguised bunch of Stalinist whackjobs.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  48. Harry Flashman (profile) says:

    Apologies for double post, SOT’s website acting up as usual.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  49. Harry Flashman (profile) says:

    The dog that isn’t barking

    Mac Slaggart

    “We could be wiped out tomorrow with an asteroid coming from the direction of the sun. That does not change the fact that we need to try and make a difference.”

    Congratulations, you’ve put your finger on what absolutely gives away the phoniness of the claim by governments that they are “trying to save the planet”. Do the measures being enacted in the name of global warming really give an indication that governments honestly believe in their heart of hearts that they think it is a genuine threat?

    Are the actions of these governments consistent with a government desperately trying to stave off annihilation? Not so’s you’d notice no.

    Oh they’re very good at a few tokens, the odd wind farm here and there (with convenient tax breaks for well-connected friends), saving money by reducing garbage collection and river-dredging, nice tax-payer funded jaunts to Rio or Bali ferrying tens of thousands of civil servants to stay at posh hotels and discuss climate change for a couple of hours in the afternoon etc. But real efforts that would convince you that the government has analysed the evidence and come to the terrifying conclusion that we’re all doooommmeed!!!!!!! if we don’t do something NOW!, nah, not really.

    Look at the war on terror and the vast expenditure and effort made by western governments to eradicate a threat that surely pales in comparison with global warming. Where are the drone strikes on coal-fired power stations in China? Where are the teams of SEALs and SAS men infiltrated into the rain forests of Sumatra to eliminate people slashing and burning to create plantations? Where are the efforts being urgently drawn up to cap the world’s volcanoes if they seriously believed that all these carbon emissions were the threat they tell us? None, because they don’t really believe it themselves.

    China, a country not known for its short-term view, a country which looks at the world and Chinese dominance of it in terms of centuries, a country with more scientists per square foot than anywhere else. Tell me, do the activities of the Chinese government give the slightest indication that they believe the threat of man-made global warming is remtely real? The same goes for Russia, India etc, important nations with finely tuned senses of self-preservation and the ability to take action on a mass scale and yet do they look worried about man-made global warming?

    Man-made global warming is what we in Asia refer to as a “First World Problem”, something that overfed, content, secure and imaginative people who have no need to expend much physical energy from one month to the next can get themselves worked up about.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  50. IJP (profile) says:

    Charles

    Indeed. I’ll wager life expectancy in Malone is ten years or more longer than in Tower Hamlets. On Green logic, that means people in NI should retire at 78…

    (It’s not as simple as income actually. Income in Denmark is among the highest in the world – life expectancy is the lowest in Western Europe.)

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  51. Barney (profile) says:

    Harry Flashman wrote
    “I mentioned in another thread how we should resist the suffix ‘-ophobe’ being attached to points of view that people with the ‘correct’ viewpoint happened to disagree with.”

    Granted an overblown response is infinitely self pleasuring however a simple refutation would suffice, you didn’t attempt to do so.

    Reading your reply above (to McS) also demonstrates a lack of knowledge to equal your lack of scientific understanding.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  52. Mc Slaggart (profile) says:

    Harry Flashman

    “Tell me, do the activities of the Chinese government give the slightest indication that they believe the threat of man-made global warming is remtely real?”

    “In light of the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and its worsening impacts, and the related issue of air pollution from burning fossil fuels, the United States and China recognise the urgent need for action to meet these twin challenges,” the world’s two biggest greenhouse gas emitters said in a joint statement.
    Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/17/kerry-slams-agw-deniers-us-china-pact/#gFARSTwdwMktE8Wf.99

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  53. David Crookes (profile) says:

    Some quotations from Barney.

    “…..denying man made climate change shows a total lack of basic education, illiterates or innumerates are not placed into positions of power whether their remit concerns literacy or numeracy or not.”

    Not so. John Prescott was deputy prime minister, and he talked about ‘the Balklands’.

    “David would you like to explain why you think the science behind man made climate change is not correct or would you like to just type random nonsense?”

    Probably because I’m illiterate I can’t answer a question that involves a split infinitive.

    “Reading your reply above (to McS) also demonstrates a lack of knowledge to equal your lack of scientific understanding.”

    If you feel obliged to insult HF, you shouldn’t try to debate with him.

    On many occasions a majority opinion has turned out to be wrong. It is presently wise in careerist terms for Dalek-subject academics to proclaim that Big Brother is always right, but the climatological world contains a substantial number of scientists who don’t accept the orthodoxy. Since the orthodoxy is supported by no repeatable experiments, these scientists, none of whom is wanting in basic education, have to be treated with respect.

    In little things as in big things, many people get it wrong, AND ARE AFTERWARDS UNAVAILABLE FOR COMMENT. I’ll give you a single example from NI politics (and if you’re unable to think laterally, please don’t accuse me of talking “random nonsense”). Thirty years ago the Equal Citizenship movement was up and running. It campaigned for GB parties to organize in NI. During the mid-1980s I must have met at least thirty all-knowing pundits who assured me, with scornfully widened eyes and eyebrows digesting their hairlines, that no GB party would ever organize in NI. When in the event the Conservative Party began to organize in NI, not one of these supercilious pundits called at my house to apologize.

    The more venerable among us who disagree with the Campingesque doom-merchants have history on our side. We have been reading the works of similar doom-merchants, all of them experts, for more than forty years, and every single one of them has turned out to be wrong.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  54. Harry Flashman (profile) says:

    @Barney

    “Granted an overblown response is infinitely self pleasuring however a simple refutation would suffice, you didn’t attempt to do so.”

    I proved that you came from a proud tradition of Stalinist dupes and useful idiots, you are sir a Lysenkoite.

    As your farcical statement – that anyone who is sceptical about the absurdly overblown and panic-mongering claims of an ever-increasingly hysterical Green movement is somehow an illiterate, uneducated fool – is beyond parody, I had nothing to refute.

    @Mac Slaggert

    Oh dear, oh you poor deluded fool, seriously, do you really believe that a government that is building a new coal-fired power station every day is remotely concerned about global warming, I mean, do you?

    Oh my word that’s funny, by the way I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn going cheap, do you want to buy it?

    As I said above, look at what governments are actually doing as opposed to their harum-scarum warnings to deluded peasants like you about global warming to see what your masters really think about this nonsense.

    They don’t give a fiddler’s fart about global warming you know, it’s just to keep you all scared and docile and make you pay higher taxes, you’re all being taken for complete chumps and you seem to believe it makes you morally superior.

    Joe Stalin couldn’t have played you lot better.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 1
  55. Johnny Boy (profile) says:

    Economic growth is traditionally a very dirty business, that’s why governments aren’t taking any real steps to deal with climate change (man-made or otherwise). Above all, they’re in the business of getting re-elected (and lining their pockets).

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  56. Mc Slaggart (profile) says:

    “do you really believe that a government that is building a new coal-fired power station every day is remotely concerned about global warming”

    yes

    Lord make me pure but not yet!’

    Augustine’s wayward prayer!

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  57. Barney (profile) says:

    David Crooks wrote
    “In little things as in big things, many people get it wrong, AND ARE AFTERWARDS UNAVAILABLE FOR COMMENT.”

    There is no need to shout, capitals are not that scary….

    Scientists recognise and agree that the earth is warming the evidence is overwhelming what is disputed by a few flat earthers is whether this warming is caused by man or not. The science behind the warming description is sound and is repeatedly demonstrated in the lab.

    You seem to be greatly confused about modelling; the modelling used regularly predicts the weather with increasing accuracy. The same models are also used to predict climatic change these are also accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community.

    The only thing in dispute is whether the additional energy and agents man is introducing into the atmosphere is having a measurable effect, are they causing the agreed rise in temperature. I go with Nasa and every other scientific body except those funded by the carbon industries when they say it is.

    Its easy to find a few exotic individuals to produce the results you want, the tobacco industry did so for years. What is silly is taking an irrational position on a scientific issue without scientific evidence and then defending it with out reference to science, that is uneducated. By all means have whatever opinion what you want but for it to be a scientific opinion it needs to have evidence.

    Until you produce evidence your opinion here is worth as much as my non existent dog’s.

    Harry Flashman wrote

    “I proved that you came from a proud tradition of Stalinist dupes and useful idiots, you are sir a Lysenkoite”

    Harry you proved nothing, you wrote some self serving twaddle. The same response to you as to yer man above. Unless you produce some evidence for your non scientific view then your opinion is less than worthless. Just insisting that I’m some kind of Stalinist because you don’t like what I say is childish.

    If you think I am a Stalinist then it should be easy to produce the Stalinist words I typed. This is how it works, I know you are a teabagger from the words you typed; the big government bogey man is typical of teabaggers and the Sarah Palins of this world. If you wish to follow that particular genius that’s your decision I don’t care but don’t pretend you have a scientific understanding of the atmosphere.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  58. Mc Slaggart (profile) says:

    Harry Flashman

    “look at what governments are actually doing as opposed to their harum-scarum warnings to deluded peasants like you”

    Germany is going for all renewable energy?

    As for china

    “China is starting to shed its reputation as a coal powerhouse. The country is planning a renewable energy programme 10 times larger than the UK’s entire power system, as well as accelerating nuclear power and energy efficiency measures in line with commitments to reduce the carbon intensity of its economy by up to 45 per cent between 2005 and 2020.
    Moreover, carbon trading schemes kicked off in seven Chinese cities and provinces this year and the ruling party is under pressure to improve air quality after a series of smog incidents in Beijing and other major cities – trends that are likely to lead to a more hostile policy and regulatory environment for coal power stations.”
    http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/2319073/chinas-coal-crackdown-could-leave-australian-mines-stranded-down-under

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  59. mrmrman (profile) says:

    @Johnny Boy

    Economic growth is a very dirty business? Really? Without it you wouldn’t be posting on Slugger with you phone / tablet / desktop computer – you’d be sending your thoughts on paper / papyrus / wood / stone.

    @Barney

    It’s for you to quantify the risk of global warming.

    What are the threats to *us* (in the local sense of this word as opposed to the mankind sense)?

    Is it going to be a few thousand homes flooded occasionally or the end of mankind as we know it, or somewhere in between, or perhaps neither?
    - Is it going to be a (local) temperature increase / decrease?

    Who’s it going to effect?
    - What’s the risk to someone in Belfast, Cork, Omagh, Limerick, Belfast, Dublin, etc?

    What is the likelihood of any of this happening?
    - Odds of it happening in the next X years.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  60. Johnny Boy (profile) says:

    mrmrman

    You’re getting a bit hysterical there; I’m just pointing out a fact, and that is a strong disincentive for governments to implement many green policies.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  61. mrmrman (profile) says:

    @Johnny Boy

    Your missing the point – it is consistent economic growth that has delivered technological advances. To castigate politicians for being pro-growth is just bizarre.

    Are you interested in economic recovery? Because if you are *you* are pro-growth.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  62. DC (profile) says:

    ‘Your missing the point – it is consistent economic growth that has delivered technological advances. To castigate politicians for being pro-growth is just bizarre.’

    That’s not true, in fact past achievements of ordinary persons (lesser knowns and less wealthy – if at all), are usually capitalised on in the present – capitalised on by big corporations.

    If you think Alan Turing for instance, it would be fair to say that today’s success is based on inherited technological advances if you like, than arising out of ‘economic growth’.

    To quote “if much of what we have comes to us as the free gift of many generations of historical contribution, there is a profound question as to how much can reasonably be said to be ‘earned’”.

    On that note perhaps the UK’s economy is still ahead of others thanks to the British kiddies working the mills for next to nothing and before that money from global slave trade, to crudely exaggerate.

    The financialisation of the UK economy is on course to hollow out all that hard work – generations of historical contribution. Same way China is working its citizens into the ground to get ahead, Britain did that too you know, but seems on course to squander it. Thanks to money lenders in London taking cuts that are not deserved and should not be allowed. No better example than corporate bankers performance bonuses, millions upon millions paid out for running banks into the ground and needing bailed out by the public – frittering away past achievements and generations of historical contribution.

    Any way…

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  63. mrmrman (profile) says:

    @DC

    You’re confusing the science with the commercialisation.

    Computers didn’t arrive in the shops just because Alan Turing postulated the universal computer.

    It men and woman taking risks with their own and other’s capital to produce a product which would change peoples lives and yes *shock* produce a profit.

    I mean why would anyone spend years of their lives pouring their own time and money into developing product (risking ruin) and not expect to gain something in return?

    The history of computing is littered with people who gambled and lost their companies, their jobs and their houses.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  64. DC (profile) says:

    @mr

    I am saying both are linked and the less profitable science element comes before the commercialisation and kind of discounts your take that economic growth brings about technological advances, that those technological advances are usually exploited, yes I will agree, some win some fail.

    Other factors are important as well many cultural and educational etc.

    Unfortunately in today’s globalised world even if British brainiacs did hatch ‘brilliance’, such brilliance would be exploited probably using cheap labour elsewhere. Doing this would probably place ‘technological advances’ in developing countries with profits made probably being routed around the world for tax avoidance purposes – meaning Britain PLC would see very little. A bit like the RoI runs its economy, dictated by the Yanks in order to profit out of Euroland, through low tax arrangements.

    As to economic recovery, I want economic recovery, but not necessarily through economic growth but by recovering money that should not have been taken out of banks in bonuses, assets and current accounts of the Goodwins, the Hornbys etc etc should be frozen and an arrangement entered into where billions would be returned.

    That may be illegal, but fuck the law on this occasion – a very rare exception needs to be made, as these shysters had legal experts working all of this out being ahead of the law knowing the law could not call them to account – well I don’t think so.

    To be able to freeze and recapture in part money taken by banksters such as Hornby and co would play a vital part in economic recovery – regardless of growth.

    If Hornby and co complains – cry me a fcking river Hornby!

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  65. David Crookes (profile) says:

    Barney, thanks for your posting. If HF and I adduce fifty eminent scientists who disagree with the manmade global warming orthodoxy, you will characterize them all automatically as exotic flat-earthers, without taking time to check their qualifications and study their publications, so let me bid farewell to this thread. Let us wait for time to show who is getting it right. Of course we know in advance that there will be no apology and no retraction from those who got it wrong.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  66. mrmrman (profile) says:

    @ DC

    Most of the science of the computing age was done in labs back by investors. Just take a look at Intel’s research. Science can be extremely profitable when you have a means to commercialise it.

    “As to economic recovery, I want economic recovery, but not necessarily through economic growth” – that is an oxymoron. The economy is growing all the time.

    Taking bankers bonus’s wouldn’t keep the lights on for long.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  67. Johnny Boy (profile) says:

    mrmrman

    I didn’t say I wasn’t pro-growth, and I can’t see anything in my original statement that is remotely bizarre. Just factual.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  68. mrmrman (profile) says:

    @Johnny Boy

    You said that economic growth is a very dirty business, and now say you are pro growth?

    You’re right about one thing: – politicians are interested in getting re-elected because if they didn’t deliver satisfactory economic growth we would (rightly) vote them out of power.

    We’ve seen the recent consequences of *reduction* of economic growth job losses, factories closing and we’ve rightly angry about cuts to services. Where does that anger go? The ballot box.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  69. Barney (profile) says:

    David Crooks wrote
    “If HF and I adduce fifty eminent scientists who disagree with the manmade global warming orthodoxy, you will characterize them all automatically as exotic flat-earthers, without taking time to check their qualifications and study their publications, so let me bid farewell to this thread.”
    Firstly you are not going to find 50 eminent scientists, or 40 or 10 the science is that strong. Those in the scientific community who deny agw are a very tiny minority, however if they can demonstrate that they are correct it doesn’t matter how few their numbers are they will make an impact. That is how science works, their work will be published if the science is sound.

    Mr man wrote
    “Who’s it going to effect?
    - What’s the risk to someone in Belfast, Cork, Omagh, Limerick, Belfast, Dublin, etc?”
    It doesn’t work like that, global warming is not going to increase the sale of outdoor swimming pools in pomeroy.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  70. David Crookes (profile) says:

    Barney, you compel me to return. I’m rushing out now, so I can’t give you fifty names. Will forty-three do?

    Judith Curry, climatologist and chair of the school of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology
    Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society
    Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
    Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).
    Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU
    Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
    Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
    Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
    Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
    Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center
    Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University
    Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
    Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
    David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
    Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University
    William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[29]
    William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University
    Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[31]
    Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm
    William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
    David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
    Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
    Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada
    Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.
    Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University
    Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo
    Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
    Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
    Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
    Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center
    Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa
    Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
    Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris)
    Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University
    John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports
    Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory
    David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma
    Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
    Vincent R. Gray, New Zealander physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes
    Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists
    Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
    Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University
    Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  71. Johnny Boy (profile) says:

    Mrmrman

    When I say it is dirty business, I mean that it is polluting.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  72. Congal Claen (profile) says:

    As Richard Feynman said…

    “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

    Not one of the alarmist scientists predicted the cooling from 1998 to the present day.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 1
  73. Barney (profile) says:

    As night follows day the cut and paste job from some skeptic site appears totally ignoring the subtlety of the scientific method. Of course not every individual on that list denies agw or agree with each other what they have in common is that they have been selected by some skeptics to make a list. A list that is then repeatedly reproduced without context or reference by box tickers.

    Congeal claen wrote
    “Not one of the alarmist scientists predicted the cooling from 1998 to the present day.”
    It doesn’t work that way…….

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  74. Congal Claen (profile) says:

    Hi Barney,

    “It doesn’t work that way…….”

    Well, isn’t that handy!

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  75. David Crookes (profile) says:

    Barney, you don’t like capital letters, but I feel the kind of PITY that I might feel if a jellied eel tried to give me an electric shock. The list of scientists came from a completely neutral Wikipedia article! It doesn’t matter that all forty-three of them don’t agree with each other in every particular. All of them disagree with the anthropogenic orthodoxy

    You told me I wouldn’t find ten, and I gave you more than forty. Here’s a wee dramatic vignette for you before I go downstairs to watch Death in Paradise.

    BARNEY There is no such thing as a rubber duck.

    DZC (producing a rubber duck from his briefcase) What is that?

    BARNEY Some stupid thing from a credulous rubberduckist website. We all know that there’s no such thing as a rubber duck. It doesn’t work that way.

    DZC What way does it work?

    BARNEY There’s no point in you asking that. You don’t understand the subtle nature of the scientific method.

    DZC That is 595249 in base 36, and you know it.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  76. Delphin (profile) says:

    David Crooks, seeing you have just shaken the world of atmospheric physics to its core, how are you on particle physics orthodoxy? – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26017957
    I’m sure you could give us the answer without spending $1.5bn.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  77. David Crookes (profile) says:

    Dolphin, that was funny. Now I understand why people talk to their cactuses.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  78. Barney (profile) says:

    David
    It’s good to have a claim or in this case a list sourced.
    It’s rather telling that instead of having an evidence based argument to support your feelings you posted a list that someone else created for you. A list of disparate individuals whose only connection is that they, at a stretch, are made to support some conspiracy theory.

    Despite what you would like it is important to understand the scientific method to understand what is happening here. A dualist view of science is not an ideal approach to complex issues. Things are much more subtle than that but I know you don’t do subtlety just capitals.

    It’s clear that you have never read a scientific paper let alone one concerning climate.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  79. David Crookes (profile) says:

    Thanks a lot, Barney. I’m going to stop now.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  80. Harry Flashman (profile) says:

    OK Barney I’m an ignorant, uneducated dunce (presumably my Master’s degree was posted to me in error, what are your qualifications by the way?) because I dare to challenge the hysterical claims made by government officials and government-appointed scientists in government-owned universities, promulgated in government-run schools by government-employed teachers and disseminated as government propaganda on government-run media.

    I mean we all know the government only has our best interests at heart. The fact that none of the predictions they have shrieked about the sky falling for the past quarter century have actually come to pass should in no way make us sceptical.

    But help this poor clod out here will ya? Could you answer a few of mrmrman‘s pertinent questions at 12:38 above.

    You know, what are we facing here, Somerset being flooded every five years or so, or all of us being fired to a crisp?

    What’s the time-scale, ten years, a thousand years, next month?

    You’re the really, really clever man who knows all the “settled ” science, you must have the answers at your finger tips, right?

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  81. Harry Flashman (profile) says:

    Jeez Mac Slaggart you got me again with another link to an English-language website about China’s real attitude to global warming, both links from Green propaganda websites so they must be accurate right?

    Yes, Kerry is currently wandering around SE Asia talking up a storm about global warming while the adult statesmen in the region wonder when the hell the adolescent US is going to get over the global warming hair that it has up its ass and get on with talking about the real, grown-up issues like the economy, development, territorial disputes, terrorism etc that they would like to engage the US on.

    Oh sure they’ll sign up to any “pacts” that Uncle Sam wants to pay generously for (see China above) but trust me, no one who matters in Asia actually gives a hoot about this absurd issue.

    I don’t know how good your Chinese is, mine is hopeless, but I have many Chinese friends and colleagues and they assure me that press-releases in English to be slavishly swallowed by gullible Green websites bear no relation whatsoever to Chinese government policy or what is discussed in the Chinese media for consumption by actual Chinese citizens. China is not one whit concerned about what it rightly regards as over-blown scare-mongering by western nations with far too much time and money on their hands.

    But hey, why believe me, you’ve got all your links to Green websites to convince you otherwise.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  82. Barney (profile) says:

    Harry
    Your preference for the raging success of Somali type small government is admirable however it does fly in the face of the evidence.

    Yer mans questions demonstrate a lack of understanding of atmospheric/oceanic science. No one is going to tell him exactly when or if the cinema on Dublin road will flood, the prediction is that the frequency of extreme events will increase.

    You may feel that that is wrong but you have no evidence to support your idea. Does one listen to NASA or a random person on the internet. I’m not saying you are wrong I am saying you have no evidence just a feeling that you know better.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  83. Mc Slaggart (profile) says:

    Harry Flashman

    UK Labour leader Ed Miliband saying it has become a national security issue. Climate sceptics continue to question the science – and sometimes the existence – of global warming.

    Mr Kerry, who has spent much of his long career in the US Senate pushing for climate action, likened such views to those held by people who used to insist that the earth was flat.

    “The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand,” he said.”

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a77a329e-9713-11e3-a274-00144feab7de.html#axzz2to3HqLwd

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  84. mrmrman (profile) says:

    Have a look at this report commissioned by the ABI carried out by the MET office:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/services/finance/abi-report

    It represents the likely changes in weather related losses if the temperature rises between 2 and 4 degrees which on the basis of some *projections* this will take 100 years.

    Hardly the end of the world.

    On the strength of this report it’s hardly surprising that the government is playing lip service to climate change. It gets them elected and that’s as far as they are prepared to go because there is a very real risk to us all in not pursuing economic growth. This is magnified even more in developing worlds where economic growth literally saves millions lives.

    Don’t expect India to shut down it’s coal fired power stations just because our insurance premiums will be going up.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  85. Delphin (profile) says:

    So MrMrman, what do you think should be done to mitigate against the risks outlined in the Met office report you posted?

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  86. IrelandNorth (profile) says:

    HMs PM appeared surprised at the reluctance of Local Authorities across flooded parts of old Anglo-Saxonia to call in the military. Seems the Royal Irish Regiment (RIR) were drafted into England from N Ireland to help out with flood defences, even if seen standing around looking like film extras without equity cards. A case of propaganda over plungering seemingly. But to what extent are TV channels free in reporting the best available version of the truth, before secret services step in to exert not a little editorial exertion in the social construction of reality across the British and/or Irish Isles. And why obliged N Irish newscasters to use semantics they’re patently uncomfortable with. Or to wheel in Irish reporters into studio for little reason other than to wear poppies in Novenber.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  87. mr x (profile) says:

    Overpopulation and the resulting wars is far worse than global warming. The UK Government doesn’t have a good record on organising industry – compare and contrast the development of oil in the North Sea and the history of the coal industry since 1975.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Copyright © 2003 - 2014 Slugger O'Toole Ltd. All rights reserved.
Powered by WordPress; produced by Puffbox.
322 queries. 2.526 seconds.