Who is winning the climate change argument?
December 4th, 2009
Will the public support tough action?
Last week in response to the thread asking for suggestions for possible polling questions several PBers put forward the idea of finding out what the public believed about what for many is the key issue of the age - the extent to which humanity is responsible for climate change.
This is central to all policy development because if human behaviour is to blame then maybe something can be done about it. But what if humanity is not to blame or if climate change is not really happening at all?
As it happened PB’s pollster, Angus Reid, have been running a series of surveys in several countries ahead of the Copenhagen summit and a question along these lines was put to the 2,017 respondents to the British poll. The response to the key question is reproduced above.
The finding that just 47% of the sample agreed that global warming was a fact caused by the actions of humanity is significant and quite worrying for political leaders of all parties. For if fewer than one in two believe how can key policies win pubic support.
The polling took place at a time when the release of the University of East Anglia emails was getting a fair bit of coverage. Maybe that has had an impact.
As we can see the detailed breakdown - it’s older males who are the least likely to believe.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I’m somewhere between 2 and 3.. or does that mean I’m not sure.
The Climategate debacle has opened up a real Pandora’s box for those who would seek to close down debate on this issue.
That the IPCC and key agencies have been effectively run by a tiny self selecting clique of scientists who are now proven to have deleted, amended or fiddled their data and models and will not share them is going to be tremendously undermining. The doubts and scepticism will never go away.
Maybe MMGW is real. Maybe it’s not. Maybe if it is real it still poses a low risk,. Maybe it will wipe us all out tomorrow. The sad thing is that we just don’t know. And those who pretend hardest that they do have just been exposed as scientific frauds.
We need to go back to the drawing board on climate change and enforce full transparency and proper scientific methods. Let’s first of all get a full open historical data set and a model that satisfactorily explains the last 50 year’s climate - including the cooling of the last 10 years or so. Then - and only then - should we base policy upon proper science.
The question you ask ‘who is winning’ is very much like asking who was winning WW2 in 1941. OK, so half think MMGW is true and half don’t - or thereabouts. Much more important is what trend is behind those numbers? Where will we be in another 5 year’s time?
MMGW has become a religion for some and a false idol for others. Myself I’d prefer it to become a matter of proper scientific analysis and theory. The whole thing has become horribly political up to now. Finding that MMGW may be hokum will ruin some and make others. Finding that it is true will be the same.
Let’s just find out.
…and in maths and science what most people think is entirely irrelevant. If 999,999 out of 1,000,000 think that 2+2=5 - well they’d still all be wrong.
Facts and models that work backwards (so they may work looking forwards) are what we need.
And the policy debate should then become ‘what is the optimal response?’ rather than the more simplistic’how can we stop this?’. Maybe we’d be better off buildiong flood defences or buying aircon units if it’s getting hotter than knackering our economy. The whole debate is fantastically immature right now. I expect in another 10 or 20 years it will have grown up.
Still, the poll fails to bear out the assertions of some posters here about what the British public think - a narrow plurality accept man-made global warming is a fact.
Most of us don´t really know, do we? We rely on those who have better access to the data, and who have the expertise to interpret them - as was the case over the war in Iraq.
As Blair detroyed our faith in Labour politicians, so a group of scientists has also betrayed us.
Would it be too much to think that the Labour Party should be disbanded because of the one; and that the University of East Anglia closed down and all its graduates disqualified? Both are failed institutions.
Or would that be unfair?
4 FWIW I think MMGW is a fact - but a much, much less threatening one than the doomsters predict. We need a mature response. Chucking our economy and living standards out of the window strikes me as an immature political response.
And much of the climate debate inevitably becomes an energy debate. The risk of us running out of affordable energy is much more real threat than runaway global warming.
A really smart politician would take us in the direction of nuclear power, renewables, efficient vehicles, heat pumps for housing, etc not to ’save the planet’ but because the country needs the energy and the risk of a severe tightening of energy supply vs demand poses real and major economic risks to our country (and others).
6. “Chucking our economy and living standards out of the window strikes me as an immature political response.”
And also not, for the most part, what anyone is actually calling for - merely adaptations, albeit significant ones.
5 “Blair destroyed our faith in Labour politicians”.
With due respect, speak for yourself on this one. When Labour were elected I thought it would be a disaster for the UK. My faith in that hasn’t changed.
7 What do you think the practical impact of cutting our CO2 to pre-1999 levels would entail? This is not something that can be achieved quickly. See this in Nature about how long it really takes to make meaningful changes to the energy mix:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462568a.html
Some of the more hardcore hairshirt Green types are indeed advocating a virtual return to the stone age.
…a view on sea levels from an expert:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5595813/why-the-maldives-arent-sinking.thtml
The public are required to decide on many issues they have no detailed knowledge about.
In the past they/we would trust their/our elected representatives, who had the time and the resources to work out the answers to the problems that arise.
For example I remember wrestling with my own conscience in 2003 about Iraq. There seemed to be many doubts as to the validity of the case for going to war, but as we only had one way of resolving issues at that time, that is trusting our leaders, that is what I decided to do, and give Blair the benefit of the doubt. There was no way I could have acquired the necessary knowledge myself.
I would not do that now. Blair and Alastair Campbell effectively ended permanently the relationship of trust between the government and the people of Britain, which had existed throughout many generations, .
Since the arrival of the internet, (there was not much in the way of the blogosphere in 2003) it is now possible to find out a far greater amount of detail on most topics quickly without much effort, and to view the opinions of some proficient analysts. I would not now give the benefit of the doubt to a political leader on any important topic, but would prefer to find people to read, and come to a conclusion separately to the political system.
On climate change, I have never trusted the politicians. There have been a number of excellent sources indicating for a long time that the evidence for global warming is mostly fabricated. It is interesting how the truth has finally spilled into the MSM, after many years of being around the blogosphere.
It’s interesting to see in this poll that the public weren’t so easily conned by it all as they hoped.
I doubt the media can put the climate scare back together again in a hurry. There’ll have to rush around and rebuild swine flu, or bird flu, or SARS into a major scare, or hope some Iranians fire a nuclear weapon at Israel or anything to keep us suppressed with sufficient fear that we don’t ask too many questions as to what they are really up to - mostly lining their pockets or looking for nice jobs for themselves and their families.
Manufacturing fear is the biggest business on the planet.
The internet is the antidote.
Seems cat is out of bag and GW has been exposed for the tax raising ploy it always was.
The give away was they never seemed to be tax neutral.
11 Excellent post.
Taxes do have to rise though - green/brown/death - you still have to pay them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/6722123/Bailing-out-the-banks-cost-5500-per-family.html
Rescuing the banking system has cost the equivalent of more than £5,500 for every family in the country, an official audit has found.
14. “Some of the more hardcore hairshirt Green types are indeed advocating a virtual return to the stone age.”
Precisely - that is not the mainstream view among those who advocate taking this problem seriously.
We can debate the emails until we are blue in the face, but the West Antarctic and Greenland Ice sheets are thinning, the glaciers in the Alps, Himalayas and Rockies are retreating, the weather in the north west atlantic is getting more extreme and there is less sea ice at the north pole. Oh and global oil prices are rising to extreme levels.
So politicians can win this argument and lead our country towards an economy that uses less carbon or we can talk about ‘climateemailgate’ and create the fear that there is a global conspiracy and do nothing.
Finally who are we going to believe people in the Maldives and those who study the retreating ice or the Saudi’s
“Pubic support”? I have a few suggestions as how to prop up the ….. involved.
I also think the money quote should be qualified by “mostly caused” rather than just “caused” as I think the thinking man’s argument is to the extent of human influence rather than denying any at all.
The Sun: ‘Speaker’s wife: My wild booze and sex sprees’
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/2757447/Speakers-wife-My-wild-booze-and-sex-sprees.html
If Copenhagen fails it will be all dem nasty Tories fault..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6719556/Copenhagen-climate-conference-climate-saboteurs-including-senior-Tories-risk-a-deal.html
Mr Miliband said: “I think it is profoundly irresponsible for people who have held positions of high office such as Nigel Lawson [the Tory former chancellor of the exchequer] and David Davis [shadow home secretary] to be doing what they are doing.
“The problem is that it is very dangerous because here is someone who is not a scientist saying somehow there is doubt about this and that the world is not getting warmer.
“Politicans across the spectrum have a responsibility on this. The Tory party’s difficulties are a matter for them but we should not be casting doubt on this when there is no need for doubt.”
However Mr Davis said that he is not questioning the science behind global warming but the politics and how the world deals with the problem.
“We need an adult debate about this rather than infantile name calling,” he said.
Fact remains that the majority of scientists consider that climate change is being affected by man, while a minority of scientists disagree. The leaked emails did not, in fact, blow away all the evidence cited by the former. I won’t deny (ooh, I’m comparing myself to Shoah deniers…) that I’m also influenced by the fact that some of the strongest voices against the argument are journalists like Mel Philips, which really doesn’t fill me with confidence.
Apart from the fact that China INCREASES its CO2 emissions by more than the total man made production from the UK each year means unless you get China and India onboard its pretty meaningless.
All tax is seen the same way by those who have to pay it. The Govt will no doubt use it to hit the wealthier in society and make sure they all move to another country.
Also, the question is flawed. If you are are a scientist, you might well put 3 even if you think the evidence is very strong and we should dramatically cut carbon emissions as a precaution. A lot of people would dislike the unequivocal statement in 1 but still believe that global warming is caused by man.
A further pedantic but serious point is that degradation and burning of forest and the spread of agriculture may be equally or more to blame as vehicles and industrial facilities…..
So, overall, it is likely to understate th number of people who would support significant carbon reduction cuts.
19. Heh - ironic that the thicker Miliband failed to see the irony in
“The problem is that it is very dangerous because here is someone who is not a scientist saying somehow there is doubt about this and that the world is not getting warmer. ”
So any scientist will do - even if they know nothing about climate change :
“Nicholas Herbert Stern, Baron Stern of Brentford, Kt, FBA (born 22 April 1946, Hammersmith) is a British economist and academic. He is IG Patel Professor of Economics and Government “
Oh and China’s recent announcement that it would cut CO2 usage per unit of growth in GDP is meaningless too. If it grows by 100% in the next 10 years then its output of CO2 can go up 99% and it still hits its commitment!
This is electoral poison for the Conservative Party, on a scale comparable with Europe potentially, because Cameron is out of step with the majority of his party, particularly the gobby ones who now have had Europe shut down as an issue.
“The polling took place at a time when the release of the University of East Anglia emails was getting a fair bit of coverage. Maybe that has had an impact.”
A 14 November poll in The Times had very similar numbers:
“Only 41 per cent accept as an established scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made. Almost a third (32 per cent) believe that the link is not yet proved; 8 per cent say that it is environmentalist propaganda to blame man and 15 per cent say that the world is not warming.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6916648.ece
Two polls mentioned in the FT may be of interest.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/95ca3398-a710-11de-bd14-00144feabdc0.html
25. Is everyone in the Labour party so fick they believe all this green garbage ? No free thinkers amoungst the troops ?
25 - tim, the new group set up by Lawson is pretty much a cross party group. I don’t believe for a minute that doubts exist only within one party or another with the exception of the greens naturally.
23 Sorry, Stern specifically looked - no doubt with other specialist colleagues - at the economics of climate change. You have told us he has an Economic background. Are you trying to mislead your readers, or just careless with the facts? I won’t accuse you of being thick.
27 - There’s no great split in the Labour Party, the prevailing view is that Climate Change is happening and is a mix of man made and natural factors.
There are Euro sceptics in the Labour party, but they didn;’t rip their party apart over the issue, they chose to do that a decade earlier over nuclear disarmament.
There’s potential for grumbling, the Tory party has potential for implosion, as this thread will demonstrate.
Older males being the most skeptical sounds about right, given that most of the people active on the internet who are looking at the statistics of temp reconstruction are retired engineers.
28 - Do you know what the Lawson group believe?
“particularly the gobby ones”
Ah, remember the days when Labour MPs could think for themselves ?
Not much chances of a new Dennis Skinner emerging from the media managed muppets of today.
29. So he’s an economist like Lord Lawson (ex CoE) but only one of them can comment on climate change mumbo jumbo in Eddys world ?
I cant see much about economics in these pearls of wisdom..
“The Copenhagen summit is the world’s last chance to save the planet from “catastrophic” global warming, according to a major study led by Lord Stern of Brentford ”
“It is possible to create a 50/50 chance of avoiding a rise in global average temperature of more than 2C, which many scientists regard as the threshold for dangerous climate change,” he said. “To do this we need to halt and reverse the growth of annual emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, reducing them from about 47 billion tonnes in 2010 to about 44 billion tonnes in 2020, and decreasing to must less than 20 billion tonnes in 2050.”
“The former adviser to the UK Treasury has also advocated individuals “do their bit” by eating less meat, flying less and recycling more. ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6701307/Copenhagen-summit-is-last-chance-to-save-the-planet-Lord-Stern.html
30 - I agree with your first sentence, but I have a sneaky suspicion you hope for the outcome you describe.
3. It matters politically. Even if the science on MMGW is right and a solution can be found and the leaders can come up with a method of implementing it, that still has to be sold to the electorates of the various countries. It will be no easy task to sell (further) reduced living standards at a time of recession.
In Europe that won’t be a problem - the political class is so sold that the electorate won’t have an option beyond the extremes (though those extremes will benefit marginally if these conditions do come to pass). In the USA, Australia and perhaps Canada, that will be different. Without China and India, there’s no viable deal; without the US, there’s not even the semblance of one.
Democrat presidents have a record of signing grand treaties that they’re unable to deliver. Whether it’s because they’re engaging in gesture politics or whether that it’s that they have an inflated opinion of their own ability to persuade doubters (or both) doesn’t really matter. It’s not whether Obama signs, it’s whether the Senate ratifies. If he does sign something that contains more than hot air, those ratification debates will surely be influenced by the looming mid-terms.
If that is the case, and if it’s widely realised, the whole Copenhagen thing becomes a charade: it’s not about delivering a deal, it’s about positioning so that the players aren’t landed with blame for when it fails.
32 - you can read it here..
http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are.html
Sounds OK to me, a proper debate is what’s required, especially after all the recent hysteria from both sides.
19 - “We need an adult debate about this rather than infantile name calling,” he said.
Oh the Irony……
34
“do their bit”= make sacrifices the political class won’t be making themselves ( bar the occasional bit of window dressing )
I can only think that self-interest is motivating the deniers - and I suppose the blogosphere is a place where people can publish batty ideas with no questions asked, so of course that is where they have cropped up first.
As for the UEA email issues - anyone remotely familiar with what goes on among scientists will know that they have the most vicious arguments among themselves - hide things, fabricate evidence?? Well, yes, occasionally. How about Mendel’s early work on genetics? He fabricated figures, but what he found out was still regarded as basically right, and is still regarded in many circles as the father of genetics as a science. So let’s retain a sense of proportion.
And as for blaming “politicians” for promulgating global warming and the need to do something about it?? Frankly, quite a lot still don’t want to accept likely consequences, and the majority of those who do have got on board when they have realised that the direction and weight of evidence - and the speed of change - is incontrovertible!
So “freethinkers”? What a load of rubbish!
40. “a place where people can publish batty ideas with no questions asked”
UEA ?
37 - Absolutely, its not a group of “deniers”
(can we have an alternative name, that sucks)
40
what you mean is you can’t win an argument by convincing people so they must be forced to conform
authoritarianism hasn’t gone away merely changed its name to Tim13
37 Yes, of course - but doesn’t the GWPF take a less active line on reacting to Global Warming? Surely the more realistic work of Stern and his colleagues (which I believe he has declared over-optimistic since, in the light of advancing science) is a fairly central description of what is happening?
30. Splits are not necessarily a bad thing provided that they produce a reasoned and civilised debate - that is how better policy develops. They’re only a problem if they become paralysing or factional.
Labour has plenty of scope for division: IIRC, their MPs have rebelled in greater numbers and more frequently than any governing party’s for decades.
The real reason that there aren’t Labour MMGW sceptics (or denyers) is that the believers are so strongly represented within the party that they’d have trouble getting selected. The stance would be not unlike being a Europhile in the Tories: a handful of long-serving MPs, respected for other reasons, might be tolerated with such ‘heresy’ but no new candidates will be selected with those views.
Labour’s biggest internal debate in recent years was Iraq. It’s interesting that tim references the CND debates of the ’80s instead. Iraq still too sore?
Even if there was the potential for a serious Tory split on this (and there isn’t - at the least the issue will be put on the backburner for the time being), I’m highly sceptical that there’ll be anything meaningful to debate that comes out of Copenhagen.
After Darling watering down his defecit reduction proposals(according to the FT)expect Stg to take a hit over the next few days until the truth is revealed next Wednesday.
40, either that, or people are sceptical as hell of zealots.
We do have finite resources, so I am not advocating doing nothing. Energy costs have risen so drastically in the last few year that just heating their homes has become a source of great anxiety for lots of elderly people and those on low incomes. What i would like to see is the scientists from both camps working together instead of points scoring. Unfortunately the lure of large research grants, I fear, has tipped the scales in one direction. I’d just like the truth if that’s at all possible, but then again I am probably being naive.
48. Correct there is more to green issues than AGW - reducing landfill, minimising the use of finite resources, reducing ALL pollution (not just the poisonous C02
) and being less dependant on imported energy are all policies which the vast majority of people will support.
47 - Yep, I mean “deniers”
Burn them! (or perhaps give thaem a “battering” with an enormo Haddock)?
43 Can still debate options - but how would you go about dealing with an air crash alanbrooke? Sit there and debate for hours while any possible survivors die in the wreckage? That is precisely what is being done here on a much more complex scale.
I have been arguing for many years (as have the Lib Dems and Liberals before them) for an early and more liberal response to these issues. I attended the Liberal Assembly in 1967 where there was an extremely enlightened debate on environmental degradation and prescriptions for action. It was not couched in GW terms, of course, because that had not been used at that point. This, of course, was long before the Green Party, or its two previous incarnations as “People” and “Ecology Party” were invented!
50, my enormo-haddock do not believe in global warming, mostly. Those that do welcome it, as it would entail an increase in the marine environment.
20
“I’m also influenced by the fact that some of the strongest voices against the argument are journalists like Mel Philips, which really doesn’t fill me with confidence.”
An argument as stupid as a sceptic claiming they do not believe in AGW because James Delingpole or Chris Booker advocate that position. If anyone came on here claiming to be a sceptic because of something a jourmalist believed they would be rightly laughed off the page. The same should apply to the argument in reverse.
52. Do haddocks eat shellfish ? In which case it could be bigger than enormo ?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/oh-snap-co2-causes-ocean-critters-to-build-more-shells/
29
“Sorry, Stern specifically looked - no doubt with other specialist colleagues - at the economics of climate change.”
And has subsequently chosen to pontificqate in a very ignorant manner about the scientific fact of AGW. A complete moron.
Follow the money..
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html
Thus, the European Commission’s most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that’s not counting funds from the EU’s member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA’s climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA’s, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.
49 - the problem is we get this “50 days to save the planet” stuff. That just puts a lot of people off.
There are (at least) 4 groups of deniers
1. Those that deny the climate is changing.
2. Those that deny human activity is proven to be the primary driver of any such change.
3. Those that deny anything other than human activity could be the primary driver of such change
4. Those that deny anything other than dramatic CO2 reduction is the best course of action.
It is left as an exercise to the reader to identify which of these groups is the greatest threat to life as we know it.
58.
There are (at least) 4 groups of alarmists
1. Those that think the planet is doomed in 50 days regardless.
2. Those that think the planet is doomed unless we are all taxed into penury.
3. Those that think the planet is doomed unless all fun activity eg holidays are cancelled.
4. Those that think the planet is doomed unless we cancel all bankers bonuses, private schools and technological progress and return to hunter gathering.
It is left as an exercise to the reader to identify why support for the theory of AGW is dropping like a stone.
51
So a Liberal in a black shirt ? Life is full of surprises.
I’m afraid it is exactly this approach of trying to scare the crap out of people which is counter productive. Everyone is fully justified in treating political causes ( and GW is now a poltical cause ) with a high degree of cynicism as politics have killed more people than alleged GW. At present I am not aware of anyone whose death is directly attributable to GW.
The panic the herd approach saying there is no alternative is usually always wrong. There has always been something every year the Malthusians have been enjoying in their grim collectives. In fact humanity has faced up to its challenges in most instances and as societies get wealthier they are more disposed and capable of taking care their immediate environment.
So if you really want to save the planet make the poor richer faster.
58
you forgot category 5
those who enjoy watching the hypocrisy of greenies telling us all to change while they blog millions of tons of carbon from exotic locations. I’m hoping this will become an olympic sport, we could win a medal.
Nigel Lawson has long held an interesting view on climate change.
http://tinyurl.com/ylhkt46
Why the hurry?
How to make coping with climate change (AGW or not) popular - my mini manifesto:
a) Switch taxes and subsequent rebates to recycling and reducing pollution with the carrot of - saving people money.
b) Promote technological advance as the way to reduce all emmissions and improve fuel efficiency - ie saving people money.
c) Build enough nuclear power stations so we a not dependant on imported oil/gas nor whether it is windy or not - build extra so we can sell the excess abroad and make a profit which is rebated to the tax payer - saving people money.
Simples.
It is interesting that younger people and females are more likely to believe in MMGW than older people and males. Some anecdotal support for my theory that the rise in Green support is driven by the young.
I am reminded of the debate on the casues of lung cancer.For years the tobacco indstry lobbied that the link was unproven.We were constantly given exampoles of people who had smoked all their life but lived to aripe age.Of course there are exceptions to general rule.
in the climate change debate the facts are that Co2 level sin the atmosphere are rising.Science says that global temperature rise will follow.This is happening to ocean and land temeratures and at a higher rate in the Artic inparticular,and with rare exceptions glaciers are retreating.
Some of the observed warming could be due to natural causes but that does not mean that the bulk of the impact is not man made.Similarly the current poosible cooling does not negate the long term link beween c02 and warming-just as a 100 day smoker who live sto 100 doesnt prove that smoking that smoking doesnt is nt linked lung cancer!
I think however that the real problem lie in the nature of the future projections.The Science and the reporting of it gives the impression that thefigures are definite and not a range of probabilities.It is quite right to have debates on this.
meanwhile since PR is very important congratulations to the denoers for getting some useful ammunition -just in time forthe Copenhagen summit-I hear this mporning that the Saudis have said there should be no cuts on emissions at Copenhagen.There’s a surprise!
Excellent gw debate on the beeb just now - the worm has turned
54, enormo-haddock have a wide-ranging diet including, but not limited to, shellfish, sushi, McDonalds, Yorkshire pudding and Big Issue salesmen.
65. So the medieval warm period when the Vikings colonised and farmed Greenland and the Little ice age causing freezing of the Thames in the 16-1700s were caused by ?? Passive smoking by polar bears ??
63 - Excellent ideas. I would add invest in tidal power.
66 - Indeed. Would have been unheard of a month ago.
Action on climate chage will cost money.
I think an inheritance tax dodger like Inbred Ed will struggle to persuade ‘hardworking families’ that £2 per litre petrol and heating bills of £200 per month are a good idea.
IIRC Labour supporter Ian Bailey said this week that people will never vote for debt reducing spending cuts and tax rises.
The same argument applies to climate change costs.
So what we’ll get on both in the next few weeks are a lot of noble sentiments and vague promises to do something in the future.
69. Yes add all non-seasonal renewables to 3.
65
funnily enough the debate reminds me more of the ” inevitability of communism “. It wasn’t.
One of the homeopathy deniers:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/ten-in-ten-homeopathic-prescriptions-contain-mistakes-200912032281/
The first question is hopeless.
Emissions from domestic homes are far greater than emission from transport. Yet greenies demonise car drivers and industry pretty much to the exclusion of all others (they also forgot evil people who travel by planes - kill them all!!)
Such a biased ignorant question undermines the whole survey IMHO.
58 and 61
He’s left out number 6 as well
6. Those who deny that the hacked emails and code prove that MMGW is a lie at best and a criminal scam at worst
This is what a Green councillor in Norwich posted yesterday (see comment 4 of the link):
”There is very good reason now to believe that radical behaviour change is going to be an important part of the solution, if there is going to be any solution. Partly, because it is so much quicker than technological change, and so much more effective at slashing emissions.
We need to move onto a war footing, if we are going to win the climate war. So we should take inspiration from how World War Two was won: partly through technology, and partly through awesome behaviour change, very swiftly achieved. For example, food rationing and a huge increase in home-vegetable growing and other resilience-creating actions.”
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/12/03/re-tuning-the-environmental-movement/#comment-88474
God help us.
58. You forgot category 5 - Climategate Deniers; those who deny that any emails exist and even if they did they deny their significant.
The elephnt is the room is population.
IF MMGW is real AND signidficant, then action will have to b taken to control the world’s popualtion… and stop its increase.
As humans will always - by their actiities produce CO2 and the more ther are of them , the more CO2.
Funnily enough the warmers do not propose that.
So they are either 1> stupid, 2> liars or .. err that’s it.
And they wonder why I am a “don’t know”.
For all those talking of investing in nuclear power stations and tidal power etc have you any idea how much these will cost?
Pity that we didn’t do that 10 years ago instead of pi55ing all our borrowed money away on property speculation and imported consumer goods isn’t it.
79. Well ahem “I wouldn’t start from here but.. ”
58 - Can we please expunge the word “denier” from this debate? I would be even happier for it to be expunged from the English language (though would permit it in the context of stockings).
74
one of the joys of AGW hectoring is that you victimise groups you don’t like, rather than approach those who are doing the polluting. It’s a bit like the police targetting generally law abiding citizens for minor infringements rather than actually pursuing criminals.
The BBC have noticed that MMGW is going to be ‘reviewed’ at the UN, but for quite a little while we have been subjected to nonsense about scientists having a consensus.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394483.stm
Brown’s 50 days to save the world remark is even more absurd given the statistical fixes of Dr Jones and his merry band of self selecting peers.
81
denier is now part of the lexicon.
It’s there to put you on the back foot and make you feel you are doing something bad. Pure agitprop.
Morning all.
83 – Gordon Brown’s “50 days to save the world” remark was unfortunate; he obviously meant 50+.
76. denmark
That’s actually a sensible idea if you believe climate change is the key issue.
Growing more of our own food and making more our own goods is an idea we should look at for reasons of economic and social stability as well as environmental reasons.
Goods made in Chinese factories powered by Chinese power stations and then shipped across the world have a far higher environmental cost than if they were made here. Making them here would also provide more semi and unskilled jobs for people enhancing social stability.
Of course it would cost money but trading lower living standards for better economic, environmental and social stability is something that will need looking at.
At the moment though being green is all about putting silly windmills on your house.
As an election can no longer be held in 2009, if interested parties feel like demanding William Hills settle this market that would be good.
78. What a bizarre post. Another solution would be to build a bomb big enough to blow up the planet because no globe = no global warming. Are we all liars/stupid for not thinking that easier solutions should at least be tried first?
88. And betfair - just emailling them now
Just wanted to say what an enjoyable thread this is, compared to choccygate yesterday.
79 - Yes the cost would be huge. No ‘denying’ that.
86 - Food rationing is not a ’sensible’ idea. If people want to grow their own food, good for them. I’ll be getting mine from the supermarket. My choice and theirs. Which part of ‘awesome behaviour change’ didn’t send a chill down your spine?
76: “We need to move onto a war footing, if we are going to win the climate war. So we should take inspiration from how World War Two was won: partly through technology, and partly through awesome behaviour change, very swiftly achieved.”
Gawd help us, indeed.
These people are actually nostalgic for WWII because it gave them and their ilk unprecedented opportunity to boss everybody around. Socialism in all but name.
That’s why they ‘big up’ global warming. It’s not about saving the planet but about enslaving everybody to their will.
I like the word “denier” especially when used in discussions about the merits of stockings over tights - cue for Ptp to appear from behind the velvet curtain again?
On Thread:
Yes us older males Mike, are much more sensible about MMGW we are natural sceptics, having seen it all before.
86 - I blame globalisation, causes increases in C02 and unemployment.
( well mine anyway - my job went to India ) Whilst we are at it I think there should be a reduction on chemicals used in food in general. Must order that seed catalogue. 
Darling going to raise inheritance tax?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8cf0ff68-e04f-11de-8494-00144feab49a.html
So they have given up on the South of England after all.
96 - always on the cards that one, it goes with the incessant attacks on the Tories on their IHT policy.
“Funds from tax rises – likely to include changes to inheritance tax – will be channelled into growth initiatives, including “green” technology and a £1bn “jobs guarantee” for young people.”
There you go.. green technology. Die to save the planet.
denier is now part of the lexicon.
It’s there to put you on the back foot and make you feel you are doing something bad. Pure agitprop.
Never used the term “political correctness”? Also used in that way.
So what was the term “blackshirt’ doing in your posting??
96, table from Aviva regarding inheritance. Quite interesting.
http://www.aviva.co.uk/media-centre/story/5599/brits-say-no-thanks-to-a-215-trillion-inheritance/
99 - Scotland being second certainly is.
16# lothian, you state a specific western area of the antarctic is thinning in ice cover.
latest results show that ice coverage is actually 43% more than 30 years ago, a little less in westrantarcctica abut far more in the other areas, it goes up and down, that is what climate does to ice.
blame the ozone hole, whatever, the fact is there is more ice than before. all very unhelpful if you believe the world is doomed and seawater levels are rising due to antarctica. get REAL. they are NOT.
i would be happier if climate wafflers as i call them accepted that there are areas all around the world where temps go up and down, and not just up.
clearly the results since 1961 do not match what UEA would like to prtray, as the data has been lost, accidentally of course, a bit like Blair’s expenses.
i was at UEA for my post grad; always was a shonky left wing campus and has its own approach to what is right and wrong.
What this is all about is very simple: scientists don’t trust ordinary people to make the right decision on anything. Therefore they need to be hoodwinked, even if the scientists are correct about global warming. The point is they can’t leave it to chance.
Where this all stems from, I believe, is Margarat Thatcher winning 3 elections in a row and staying in office for 11 years. Most people on the academic left - including the same kinds of people who are now top scientists - simply couldn’t believe that the country could be stupid enough to elect Thatcher in the way it did. Ever since then, this cohort of liberal-left academics has held ordinary opinion in contempt; they believe that never again should they be left to make the final decision on anything. Hence the manipulation of the data on climate change, even if - as I said before - climate change is almost certainly happening anyway.
Screw it..I’m going to be a selfish idiot and doom the planet. I don’t care anymore.
The reason the kids believe it more readily is because they are not yet jaded by the pack of lies so regularly told to us in the past by both scientists and politicians. Maybe ‘pack of lies’ is a bit strong… excitable nonsense might be fairer. Or ‘grant getting manufactured panic’.
Im also somewhere between 2 & 3. Edging towards 3 more lately. But I support work to cut CO2 simply on the basis that fuel economy is a good idea given that it is a finite resource.
Yes, the elephant in the room is population numbers. We in this country are looking at a 15% increase over the next few (in historical terms) years which will inevitably increase CO2 etc output whilst supposedly trying to reduce emmisions in their own right.
I have a Physics degree from the 1960’s awarded by a now Russell university and therefore fall within the older age group. We have seen it all before, scares and promises. Nuclear power was to be so cheap that it would be free to the consumer, geo-thermal rocks likewise whilst we would all freeze to death from a nuclear winter.
Some of the global warming advocates have at times suggested ideas which were contrary to the fundamental laws of physics, which does add to the sceptisim. I do however have to consider what it was like when the advocates that the earth was round were targetted by then fundamentalists. Rational debate is the absolutely essential.
If the scientists at the UEA have indeed fiddled the data and analysis to fit with preconceived ideas, then not only is it very worrying but potentially extremely damaging. If, and I stress if, it is proven, then there must be a clear out of all those involved in establishing such a flawed institution of learning.
54. Indeed, this older male is older enough to remember when the big climate scare was that we were heading into a new ice age, something which does not encourage uncritical acceptance of the latest climate scare. Also, we older sorts have not spent our entire lives being subjected to a barrage of one-sided propaganda on this debate (I mean - putting a copy of “An Inconvenient Truth” in every school!). I’m not surprised the younger generation are less sceptical given that they’ve spent their entire lives being told there’s only one opinion that normal, decent people are allowed to have.
105. Gah - 54 should read 94!
I see sometime, (but not for some time) PB’r S.Jackson MP, he of the, ‘If you say that again I’ll set my lawyers on you’ is in the news.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6719986/MPs-expenses-Stewart-Jackson-says-constituents-are-whingers-and-moaners.html
Another important element of this morning’s BBC news was the reference by the sceptical scientist to ‘vested interests’ pushing the GW agenda.
These certainly exist - apart from the obvious environmentalists and grant-seeking scientists, there are two other important groups.
First, politicians of what might loosely be termed ‘world government’ persuasion, who seek to use GW as a means of creating overarching global political institutions which will of course be beneficently overseen by themselves.
Secondly, there are now massive corporate vested interests pushing the GW agenda. Greenies naively think big business is their enemy in this struggle, but this has long since ceased to be the case.
Some time ago a large chunk of the business establishment realised it was much better to try to turn the GW movement to their own advantage. Significant investments have since been made aiming at reaping the profits from the government-led expansion of various GW-related activities.
The value of these investments is now in serious question in the wake of the climategate scandal. Hence the apparently innocuous item on the Beeb news this morning about how hundreds of business organisations have been lobbying for a deal at Copenhagen, which will apparently allow them to create ‘wealth’ and ‘jobs’ etc…..
GB at Climate Change news conference on Sky..
96 Yes, I think they have. If they seriously thought they could retain seats like Hendon, Harrow East, and Westminster North, they wouldn’t contemplate such a move.
From their point of view, it’s a sensible strategy. Accept that 100 or so seats are lost, and concentrate on trying to save those that are safer for them.
107. Was this you he was refering to ?
Mr Jackson said yesterday: “I am proud of Peterborough and its achievements but a hard core of individuals, mostly Labour Party supporters hiding beneath the cloak of anonymity, constantly carp and criticise the city, the local council and my self as the local Member of Parliament.
“They refuse to concede anything positive and are too cowardly to enter into an open debate.
98
“political correctness” was yet another failed import from the USA. The left named it hence the prissy “correct” if it had been rightwing then the terminology would have been much more scatalogical.
2 “Myself, I’d prefer it to become a matter of proper scientific analysis and theory.”
Exactly. I worked for many years on environmental modelling (not climate change) in two organisations. One key aim in both companies was to maintain the scientific credibility of our work. We certainly didn’t use our results to campaign for particular courses of action.
Unfortunately this is the trap that the AGW group of scientists has fallen into. They should leave saving the world to others, and focus on the scientific credibility of their work.
16 Writing down a string of empirical observations of climate change doesn’t prove that they result from man’s activities.
104. The idea that the Earth was flat and advocates of a round earth were treated with derision or even oppression is something of an urban myth. Columbus for example met with scepticism because his calculation of the circumference of the Earth was wildly wrong, not because he claimed it was round (he thought the Earth was about 14,000 miles round not 25,000 - a rather important point if you’re trying to reach China by sailing west from Europe, he was lucky America was in the way). Geocentricity vs. heliocentricity was a much more controversial debate however.
In any case, every time I hear this argument I’m reminded of Carl Sagan’s retort - “Yes, they laughed at Galileo and they laughed at Copernicus - but they also laughed at Coco the Clown.”
Coco the clown appears to be working at the UEA at the moment.
In
113 - There is a delicious irony that the professor at the heart of the East Anglia University/ Climatic Research Unit scam is now on ‘Gardening leave’
I’m sure Dave wouldn’t, ‘Hug a Huskie’ without good reason.
Tories lose North Thanet ward to Labour
Dane Valley, Thanet (North Thanet) a Lab gain from Con. Con vote was 24% -20, Lab 34% -3, LD 28% from nowhere, Ind 14% from nowhere. The “Grey Party” did not stand losing 19%. Dane Valley: CON 222; LAB 318; LD 260; IND 130.
This shouldn’t be happening, should it? Anyone from that area with an explanation?
‘Grey Party’ who they?
Oh no, now this thread has people trying to scare us about increasing population……
A few weeks ago, The Economist demonstrated that this is rapidly becoming a non-issue because of rapidly dropping family size in most parts of the world. Also, population in the developed world (which produces most carbon emissions) will soon actually start falling…so this is not the elephant in the room, more like a mouse.
65. So the medieval warm period when the Vikings colonised and farmed Greenland and the Little ice age causing freezing of the Thames in the 16-1700s were caused by ?? Passive smoking by polar bears ??
by The Ghost of Harry Flashman December 4th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Absolutely correct GOHF, there have always been warming and cooling periods in world climate. There are major shifts of climate about once every 10/12,000 years due it is believed to our planetary journey around the sun, and the suns journey through our arm of the milky way.
The way man has interfeared with the planet is due mainly to the birth of agriculture. For instance 4,000 years ago the north african plain was grassland and the levant was forested; all destroyed by primitive acriculture.
118. So the projections about a 15% increase in our population (to 70 million) are wrong? Then why are we being urged to build 3 million more homes in places people do not want?
106
I can remember not just the new Ice Age scare in the 70s and the joy of watching Prince Charles warning us of global warming in the 80s whilst stood in the middle of a heavy rainstorm. Only the ark was missing.
25 years on I’m still waiting to plant the orange tree in the back garden but the Mediterranean climate just won’t move north.
I forgot to mention this set of vested interests of course
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/03/copenhagen-summit-carbon-trading-scam
120
the projected UK population growth is primarily driven by uncontrolled immigration - but that is another thread !
Just as I thought.
The Tory herd has an issue that makes their behaviour on Europe appear rational by comparison.
117 FPT -
#
Thanet DC Dane Valley Labour gain from Conservatives who drop to 3rd
Lab 318 LibDem 260 Con 222 Ind 130
2007 result Con 639/629/615 Lab 558/554/482 Ind 269
Not quite as good for Labour as it looks as this is the ward where the resigning Conservative councillor tried to represent from Panama . LibDems 2nd depite never standing in this ward before .
by Mark Senior December 3rd, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Morning all and in my humble opinion Global Warming as a political issue is like Europe, in that it gets a few diehards hot under the collar and most people dont give a damn. After all if someone is facing redundancy or repossession or even a flooded house, why care about global warming? It is the immediate which counts to most.
I suspect it is the LibDems who have most to fear from those voters who are electorally turned on by global warming as an issue. They can seep votes to the Greens and vice versa.
So in Norwich south and Brighton Pavilion we will probably see them cancel one another out and the Tories capture both seats.
124 - Stop being a t1t Tim.
120 Yes, it is probably wrong but the small increase that will exist is primarily driven by immigration which from a global perspective doesn’t matter……
The point is not that there is no global population increase but that this is quite manageable and not that significant in carbon terms.
83
I was wondering what the hell was going on when the BBC reported climategate.
After listening carefully, it seems that somebody has decided the e-mails were ‘leaked’ rather than ‘hacked’ and, perhaps more importantly, the IPCC has decided to investigate to see if ‘British Scientists’ have been fibbling around with the data.
I found this out from Roger Harrabin, who assured everybody listening that the consensus of a majority remains unchanged and the data proves AGW is a fact.
The same Roger Harrabin mentioned in the e-mails
and who comes to the subject from a strange position.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2007/10/12/roger-harrabin.html
111 - Your view is mirrored here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/6721606/Zac-Goldsmith-row-A-gift-for-Labours-class-warriors.html
I must admit to feeling a bit of sympathy for Zac.
Becoming a poster boy for Non Doms, Inheritance Tax, Eton, Green hypocrisy and recognising married adulterers in the tax system all in one week is one hell of an achievement.
Board of Trustees of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (Lawson’s think tank):
Lord Barnett (Labour)
Bishop of Chester
Lord Donoughue (Labour)
Lord Fellowes (Crossbench)
Sir Martin Jacomb (Barclays, BoE)
Lord Lawson (tory)
Henri Lepage (French Economist)
Baroness Nicholson (Lib Dem)
Lord Turnbull (Crossbench)
And the Scientific Advisors:
http://www.thegwpf.org/academic-advisory-council.html
130 I agree with you - his take on the Sun was quite courageous but all it has done is put him in the limelight with predictably bad results…..
A gift also to wealthy (if not in the same league as Zac) and domiciled Susan Kramer. Should be a cracking constituency constest in Richmond Park.
130: You’re using the ‘married adulterers’ card? I think secretly your a member of the turpin taliban.
Were you equally scathing of John Prescott, Roger Cook, one of Gordons Mates from scotland (can’t remember his name now), + numerous other labour cheaters?
I don’t actually know, although I have suspicions, whether global warming is man made. I’ve seen both sides of the debate presented with theological certainty.
What I do know is that the actual reaction, if any, will be irrelevant if one case turns out to be true, and inadequate if the other case does.
132: Umm ZG is now domiciled I think you’ll fine.
112
He did get a bit upset with me on one occasion, but we did sort of debate.
Peterborough! hmmm seems to have a tendency to pick odd MP’s the Labour Party had an idiot….and the tradition continues.
I was a big fan of Hereward the Wake y’know.
It might not be PC but I reckon the scientist who got the solution to global warming right was the one the other day who said the most effective and least expensive way of dealing with it either mass sterilisation or something like a pandemic.
There are simply a couple of billion too many people on the planet.
The birth rate in most western european countries is falling so perhaps it is time to tie food and other aid programmes to mass sterilisation programmes in Africa, Asia and South America. After all with improved medical aid, women no longer have to have 10 or 15 children in the expectation more than half will die in infancy/childhood.
If countries with rapidly expanding populations particularly the Indian sub-continent, Africa and Asia dont grasp this particular thorn then they will suffer mass unrest as water and food become even more scarce.
Alternatively we simply wait for one or more of the major volcanoes in the “ring of fire” to blow and then we wont have to worry about the population of countries like Indonesia growing exponentially. With more than 6 major eatherquakes in the area this year already, one of them must be due to blow fairly soon.
re 124, But nothing as irrational as you Tim.
there is nothing more boring to be in a meeting talkign about something that will never be solved imo –Climate change is exactly that. For all the bumph and hot air talked about it (and I happen to believe that man casues gloabl warming ) nobody will ever find a solution (political anyway) as the globe is divided into 200 countires each with vested interests.
Only way forward is to plan for the consequences of it ,so please no more silly stunts like canoeing to the Arctic , ridiculous, expensive and patronising government adverts
138 - There’s a discussion to be had about the fascinational pull of motorway pile ups on the other carriageway I agree.
*** FOR WEATHERCOCK ***
You asked in the previous thread if the bets were still available and for what size. I’m happy to take up to £10,000 on either.
Thanks, Robert
email me at rcs1000 at g m a i l dot com.
re 140 Have you taken your medication?
119 The end of the Holocene Climatic Optimum in had more to do with the return of desert to North Africa and Middle East than did agriculture. It may be that the climate change drove agriculture as hunting gathering became less sustainable and droughts/desertification made civil organisation key so helping spread of civilisation.
It is true that removal of forests after climate has changed speeds the impact of the change as forests cause local weather effects which can keep them going even though drier conditions exist. The Sahara took thousands of years before it changed from green to sand.
It does strike me how close current climate change forecasts are to the Optimum climate - higher temperatures at the North Pole and in northern latitudes but less difference at Equator, sea levels up to 3 meters higher.
Morning all.
I think we should be careful about these poll findings, because the full impact of ClimateGate hasn’t yet hit. The mainstream media have been slow to respond to this story, and I suspect that the general public is only now waking up to the fact that the science is perhaps not as objective as we had been told. That will probably change in the next few weeks; even the Beeb seems to have woken up to the story.
Whilst I agree with antifrank about the word ‘denier’, it seems to me that the AGW establishment, and people like Miliband with his usual over-the-top and personalised attacks, are currently the ones who are in denial. The ClimateGate scandal cannot simply be brushed aside. Comparisons with other scientific controversies and occasional dirty-dealings are not valid, because we are being asked to spend literally trillions of dollars, and cause major disruption to the world’s economies, on the basis of this scientific theory; it’s not an academic exercise or something we can agree to disagree on.
It may well be that, despite the best efforts of East Anglia to bring the whole thing into disrepute, that the science is robust. I’m not qualified to judge that, and nor are most of the politicians and pundits who take very hard-and-fast positions on one side or the other. David Davis and Nigel Lawson (and indeed George Monbiot) are quite right to say that we need to take stock and have a serious look at whether the science is robust or not.
This is not, or shouldn’t be, a question of religious belief, but of balancing risk versus cost in the light of the best information available.
As for the domestic political implications: I don’t think these are significant. Apart from fools like Miliband, most responsible politicians in all parties will take the same view.
65,119.
The viking warm period and Little Ice age down to natural cycles-the latter very low sunspot activity.
However Co2 levels not a factot then.
It is likely that some of late 20th century warming could be be a natural cycle,just as curently for next ten years warming may be slowed bya north Atlantic cycle.That does not disprove that an underlying warming trend exists.
132 Slackbladder - Zac Goldmith was adopted as Richmond Park’s PPC in March 2007. IMO he could and should have renounced his non dom status prior to that date when he decided to put his name forward for selection.
143. Possibly a result of the model properties
I read somewhere that the biggest evidence for global warming (ignoring cause) is rising sea levels due to thermal expansion.
Scientists on pb.com, is this true?
Is this picture really of ED Balls?
If so, this is dynamite from Guido.
http://order-order.com/2009/12/04/ed-balls-privileged-education-in-eton-not-at-eton/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+guidofawkes+%28Guy+Fawkes%27+blog+of+parliamentary+plots%2C+rumours+and+conspiracy%29
149. Can Tim tell us if it is the fabled Latvian SS unit?
What a Balls up.
148, one thing that puzzles me slightly is that water expands when it freezes, so wouldn’t the ice caps melting decrease the volume the formerly frozen water occupies and thus lower sea levels?
Seems Ed M also upset the ladies on mumsnet
“Gordon Brown was condemned for dithering over his choice of biscuit. David Cameron was lambasted for being too slow at typing.
Yesterday Ed Miliband became the latest political victim to incur the wrath of the nation’s middle class mothers when he revealed that he had chosen to use disposable nappies for his son, who is six months old.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mums-come-out-in-a-rash-over-ministers-throwaway-remark-1833832.html
142 - I’ve drunk so much Day Nurse I’ve started to hallucinate about an elaborate IHT avoidance scheme, where money moves from father to son via anonymous third parties and no one suspects a thing.
There’s a film script in it.
152 Kristin - Aaargh! Admitting, on Mumsnet of all place, to using disposable nappies! Has he no political sense at all?
153: What are you dribbling on about tim? Any gift to anyone remains in the estate of that person for 7years regardless of if it’s to a ‘3rd party’ or father and son.
149 - It should be dynamite, but it is old news, the Daily Rant obtained this photo a while back and ran the story.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1062940/I-obeying-orders—Schools-Secretary-Eddie-Balls-dressed-German-officer.html
Oh dearie me!
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23779527-revealed-the-speakers-guide-to-luring-drunken-girls-into-bed.do
I married a teetotaler, well its cheaper.
The money will be flowing onto Farage by now.
152, is it me, or is Mumsnet of coven of whinging crones?
I’m sure there are plenty, maybe even a majority, of good members there, but all they do is bitch about any little thing. Milipede is entitled to use whatever sort of nappies he likes.
[For his son, obviously].
125. Dane Valley has had some boundary changes and according to a correspondent locally the resultant ward is one of 13 places in the whole of the UK where the number of children from families that claim out of work benefits is twice the national average.
158: What about Gordon Brown…what nappies would you advise for him?
151 problem is more the melting of the ice on Greenland and elsewhere. Can’t remember with ice whether the volume of water displaced is the same as the volume of water that the ice would create.
156. Well I didn’t know that. The photo should be splashed from every Conservative advert from now on.
Ed didn’t sue? Then it must be true.
154 - Richard.. the irony of course is he is the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change
151 - When it is ice it is all concentrated in one place - at the poles. When it is melted it spreads all over the globe. So there’s less of it, over a greater area. I guess.
So Ed how did you travel to Kobenhaven?
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23779397-price-rises-will-force-people-to-fly-less-warns-miliband.do
Didn’t old man Miliband avoid a big IHT bill, Tim?
I would love to see Millpede the Younger ambushed by a group of Charlottes, Cynthias and Carolines waving glasses of Merlot at him and hurling soiled real nappies at his car.
Shades of Tony Blair incurring the wrath of the WI a few years ago.
Good to see a near majority of respondents showing good sense and accepting what the scientists say, as opposed to the wild thrashing around that characterises all the deniers can come up with on this issue.
Several responses here fall into the “it’s too complicated for ordinary people to understand” category which in turn begs the question: who do you believe? The scientists or a motley crew of shrill, almost always wrong rightwing bloggers?
So far, the science of AGW is resulting in stacks of peer reviewed research published and available publicly all over the world.
AGW deniers on the other hand have some, er, stolen emails.
Honestly, who would you trust?
161 - and of course the ice caps sit on top of land.. so no displacement.
161: Ice is less dense than water…that why it floats and it cracks bottles when it freezes.
Am I the only person on PB who in truth is finding politics really uninteresting at present?
I feel like someone lining up at the back of the starting line for the London Marathon. I hear the starting gun fire but know that by the time I get to start running, I could have painted the garden fence read half of war and peace.
Unless something really dramatic happens, until early February here on PB we are going to have to invent political dramas simply to keep the momentum going until the GE finally gets underway for real.
167 - I prefer it when you type as Wayne.
167. Didn’t Prof Jones do his beat to obstruct FOI requests?
And why is there a hint that he was perverting the peer review process?
that one balls nazi picture is enough to stop any campaign to become PM.
it does however also say that the conservative club he was a member of may have been a tad more right wing than the norm. wahtever the norm is for people with a love of hitler.
Just caught up with last nite’s brilliant UKIP thread!
Must say I’m 100% with young Robert. I make Farage a 6/1 chance at best. Nevertheless I am surprised to find that I have very few recorded bets in my in tray this morning. I should have thought quite a few of the UKIP fanatics would have risen to the bait. Perhaps they are more sensible than I tough and are not going to put their money where their mouths are.
Robert - if by any chance you wish to offload any of the bets you have taken at 7/2, let me know. Doubt I’ll hear from you though. You’ve got some knocking good lays there and I reckon you know it.
Toodle Pip - off to Sandown now.
170 - Not at all. Politics is really boring at the moment. I asked last week for a public-spirited Lib Dem to have an encounter with a showgirl that introduced some previously-unconsidered but lubricious sexual activity.
As someone else pointed out, Lembit Opik wouldn’t count and is excused from duty for this purpose.
Well Boris is serious about climate change.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23779521-traffic-free-days-in-boris-battle-to-cut-pollution-target.do
Lets see now, banned booze on the tube, now this, his libertarian credentials looking suspect.
167: Presumably the same applies why the US and UK governments say theres WOMD in Iraq, backed up by huge amounts of evidence.
And then theres Saddam, who said he didn’t have any.
Who was right that time?
151 Actually MD if it was all freshwater then melting of the polar ice wouldn’t cause a sea level rise as the the volumes displaced by lower density ice would be same as the volume of that ice melted.
The issue I was trying to work out was freshwater glacial/polar ice versus saltwater seas. Sea water has a higher density than fresh water so freshwater ice will ,I think, displace less sea water than its melted volume would produce - so in melting would cause a rise in sea level.
The melting of the Greenland icecap and mountain glaciers would though far outweigh the melting of Arctic polar ice or Antarctic ice shelves.
167. What a hilarious troll-mail.
169, so, er, am I right?
160, Gordon Brown will use the nappies that are in the national interest, because it’s the right thing to do.
176.
Lets see now, banned booze on the tube, now this, his libertarian credentials looking suspect.
Heh. Also about the sum total of Boris’s, er, “achievements”!
It’s a pity that people don’t do some research for themselves. It has been quite clear what has been going on in the religion of global warming for many years for anyone who doesn’t rely on the MSM for their news and views. In 2003 Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph was shown up to have distorted the data that was used, this is the same Mr.Mann who is now being investigated in the States and was in cahoots with out on Phil Jones who is also being investigated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
If you have a little spare watch the video below, if you’re short of time skip to about 20 mins and watch it until about 40 mins which is the real eye opening stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0&feature=player_embedded/
Oh and has for CO2 levels and temperatures, we’re at a historical low.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
We may well have man made climate change, but let’s get the real facts and if it is true, then make some positive decisions as to how to tackle it. Green taxes don’t stop pollution, they just make us poorer and junket politicians richer. First thing I’d do would be to give money to car manufacturers like Honda & Toyota to speed up the R&D on fuel cell cars. But we won’t do that because that would mean we’d stop buying petrol & diesel and they’d lose all that revenue in Duty & VAT.
167, Why not have your say?
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=7310&edition=1&ttl=20091204101039
Why not ask about the ‘impartial’ reporting of MMGW while you’re there.
181. Freezing the GLA precept for two years running isn’t an achievement?
There’s much sound and fury on AGW matters, from bost sides of the fence. In my view, the hairshirt tendency damages its own side significantly.
Firstly, the IPCCs own scenarios found that a globalised world takes less damage from climate change and can mitigate the effects better (especially in the poorer regions) than a fragmented and regionalised one. Accordingly, air travel (which has been the subject of increasing technological efforts to reduce its eco-impact) should certainly not be at the top of the target list. Simple things like increasing energy efficiency and insulation of homes should be.
Secondly, technological change is coming along swiftly. I’ve mentioned OLED technology in the past, and the maturity of OLED lighting (especially in industrial lighting) will have a significant effect on dramatically improving energy efficiency. Moving to an A1T scenario (which wouldn’t require drastic changes) is one of the two lowest climate change scenarios that there is. The B1 scenario has as its differences from the A1 scenarios:
“-Reductions in material intensity and the introduction of clean and resource efficient technologies (which is coherent with the ‘T’ variety of A1).
- An emphasis on global solutions to economic, social and environmental stability.
- A rapid move towards a service/information economy”
That’s the most ideal of all the scenarios envisaged by the IPCC. I (and most people) would have no issues with an environmental strategy pushing towards either B1 or A1T. But we need more investment in certain technologies (nuclear, fusion, wave, energy storage, fuel cells, OLED). Crusades for these would not be as “Plane Stupid” as many of those from the hairshirt brigade (many of whom, in my opinion, use this issue as a vehicle for their own ignorant desire to return to a simpler, idealised, pre-industrial Golden Age which never existed) and would be far more beneficial to the entire world, regardless of whether or not there is AGW (IPCC estimated about 90% probability, which appears lower than the BBC’s estimate …)
aargh. bost>>both in first sentence
BREAKING NEWS:
Corus to mothball its Teesside plant in January putting 2,000 people out of work
177.
Er, wrong analogy.
The equivalent of AGW science in that sorry mess were the UN weapons inspectors.
They hadn’t found any evidence of WMD before Bush’s mad self-indulgence (and psychotic belief that a win there would seal conservative political hegemony in the US) led to the US invasion.
Ted
You are correct. Arctic sea ice melting would have only marginal effect on sea levels. Ice on land in Greenland and Antartica would have a big effect. When the Meditterean was just a lake, there was a lot more Ice on Greenland, Canada an the northern eurasian landmass.
Go to Scotland or Scandanavia and look at the amazing Glacial valleys.
145: rogerh @ 09:49
So, if I read you correctly, the Earth has always gone through cycles of warming and cooling and these have not been caused by man. Nevrtheless, we now have a warming trend, not currently discernable because of natural phenomena, that has been, and is being, caused entirely because of man’s activities.
It is a difficult argument to sell.
Is there not a model that matches past experience and so can be-relied upon to predict the future with some degree of accuracy? Scientific consensus surely cannot be relied upon, as anyone with a passing knowledge of the history of science will know, too often in the past the majority view of scientists has turned out to be completely wrong.
186 - terrible news for those workers.
182. BBC’s Have Your Say?!!!
http://www.ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com
186 - The Sun reported this ‘breaking News’ on 09 May 2009.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2420711.ece
I’d question whether it’s true that, as OGH asserts, “…the release of the University of East Anglia emails was getting a fair bit of coverage”. Outside blogs, the whole sorry episode got no coverage.
Climate change journalists are all parti pris AGW supporters, and they aren’t about to report themselves out of a job. The BBC’s Roger Harrabin is a case in point. He’s not a scientist, he’s an English graduate from Cambridge, despite which he’s an environmental correspondent. Last year, in an interview with CAM magazine, he said he thought major issues should be decided by committees of experts rather than by tiresome public debate. 1930s leftist technocracy is alive, well and working at the BBC.
Despite the deafening volume of propaganda, a large fraction of the populace can see the emperor has no clothes. Imagine what these percentages would look like if there were equal access to publicity and funding for all perspectives, and for proper scientists as well as pretend ones.
ClimateGate is actually a lot worse for the ecofascists than they have so far conceded. There are only four datasets about world temperatures in existence. Two, CRU’s and that of GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) are ground-based. We now know from their emails that CRU’s data has been falsified. GISS refuses to release its data at all; I think we know why.
The other two datasets are satellite-based. But the satellites don’t have any temperature measuring instrumentation on board, and so their temperature reports rely for the most part on inference and interpolation, calibrated on…yes, CRU and GISS! And the owners of one set of satellite data are global warming deniers.
The reason for the “Move along, nothing to see here” response is that, far from having a lot of other evidence for warming, the ecofascists actually have either little or possibly none. It is conceivable that the whole underpinning of “data” may have been cobbled together from whole cloth. There aren’t four sets of raw data, there are two, one’s corrupt and the owners of the other are behaving exactly like CRU.
It’s over. It’ll take a few years to sink in. There’ll probably always be people who’ll argue for it, like you can still find communists in Russia; but they’ll be of no account.
It’s good to be right.
130. LOL. Very funny! (Tim)
184 - Post!
I’m sure such a well informed lot as yourselves will know this anyway: but if you don’t.
There’s a council database on this site, with latest byelection news etc.
http://www.indigopublicaffairs.com/index.php?page=Blog
189. ‘Is there not a model that matches past experience ‘
You can usually find a way to fit a model more or less well to past numbers if you try hard enough (which doesn’t necessarily mean in the East Anglian sense
). Getting it to perform out of sample is the problem. Relying on ‘modelling’ is hugely problematic as the process is deeply flawed.
This poll exemplifies how science is over-simplified in the popular media. The first entry does NOT say that global warming is caused by human activities, but only by vehicles and industrial facilities. It’s a big complicated issue, but we really should try to do better.
175
I find the prospect of considering such activities by politicians as attractive as marching through a field recently vacated by a herd of diarrheaic cows.
187: No….you’re wrong. We had ‘clear’ and ‘accurate’ evidence from intelligent sources that Iraq had WMD…45mins remember?
Of course it was manipulated information for political ends. People lie for their own ends. Something which cuased a huge loss in the trust of governments.
The same governments which are telling us 50days to save the world? Backed up by dodgy science instead of dodgy docissors?
It’s the power of nightmares all over again. Just replace ‘terror’ with ‘climate change’
193. Yes one of the fascinating things to have come out of this scandal, again flagged up by the Beeb’s sceptical guest this morning, was the very slender scientific base on which the GW story has been built.
We have been told that the science is the result of thousands of careful studies, but in fact it largely derives from the work of a few dozen people - some of whom are now discredited.
193.
Climate change journalists are all parti pris AGW supporters
What a load of conspiratorial cobblers.
Science writers tend to know a bit about science - funnily enough. So, it is not surprising that when the science says that the Earth is warming thanks to increased CO2 emissions caused by human activity, that those self same science writers tend to accept that.
I can imagine science writers sitting in their offices weighing up all the peer reviewed research against the, er, nothing-more-than-shrill bleating of the denying set thinking “Oo, I wonder which side is closer to the truth?!”
LoL!
133. Slackbladder <i<”… one of Gordons Mates from scotland (can’t remember his name now)…”
Nigel Griffiths MP (Edinburgh South):
‘Louse of Commons’
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/230378/Gordon-Browns-pal-Nigel-Griffiths-cheats-on-wife-with-brunette-on-Remembrance-Day-in-House-of-Commons.html
Weathercock “Yes us older males Mike, are much more sensible about MMGW we are natural sceptics, having seen it all before”
Never was a truer word said in jest. I still remember the mini-ice-age that was forecast in the 70s.
Oh and regarding snow on Kilimanjaro - or the lack of it - that appears to be a cycle lasting thousands of yrs due not to warming [as it's still below freezing up there] but because there is less water vapour in the air to produce the white stuff.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1225401620070612
I do wish some folks would just apply a bit of common sense to these things.
197
“Relying on ‘modelling’ is hugely problematic as the process is deeply flawed.”
As the CRU has found.
200. The Intelligence Services were relying on 3rd party sourced evidence, whereas the inspectors were there on the ground dealing in first hand data recovery.
Your analgy is bunk.
6 Patrick -
There have always been three reasons why getting off fossil fuels is smart.
1/ The emissions may cause climate change
2/ The supply is finite
3/ They are found in crappy backward kleptocracies such as Nigeria, Iran, and Scotland.
1/ has now gone away. Ecofascists haven’t absorbed this yet, but between depression and climategate, that whole strand of argument just got blown away.
2/ and 3/ remain valid, however. The interesting thing about ClimateGate is that although it has started the unravelling of the MMGW fraud, it may not make that much difference. We still need to get after the alternatives anyway.
It will be interesting to see what Trojan Horse the left comes up with next. Certain frauds - religion, chain letters, leftism - never really die, no matter how frequently they are exposed. Presumably this is because the movers and shakers behind each stand to gain so much from fooling some of the people all of the time - which, in politics, is good enough, I suppose.
Interesting though that to get people behind leftism you have to pretend it’s not leftism at all.
Is there a ‘village idiot’ category in this years PB poster of the year?
I think we have a contender @206
208. Coldstone surely has to be the overwhelming favourite for that, although there’s still a chance someone could come with a late run…
208. I’d come a distant 2nd behind you.
206: And the scientists in climategate are now found to be changing data and manipulating models…..treating it more like a religion and wound up in their own dogma.
Their work is bunk. It needs compeltly tearing down and starting again from first princples as their work is now irrideemly tainted.
202 BenM
How many of these science writers (or even scientists) have the ability to carry out their own measurements on the warming (or otherwise) of the planet over the past hundred odd years?
The fact is that they have all interpreted data which we now know has been falsified. This doesn’t make them bad scientists or writers, but they have had to trust and build on the work of others which we now know is on shakey ground.
“As we can see the detailed breakdown - it’s older males who are the least likely to believe.”
This would be made clearer still if the age bands were broken down by gender.
208 Leave ‘tim-lite’ alone!
202. Science writers tend to know a bit about science - funnily enough. So, it is not surprising that when the science says that the Earth is warming thanks to increased CO2 emissions caused by human activity, that those self same science writers tend to accept that.
The problem, Ben, is that the BBC’s science writers (for example) aren’t scientists and don’t know anything about science. So if Phil Jones tells them “the science says that the Earth is warming”, they swallow it hook line and sinker and “tend to accept that” whether it’s supported or not. Would you call Phil Jones a scientist? I’m not sure many people still would.
If ecofascists want to spend trillions on changing the climate, they need to come up with a much, much better argument than the Appeal to Authority, especially when the “authority” is someone like Michael Mann, James Hansen, Keith Briffa, or - God help us - Phil Jones.
215: Don’t forget Al Gore in your list. He invented the internet don’t you know…
213 - I expect we’ll find the breakdown is exactly the same as those who vote UKIP in Euro elections.
202 BenM - That post is an excellent example of counter-productive hysteria, which sows doubt in the minds of independently minded, scientifically trained people. The entire problem is that the peer-review process has been alleged to have been rigged, and certainly the East Anglia emails provide prima facie evidence for this.
Using silly emotive phrases such as ‘conspiratorial cobblers’ and ‘bleating’ rather suggests that you are not sure of your ground. (The same, it must be said, is true of some of those who are equally hysterical on the other side of the argument).
The facts are very straightforward. The world is being asked to carry out an enormously expensive and disruptive programme of action, on the basis of a scientific theory and computer models. Some at least of the evidence which has been adduced to support that theory has been called into question, and at least one of the computer models appears to have some questionable ‘features’.
Anyone who is not hysterical will, quite reasonably, want to investigate further before we start spending trillions of dollars.
212 BenM hasn’t got a phucking clue, Stickytroll. He is unaware that the “data” on the earth’s supposedly changing temperature rests on just two datasets, one now known to have been fudged, the other set produced by another lot of chancers in cahoots with CRU and who for some reason refuse to release their data to those who would scrutinise it.
Not only is this not science, it’s not even a consensus, either.
207. Beautifully argued. The best and most reasonable post on the matter so far.
I hope the ‘Scotland’ bit will be treated with good humour by our friends up north, but I don’t think so.
207.
1/ The emissions may cause climate change
1/ has now gone away. Ecofascists haven’t absorbed this yet, but between depression and climategate, that whole strand of argument just got blown away.
Hilarious!
And this gargantuan insight is based on what?
A few stolen emails?!!!
No wonder AGW deniers thrash around in the swamp of their own irrelevancy.
218: If anything it those which blindly beleive in anything told them by ’scientists’ (so it must be true) which are the sheeple’s.
I’m not saying that AGW doesn’t exist. But a plant of the evidence for it is now tainted, and has shownt that sigifigent people in the field cannot be trusted.
In addition the wild claims of global disaster should also be treated with caution. But there are still very very good reasons for limiting emissions even if AGW is overstated.
197: runnymede @ 10:20
Thank you.
Consensus in scientific opinion is not a sound basis for action. Mathematically sound modelling is not possible in this case and experimentation is not possible.
Where we are with the climate change debate seems more aligned to theology than science. Indeed, if we substitute “Man-made Climate Change” for “Transubstantiation” (or one of the other doctorines of the old Catholic church) the parallels with the sixteenth century are remarkable.
222, not of carbon dioxide. It’s a harmless, naturally occurring gas that plants need to photosynthesise. I find it hard to believe there aren’t more toxic and dangerous pollutants.
I think if we focus on the ‘end’ rather that the cause there would be more of a consensus. The bottom line is that we can’t forever go digging for a finite amount of fossil fuels, and need alternatives, global warming or not.
Oh and John R…
Remember that that authority - Michael Mann; James Hansen; Phil Jones and Keith Briffa - are far, far more informed about the Science than and your AGW sceptical cohort are ever likely to be.
In a debate between you and they, I’ll side with the scientists listed above. Every single time.
BenM
You’re not adding anything, so out of curiosity, are you aware of the large amounts of data that was leaked along with the emails?
Additionally, do you believe there was a period of time that might be referred to as the Medieval Warm Period or Medieval Climate Optimum?
226; Yawn..the equivalent of my dad is bigger than your dad.
Phil Jones is tained beyond credibility. He should go away into a little eco-hole and think about what a very silly boy he’s been.
have to say bit confused by the wording of the question, it says vehicles and industrial sources. Considering 30% of our emissions are from domestic use why was this not in the question, and why not use the phrase man made to cover all of our emissions, instead of breaking it down to 2 of many areas of emissions?
227 I think BenM is Will Heaven myself.
230 - Will Heaven..who he?
209
As I live in a village,(well a hamlet really) I’m not offended, in fact I’m proud of it.
228 - Does this count as a little eco-hole?
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
226 BenM. Yes they are much better informed at; deleting data, manipulating data, making up data, getting around FOI requests, breaking the law, lying etc.
Your argument is the equivalent of saying always trust a man in a uniform or a suit.
226. I like the use of capitalisation there.
Is ‘Science’ now to be used in the same way as Christian fundamentalists reference ‘Lord’,'Him’,'His’ etc. in their green ink letters to the press?
Interesting LabourList comments on this subject: http://www.labourlist.org/cataclysm-real-possibility-copenhagen-international-development
There was an AMAZING demolition job done on the CRU on CBC yesterday - the presenter is a real heavyweight Kronkite type from the comments I’ve seen about it.
Up to now - Canadian MSM coverage has been invisible, which is weird given that Steve McIntyre who was instrumental in debunking the Hockeystick theory is a local chap.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgIEQqLokL8
206. “200. The Intelligence Services were relying on 3rd party sourced evidence, whereas the inspectors were there on the ground dealing in first hand data recovery.”
Nonsense. The intelligence services have access to the weapons inspectors data as they tend to have friendly people in the weapons inspection groups and covert access to their information and systems. So the intelligence community were using the same first hand information as the weapons inspectors; as well as the traditional human sources and signals, measurement and imagery intelligence.
207
Careful people.
The phenomenon of Global Dimming, caused by particulates in the atmosphere is recognised, measured and understood.
It predates both the ‘chicken little’ episodes - ‘a new ice-age is coming’ and ‘we’re all gonna parboil if we don’t stop using our cars’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
How it feeds into the AGW debate nobody knows, but it does alter the climate and it is man-made.
But, again, humanity has always altered his climate, from the first farmers to the ‘indigenates’ in the Americas…
I see Mark Field, (he who upset the Turnip Taliban) has joined the bonus debate.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2009/12/the-battle-of-the-bonuses.html
I’ve noticed that Dave and George have been rather quiet on this issue: can’t imagine why.
I’m not the world’s greatest believer in AGW.
I do, however, believe in Hubbert’s Peak.
Google away boys…
Morning all
I’ve not really commented on this issue much because I think the focus is the wrong way round. Instead of worrying about the effect of man on the climate, we should be more concerned about the effect of the climate on man.
As others have said, we are seven billion and rising and therefore we are extraordinarily sensitive to changes in the climate both at the micro and macro level.
To be fair, we have already seen the impacts at the micro level. We build in flood plains so we can’t be surprised when houses get flooded. Top soil is eroded if rivers are altered leading to faminw while we have used both rivers and the sea as our dustbin for centuries while simultaenously fishing some species to the cusp of extinction.
No one should have a problem with measures to improve the quality of the air or water or safeguarding parts of the eco-sysytem for future generations and if that means sacrificing some economic growth, so be it.
We also know that thousands will be at risk if we suffer a prolonged heatwave and many other regions face the threat of calamity from destructive storms so any research dedicated to improving our understanding of the climate has some big benefits.
I’m not persuaded by the arguments for AGW but it seems reasonable that any significant change in the world’s climate (whatever its cause) is going to potentially impact millions of people and we need to come up with a response.
We have responded in the past to environmental challenges - it took the introduction of a sewage system to rid London of the scourge of cholera while the Clean Air Act, introduced after thousands of deaths in 1952 due to smog, made a huge difference to air quality albeit that too needs to be re-assessed.
Jury in the Amanda Knox case retired this morning - verdict is apparently expected later today. Can anyone explain to me why on earth this trial - which called few witnesses and other things one might expect to be time-consuming - took nearly a year? People often complain that the British court system is slow, but I couldn’t imagine a similar trial here lasting longer than 3-4 weeks.
65. I have just got to this post and it is a good example of the kind of nonsense that passes for argument among ecofascists.
I am reminded of the debate on the casues of lung cancer.For years the tobacco indstry lobbied that the link was unproven.We were constantly given exampoles of people who had smoked all their life but lived to aripe age.Of course there are exceptions to general rule.
So we begin with an irrelevant smear.
in the climate change debate the facts are that Co2 level sin the atmosphere are rising.
The first falsehood, presented as fact. The correlation between human CO2 emissions and CO2 in the atmosphere is, in fact, poor.
Science says that global temperature rise will follow.
The second falsehood. Physics shows that in a simple closed system, adding CO2 will trap heat. This says nothing about what will happen in a complex system such as a whole planet.
This is happening to ocean and land temeratures and at a higher rate in the Artic inparticular,and with rare exceptions glaciers are retreating.
The third falsehood - actually more than one. We only have the word of people like CRU for it that temperatures are increasing. They even admit that in the Antarctic they’re falling. The number of glaciers in the world is in the tens of thousands; the number studied, a few hundred.
Some of the observed warming could be due to natural causes but that does not mean that the bulk of the impact is not man made.
Somewhere in all the double negatives lies a piece of unsubstantiated speculation.
Similarly the current poosible cooling does not negate the long term link beween c02 and warming-just as a 100 day smoker who live sto 100 doesnt prove that smoking that smoking doesnt is nt linked lung cancer!
We’re now relying on previous falsehoods to support more.
I think however that the real problem lie in the nature of the future projections.The Science and the reporting of it gives the impression that thefigures are definite and not a range of probabilities.It is quite right to have debates on this.
Oddly enough, not wrong, except the last sentence. We can see from CRU’s correspondence that they emphatically disagree: there can be no debate.
meanwhile since PR is very important congratulations to the denoers for getting some useful ammunition
I’m not sure whether this one is more a smear or a falsehood. The “deniers’” “PR” actually consisted simply of publishing what ecofascists actually think, and how they abuse data. If that’s damaging “PR” for the ecofascist cause, whose fault is that?
I hear this mporning that the Saudis have said there should be no cuts on emissions at Copenhagen.There’s a surprise!
The Saudis have a robust intellectual case for saying this. I trust the Saudis more than I trust Phil Jones.
There are now literally thousands of “climate scientists” whose livelihood and career depends on AGW being true. The bandwagon is almost unstoppable, true or not .
Does anyone seriously think they would now stand up and admit they were wrong, followed by a swift bus ride to the Job Centre?
Quite.
Good post at 207 though, the case for using renewable/alternative energy sources, and also being economical with the remaining fossil fuels remains strong, independent of AGW truth/fiction shenanigans.
It may even end up that AGW is all b0ll0cks, but we have to do most of what the greens want anyway just to keep the lights on!
I see when asked a couple of simple questions our BenM disappears. For his benefit he’ll be interested to know that Michael Mann has rediscovered the Medieval Warm Period, although he calls it the Medieval Climate Optimum. Mann has maintained for a decade it never existed, so this is a big concession from him.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/326/5957/1256
BenM also cites Keith Briffa as an ‘authority’, so you’ll be interested to see one of Briffa’s reconstructions in chart form:
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/briffa_recon.gif
Now if we can get over the climate hysteria, we can move onto a rational discussion of energy policy.
228 BenM hasn’t actually absorbed the fact that there isn’t any “science”. There are simply two fabricated datasets which the custodians hid for years, and we now know why.
237 Plato:
All sides of an argument usually make some worthy points, and Murphy does. But the polemicist style, by its nature, deals in oversimplification and exaggeration. It would be impossible to give a reasoned scientific response in the same vein.
229: CT
See 74
I do find it very entertaining that Al Gore has cancelled his stadium talk at Copenhagen - those 3000 ticket holders aren’t impressed and funnily enough the reason Gore’s press team are giving is ‘unexpected changes to his schedule’.
LOL
Guess he’s washing his hair that day now
http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m12d3-Climategate-emails-force-Al-Gore-to-cancel-talk-at-Copenhagen
Of course in the case of Iraq, what did the scientists actually find. I recall Dr Kelly saying something before he was ‘hushed up’
250 - it has nothing to do with the e-mails. He’s just got his gigantic sense of self worth stuck in the bath again.
250. ‘unexpected changes to his schedule’. The unexpected changes being that the planet is not warming up.
Re the older males skew. I remember reading in the late 70s when I was a teenaged male interested in science how the end of the current interglacial period was well overdue and we were on the brink of another ice age. This seemed to be the consensus at the time. There is no doubt it is currently getting warmer, but there was a huge temperature rise about 12000 years ago at the end of the last ice age and you can bet your life that wasn’t due to man made carbon emissions
252. It’s tough being the Messiah, you know.
As Mike says above
As we can see the detailed breakdown - it’s older males who are the least likely to believe.
And its older males who pour their ill-educated drivel into forums like these.
Hence all the flapping in the chicken coop.
An amusing story
LibDem’s wife scratches Tory’s Volkswagen after he pips her man in poll
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233045/Thats-beating-husband-LibDems-wife-scratches-Torys-Volkswagen-pips-man-poll.html
256, someone’s a stroppy squirrel, aren’t they?
176. Coldstone. “Well Boris is serious about climate change.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23779521-traffic-free-days-in-boris-battle-to-cut-pollution-target.do
Lets see now, banned booze on the tube, now this, his libertarian credentials looking suspect.”
You see: it’s posts like *this* which do so much damage to Climate Change cause.
By linking action on Climate Change to politics (in your case anti-libertarian politics) you *automatically* turn off everyone on the Right. You are going to get them all instantly opposing you as they will see it as ploy to impose left-wing politics.
Do you not understand this? Does this not register?
If you want to combat manmade pollutants and emissions and make it a serious issue you have got to take the political ideology out of the debate. It has to be solely about the facts.
We can then move on to non-ideological pragmatic solutions that cut across party-lines.
What do you care more about? Partisan one-upmanship? Or protecting the environment?
What I find really quite amusing/sad is how the main players in this are throwing each other under a bus as the days go by.
Mann did it in spades on Wed on The World Tonight, and Prf Watson did it on Newsnight to Jones.
I thought the Newsnight ’special report’ was total crap - they tried to pretend that they’d ‘discovered’ the software issues - they even deleted my two posts on their website before the programme when I asked if they were going to cover HARRY READ ME.
259: For labourites its always the partisan one-upmanship.
259 - So it depends on Coldstone being nice to you rather than on the science. Wow, I wouldnt ever want anything to rely on Coldstone being nice to someone.
208 In the village I grew up in, everyone told me there was a village idiot, but I never met him.
260. I think you can expect the ‘independent inquiries’ we are now promised to be total cr*p as well.
The debate is going to be increasingly open and vitriolic now that the genie is out of the bottle - and these inquiries are likely to be rapidly superseded…
263 -
263 BenM must have been away at boarding school.
259 Not to mention that CO2 is not a pollutant - it’s plant food, we breathe it out - we’d die if the ony thing in the atmosphere was oxygen.
Reducing particles from exhausts is completely sensible as they cause lung damage.
It’s like confusing eating the packaging for eating the product.
For me it’s all about risk. How big does the %tage chance have to be that climate change is caused in large part by human deforestation, emmissions and other activities affecting the environment?
The global climate has changed over last century or so, as we can see & measure that weather is different, fauna and flora have been impacted and things like glaciers have retreated significantly (photographic evidence exists widely for this).
Climate has changed before, often very quickly, in decades rather than centuries or millenia. Changes disrupt ocean & atmospheric circulations which can prove self correcting (increased freshwater changes the currents in North Atlantic, turns off conveyer, gets cold, ice reforms, conveyor restarts) or could instead be self re-inforcing causing a chain reaction of events that move climate to a very different stable state.
It seems to me unlikely that the stripping away of forests, the burning of fossil fuels, the heat and gases produced by mankind have no impact on the Earth’s systems. It is also uncertain exactly what, how big and eventual outcome of our actions are.
A sensible approach if there is high risk and uncertain outcomes is to minimise those possible impacts by reducing the pollutants, by adapting our energy production way from fossil fuels towards processes which reduce environmental impact. Sensible as well to help developing countries not copy the massive environmental damage agriculture and industry have caused in Europe & North America but help them develop on paths which are now possible.
Not sensible is to massively damage the global economy which would make progress impossible to afford, cause widespread suffering and reduce the life chances of the weakest.
New Ladbrokes climate change market
http://www.ladbrokes.com/lbr_portal?action=go_home&LANG=en&STYLE=en&VIEW=uk&LAYOUT=default&retURL_g=http^//www.ladbrokes.com/lbr_sports?action=go_generic_link~level=EVENT~key=213724863~category=SPECIALS~subtypes=~default_sort=~tab=undefined
USA to fail to sign main agreement 6/1
China to fail to sign main agreement 3/1
Russia to fail to sign main agreement 2/1
O/T - Talking about ‘Cast Iron Guarantees’, Philip Hammond is accusing Labour of breaking their own cast iron guarantee on bank lending.
http://page.politicshome.com/uk/cast_iron_guarantees_on_lending_holding_back_economy_says_hammond.html
207. John R continues to be, simultaneously, one of the most insightful and amusing posters on pb.com!!
New Ladbrokes climate change market
USA to fail to sign main agreement 6/1
China to fail to sign main agreement 3/1
Russia to fail to sign main agreement 2/1
271
If the agreement is going to be as bare as I suspect it will, they’ll all sign. So you’ll be betting on the strength of the agreement, which makes it a bad one IMO.
207 “a few stolen emails”
A non-point. If something is true it is true irrespective of how often it is said or in what format.
The emails don’t just danmn the UEA data. Scientists spend their lives doing two equally important things: research, and critical evaluation of the results of other scientists working in the same field. If the non UEA scientists found no flaw in the UEA data their own results are not to be trusted. So the “consensus” on AGW is no more compelling to the adult world than the consensus among five year olds that Santa Claus comes down the chimney.
259- “What do you care more about? Partisan one-upmanship? Or protecting the environment?”
I think you know the answer to that one already!
268. Ted - I think most people can agree that it makes sense to avoid unnecessary environmental degradation, to broaden our energy supply and to greatly step up efforts to reduce waste.
But the debate has gone far beyond this now - the GW debate has come to be about how the world is run, and by whom. It has been hijacked by people who have their own interests at heart rather than those of the environment.
Is BenM related to Susannah in some way?
[148] - the biggest evidence for global warming (ignoring cause) is rising sea levels due to thermal expansion.
Yes, this is true. It is evidence that the total amount of heat energy in the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans is rising [which could be due to more energy entering the system from a brighter Sun, or less energy leaving the system due to more CO2, or a variety of other factors].
It is therefore evidence that contradicts the hypothesis that recent warming of the surface is due to redistribution of heat from the oceans [which can happen to an extent due to natural circulations in the ocean]. This is one variation of the so-called “natural cycles” argument. [Aside: Which natural cycle? We should be able to observe it if it is there.]
[151] - Melting sea-ice does not contribute to sea-level rise or fall. The vast majority of ice at each pole sits on land, so obviously does lead to sea-level rise as it melts.
271- they’ll all sign the agreement alright, it’ll just be a collection of signatures on an otherwise blank piece of paper.
262. *laughs*
The Eton are an ethnic group in Cameroon.
Odd and slightly Gabble-tastic fact of the day there
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beti-Pahuin
Re: 263 - As I’m sure you’ll recall, Sean, idiocy was one of the functions reallocated in the local Government re-organisation of 1974 from Parish to District Councils along with the provision of libraries and refuse collection.
Whereas before towns like Farnham, Haslemere, Cranleigh and Godalming had their own idiots, they became District Council idiots and had to cover the satellite villages such as Wrecclesham, Binscombe and Dogmersfield who had previously used their own part-time idiots ie: at weekends and Bank Holidays.
There were cost issues with transportation, smock hire, finding a safe wall to sit on etc, etc. Budget cuts mean some Districts have done away with idiots completely and have tried to employ jesters instead but it’s not the same.
Some areas have sought private-sector sponsorship so I believe one village in Essex has its idiot sponsored by a local fertiliser company who also supply the product as part of the entertainment.
Some Counties are using mobile idiots who visit villages for a short period of lunacy each week but there’s huge budget pressure to reduce idiocy to the legal minimum or outsource it to a third party such as the local Morris Dancers or a local folk group.
[267] - CO2 is not a pollutant - it’s plant food, we breathe it out - we’d die if the ony thing in the atmosphere was oxygen.
Tell that to the astronauts on Apollo 13 - they’d have asphyxiated if they hadn’t managed to scrub the CO2 from their air. Too much of anything can be a bad thing, as can too little [no-one, hopefully, has been silly enough to advocate trying to take CO2 levels below their pre-industrial value].
Anyway, plants were growing very merrily long before we started burning coal, so they hardly need the extra CO2 from us doing so…
280, Morris Dancers are not idiots! Enormo-haddock, attack!
281, something not being breathable doesn’t make it a pollutant. Air’s 21% oxygen, we’re hardly at risk of global asphyxia.
267. In sufficient quantities I’m afraid it is Plato.
Have you seen Apollo 13 where C02 levels get too high? It nearly asphyxiates the crew. It is toxic at high levels.
We’d also die if the only thing in the atmosphere was C02.
You are correct that it’s not uniquely a dangerous greenhouse gas. Water vapour has the same effect - but at a much lower level proportionately - so CO2 is the critical gas.
I agree with that other particulates are very dangerous and should also be reduced.
Also;
-Plastic pellets in the oceans
-Destruction of rainforests
-Toxic emissions from factories (SO2)
-Carcinogens in manmade products
These are all very serious environmental issues with a much more immediate threat to our way of life than Climate Change.
Needless to say, I come at all of this from a non left-wing ecofascist perspective.
277 Given how fast Climategate has taken off with only bloggers (inc Delingpole) and Fox covering it for the first 10 days, I’m not so sure that the wheels will stay on at Copenhagen.
28m hits on Google [despite them removing autosuggest] and before the MSM took it up…
280. Stodge - very good
282 - At the risk of doubting the sagacity of morris dancers, how do enormo-haddocks attack? Their marine lifestyle would make them unsuitable weapons in air-breathing environments, especially those far from saline water supplies.
283- you make it sound like a Pokemon
284 Well yes but since it represents only 0.038% of the atmosphere, I think we’re pretty safe
OT I missed last night’s thread - is it worth a read?
[283] - I’m not arguing we’re at risk of global asphyxiation, I was merely demonstrating that whether something is a good thing or a bad thing depends on the context and the relative quantities.
Something can have good qualities [used in photosynthesis to support life] and qualities that are both good and bad depending on the level [traps outgoing longwave radiation keeping the planet warmer than it would otherwise be].
Pointing out that “CO2 is plant food!” is a bit silly.
290 - Any topic where Smithson pere and Smithson fils fundamentally disagree is worth a very careful read! I’ve backed John Bercow with substantial sums of my own money (and intend topping up too), so no prizes for guessing who I support.
281. Absolute SNAP!!
That uncanny
274. True. I was being facetious.
Neil demonstrated for us how restricted the ability of the Left is to think rationally at 262.
[284] - You are correct that it’s not uniquely a dangerous greenhouse gas. Water vapour has the same effect - but at a much lower level proportionately - so CO2 is the critical gas.
A slight clarification: The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is determined by the temperature, so it’s hard for there to be an increase in water vapour that leads to a warming, as you need a warming to lead to the increase of water vapour. This does mean that it amplifies the effect of other greenhouse gases [CO2, CH4, CFCs, etc]
The one exception is in the lower Stratosphere, which is dry. Here water vapour from, say, jet aircraft, can have a warming effect.
291 My point is that CO2 is *not* a pollutant for those who know have been brainwashed into thinking that it is.
Low carbon anything is now fashionably right-on, it’s like fat-free was a couple of years ago [despite the fact that it's essential to our diet], or starch/carbohydrates was in the 70s.
I have vivid memories of being told that potatoes were bad for me because they were full of starch.
It’s the silly absolutist nonsense used by lobbyists that annoys me. They are decieving and frightening those who know little if any science.
293. Christ. I meant: THAT’S uncanny.
My spelling and grammar has gone down the tubes this week.
As a scientist, I do hate the term “Climate Change” - it’s as if the world had a constatnt unchanging climate for 4 billion years until mankind arrived!
298 It started out as global warming - it shifted shape to climate change when it stopped getting warm.
It’s revealing that Mann ‘discovered’ the Medieval Warm Period and called it an ‘anomaly’ so he could cover his arse and attempt to shift the agenda again by misrepresenting the fact that it was a lot warmer for 400 yrs than it is now.
295. Yes, thank you Timothy. I do know that. I am from a scientific background and an engineer by profession.
Water vapour accounts for the largest proportion of the greenhouse effect but human activity does not significantly affect it unless, like you say, it is from jet aircraft at low levels.
However, CO2 is the greenhouse gas which is increasing - and humans have had an effect on this - therefore, it is the one with the critical global warming effect.
296. Funny you should mention the fad for low-fat products, because of course the saturated/unsaturated fat distinction we were long fed was also based on flawed science - and made huge sums for certain corporate interests.
[148] - the biggest evidence for global warming (ignoring cause) is rising sea levels due to thermal expansion.
Yes, this is true. It is evidence that the total amount of heat energy in the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans is rising [which could be due to more energy entering the system from a brighter Sun, or less energy leaving the system due to more CO2, or a variety of other factors].
It is therefore evidence that contradicts the hypothesis that recent warming of the surface is due to redistribution of heat from the oceans [which can happen to an extent due to natural circulations in the ocean]. This is one variation of the so-called “natural cycles” argument. [Aside: Which natural cycle? We should be able to observe it if it is there.]
[151] - Melting sea-ice does not contribute to sea-level rise or fall. The vast majority of ice at each pole sits on land, so obviously does lead to sea-level rise as it melts.
{Apologies to mods for spelling my name wrong in this post originally. You can delete the duplicate post}
[300] - Apologies Casino if I came across as patronising.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of websites out there who don’t recognise the difference, and claim that CO2 plays only a miniscule role in maintaining Earth’s comfortably balmy temperatures, compared to water vapour.
301 Indeed - personally I wish every journalist started with ‘follow the money’ before they reported on anything.
Al Gore has become a VERY rich man. Carbon trading has proved to be as profitable for scammers as VAT carousel fraud.
In case you missed it - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/03/copenhagen-summit-carbon-trading-scam
285 - What’s the deal with autosuggest, Plato? Have Google actually removed it themselves? If so, that’s pretty scandalous, especially given the recent Michelle Obama picture story.
303. No problem Timothy.
Actually, looking back at it I did sound a bit chippy myself - so sorry about that.
I have trouble taking seriously as a scientist anyone whose reaction to the data not fitting the theory is “something must be wrong with the data”.
Oh, and it’s impossible for science to be “settled”.
AGW believers have spent years trying to close down debate. That was a mistake, as the heretics have refused to be silenced.
We could drive pure oxygen alright but the world would a fire hazard, google up Apollo 1 to get an idea of the risks involved.
305 Yup - it was there for the first couple of days and then BINGO it went, same thing happened on Bing.
Good post here about it.
http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/google-gate/
We had a huge response from peeps worldwide when it was first noticed at WUWT
“Several of us concurred in prior comments on other threads:
”climagegate” definitely WAS offered in the Google search suggestions list for a time a couple days ago, and then ”became disappeared”.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/climategate-surpasses-global-warming-on-google-autosuggest-still-blocked/#comments
280 LOL!
Actually, I think quite a lot of the village idiots became district and borough councillors, following local government reorganisation. All parties were keen to recruit them, and continue to do so.
307. The moment I started to have major doubts about GW was when I saw David Miliband frothing about ‘deniers’ with a weird zealot-like look in his eyes. It reminded me of the trot nutters I used to encounter years ago and set the alarm bells ringing.
303. Yes.
The saddest thing about this debate - from the perspective of both sides - is how it has exposed the fundamental ignorance of basic chemistry amongst most journalist and politicians.
308 that should of course be “breathe” not “drive”
Damn auto-correction!
308
Oxygen is a poison (but a very slow acting one - it normally takes a lifetime to kill you)
re 292. Do you want to get banned?
312. More broadly we of course now have a problem that an increasing proportion of politicians have no expertise in any subject except politics. This puts us even more at the mercy of so-called ‘experts’ and well-organised lobby organisations.
307. Absolutely right LondonStatto.
Any true scientist believes in the scientific method and will only draw conclusions based upon rigourous experimentation.
Even more importantly, they will try to remain unbias, keep an open mind and be willing to change their conclusions if the facts change - or something new comes to light which casts doubt.
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? “
317. Please note it was an economist who said that, too…
I am an OLD man.
I judge politicians by their actions: unlike the young who are naive enough to believe what politicians say.
Ed Miliband has said “every country must go further. He said the EU should push for a 30 per cent target by 2020 and the UK should consider going beyond 40 per cent in the same period. “
So lets see Mr Miliband:
How many nuclear reactors has the UK ordered? Nil.
How many airports is the UK closing? Nil
What steps are being taken to reduce the UK population growth? Nil.
And why then build a new Heathrow airport?
A 40% cut in UK emissions by 2020 is IMPOSSIBLE without a MAJOR reduction in domestic fuel usage, flying, and transport.
And of course a reduction in military fuel use..
So how many ships are we going to sell off in the Royal Navy? We’re building two non-nuclear powered aircraft carriers.
Hypocrisy and meaningless platitudes. On that basis Ed Miliband should resign as the Government of which he is part is doing things which will INCREASE usage.
And people wonder why I am a cynic?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6719556/Copenhagen-climate-conference-climate-saboteurs-including-senior-Tories-risk-a-deal.html
316 - Don’t know about that. Looks as if the Tory benches will be overrun by doctors after the election. Perhaps, the Commons could become a ward of St Thomas’s hospital catering for acute cases….
On the toxicity of CO2 - admittedly I’ve taken this from wikipedia because that’s because it’s a good quick summary:
“Carbon dioxide is colo(u)rless. At low concentrations, the gas is odo(u)rless. At higher concentrations it has a sharp, acidic odo(u)r. It will act as an asphyxiant and an irritant. When inhaled at concentrations much higher than usual atmospheric levels, it can produce a sour taste in the mouth and a stinging sensation in the nose and throat. These effects result from the gas dissolving in the mucous membranes and saliva, forming a weak solution of carbonic acid. This sensation can also occur during an attempt to stifle a burp after drinking a carbonated beverage. Amounts above 5,000 ppm are considered very unhealthy, and those above about 50,000 ppm (equal to 5% by volume) are considered dangerous to animal life.”
So atmospheric CO2 will never be toxic but it *can* be enough to cause change in the climate.
Speaking of religious greenery - Bob Ward [the author behind this very strange piece] is all over the MSM comment pages.
I swear there are about 3 or 4 peeps who are in major damage limitation mode [and I'm not counting serial troll David Dee
]
Ooops linky
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/dec/02/climate-denial-far-right
319. “I judge politicians by their actions: unlike the young who are naive enough to believe what politicians say.”
Very wise words indeed.
318. Yes - JMK.
Am I the only person who finds the Clinton/Milipede flirting thing a little creepy?
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01537/miliband-clinton_1537035i.jpg
One point that often gets lost in these discussions is that between now and 2050 every piece of power generating equipment that is in service will have to be replaced. A main generating station has a life of 30 to 40 years and even within that time it will have several complete overhauls. It’s a bit like grandfathers axe, 100 years old with the shaft replaced every five years and a new head every ten! So the real cost issue is whether we just build the same again or do something different.
Caroline Dineage wins Gosport primary.
Not sure about turnout.
Sorry, turnout was 12000
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/goldlist/2009/12/gosport-result-due-by-noon.html
I make that a turnout of around 17%
323 plato, at first glance that article would appear to suggest that ‘climate change deniers’ are also racists. Odd and desperate.
326
I try not to think about it.
See 199
330 wibbler - Very respectable; not as high as Totnes, but pretty good all the same.
243 The trial of Amanda Knox and the Italian bloke has only sat on Fridays and Saturdays becaue one of the defence QCs is a Government minister or something like that so she has not been available and rather than insist on another lawyer taking the case, the court just hasn’t sat most of the time.
Given that the Italian legal system will permit Mr Tessa Jowell not to go to prison because it is more than 4 years since he was charged or something similar should we be surprised? At least unlike the Americans the Italians let them have a defence and dont execute them before they have time to prove their innocence or the actual guilty person is caught.
315 Is that the first recorded use of OGH using a smiley?
273 So the “consensus” on AGW is no more compelling to the adult world than the consensus among five year olds that Santa Claus comes down the chimney.
LOL. Well put.
316 My problem isn’t with professional politicians but with politicians no longer accepting or willing to take responsibility for their actions.
Ministers don’t resign if their Departnments fail. Ed Balls has presided over a litany of failures that would in former times have seen him resign or be dismissed, but they are all blamed on Agencies. He pretends to take responsibility but in practice has Agencies/civil servants take the rap.
The House of Commons can’t govern itself so looks to the Executive to put another Agency/Quango in charge of pay, expenses and, far more dangerous, in charge of standards. Why? because MPs will not take the responsibility or electoral consequences of their own actions. They have changed from representatives to employees.
287, enormo-haddock are capable of breathing in either air or water, and have muscular fins enabling them to heroically perform land assaults.
Can I just thank Plato for providing us all with a concise running commentary on the status of Climategate, with her series of relevant links.
Very handy.
I will try and do the same in the spring, with the status of rare migrant birds. After all, its not like there will be anything else going on next spring…
i am sure that my Biology “O” level course taught me that plants take in CO2 and give off oxygen. i sat that exam in 1968 and gained a grade 3. i imagine that is the equivalent of 2/1 Biology degree in this day and age.
296. Low carbon anything is now fashionably right-on, it’s like fat-free was a couple of years ago
One of Dr Atkins’ more perceptive points about the obsession with low-fat dieting was that it coincided with the onset of an epidemic of obesity. His argument was that when the fat was taken out of food, sugars, starches and empty carbs were added back, with worse effects than the fat had been having.
He was right, of course, although his own proposed solution is unsustainable (the resulting chronic flatus is good fun though).
339 :blush:
323. *Sigh* Where does the Guardian find these people?
“Denial”; “Hysterical”; “UKIP = Far Right”; “Deniers not Sceptics”; “More Hysteria”
More counterproductive divisive leftie idiocy. This is why I am almost ashamed of myself - and acutely embarrassed - to admit to being centre-right and pro-environment.
CLIMATE CHANGE BELIEVERS DON’T UNDERSTAND THE DAMAGE THEY DO TO REACHING A SOLUTION BY WRITING THIS SHIT
Ugh. Enough. It’s annoying me too much.
I’d far rather be in a toilet cubicle with Plato on the train to Dover..
338.
This looks like a job for the enormo-haddock SWAT team.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6943400.ece
326.
326. Actually, are those two shagging?
338 Are the enormo-haddock yet sufficiently advanced to crawl out the water, dispense a damn good slapping, and return whence they came? I think the fear of a slapping from an enormo-haddock, hauling itself out of the Thames, would better keep our Westminster politicians in line…
329 - Her dad used to present “How”.
I’d like to ask Fred Dinenage how his daughter turned orange.
343 - Iain Dale today makes the very same point.
“Why is the Left so afraid of a proper, calm debate on this subject? All they can do is shout “denier”, hope that the mud sticks and that anyone who questions the consensus is viewed as a nutter. Job done, eh? Except that the last couple of weeks have rather punctured that particular tyre”
A classic example is Mr Ben’counterproductive’M
339 I could do the same in respect of 200th anniversaries of major Napoleonic battles.
We’ve missed a couple of gems this year already, with Eckmuehl, Aspern-Essling (Napoloeon defeated!), Wagram, Znaim, and in the Peninsula, Talavera and the death of Sir John Moore at Corunna. Just as well - he was an irascible tosser who’d have blown it at Waterloo.
We’ve just missed (Weds) the 204th anniversary of Austerlitz and the 209th anniversary of Marengo.
Austerlitz was of course fought at a French railway station, and Marengo was fought over the correct recipe for a chicken dish.
Or would that be just too crushingly nerdy?
The climate change debate is one of those subjects that puts me in mind of W B Yeats’s fantastic line:
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity”.
I am repelled in equal measure by the proselytisers and the arch-sceptics. I’m no scientist so I’m simply not equipped to evaluate the science with any rigour. I’m amazed the “don’t knows” are so low in this poll.
So far as I can judge, it appears much more likely than not that man-made global warming is taking place and accordingly we should be acting on that assumption. But this is in the realm of a belief that might be disproved. The emails that have emerged are tremendously damaging to the proselytisers, since they show in graphic detail just how dirty some of their numbers are prepared to fight. But much of the underlying case still remains, for all the huffing and puffing of the arch-sceptics.
A bit more humility all round is called for.
(phew, our host hasn’t banned me!)
341 I know - the logic behind what Atkin’s promoted made a lot of sense - ketosis is a very effective if unpalatble way to lose weight [if you don't mind the headaches, bad breath, constipation etc]
It’s used routinely by body builders to get their % body fat down to eye-wateringly low competition levels without eating their physique.
Some of the most knowledgeable nutrition/diet experts are natural body-builders - and they’re a regular source of really solid advice for those who suffer from obesity or anorexia and want to get back to a ‘normal’ weight.
I was really surprised by this when I first came across it - but it makes complete sense - after all that’s their field of practical what works expertise.
349 - Wasn’t Dave’s team doing the same to Davis the other day?
Eccentric I think the word was.
The issue for the Tories is that their leadership agree with the Labour leadership.
Happy civil war.
Does Plato wear incredibly sheer 10 “climate change” denier stockings with all the gear?
A propos - have any other gentlemen noticed that the most strident lefty women always themselves own the said gear?
344, three years ago a crack commando unit of enormo-haddock was genetically engineered by a crazed Morris Dancer. These fish promptly escaped from a maximum security fish farm to the Whitby underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire… The Enormo-Haddock.
I’ve a comment awaiting moderation at 350. Was it because I used the word “to55er”?
350. I agree with every word of that.
334. “At least unlike the Americans the Italians let them have a defence and dont execute them before they have time to prove their innocence or the actual guilty person is caught.”
Oh, good grief. Easterross - what is it with you? when discussing Scottish politics or UK politics in general, you’re the sanest and most sensible commenter imaginable, but as soon as the USA hoves into view you morph into someone who makes Tim look like Socrates.
For the record, the average time spent on death row in the USA is 12 years, precisely in order to give prisoners every possible opportunity to appeal. Even in Texas, which has a reputation for being keen on this sort of thing the average wait is 10.26 years. Yes, mistakes happen but to suggest they’re killing people for the fun of it is both offensive and absurd.
Global warming coincides with a decline in church attendance.
Can we therefore assume it is in fact caused by Satan’s influence
354 *CLAPS*
350 - Well said Antifrank
350. Well Antifrank we are now at least having a debate, which the ‘proselystisers’ have tried to prevent for the last several years.
And I suspect the debate will be very lively in the months and years to come, hopefully resulting in the increased humility you speak of.
350 antifrank - spot on. Thank you for expressing that better than I ever could.
351 I used to know a guy who was a competition body-builder (and also fitness instructor for the SAS). His pre-competition diets were most bizarre…
He also knew, just from their physique, which athletes had a body mass that could only be achieved by taking drugs.
353. Yes.
And left-wing women love Tory men - even though they’ll never ever admit that.
(Well, except audibly during loud acts of passion in private)
349 - Here you go.
the Cameroons’ response to David Davis was characteristically robust. Tim Yeo (chairman of the Commons Environmental Audit Committee) said, “The dying gasps of the deniers will be put to bed. In five years time, no one will argue about [there being] a man-made contribution to climate change.”
The majority of Tories on here should realise that their party leadership regards them as the enemy within.
352. If there is a Tory civil war it’ll be over Europe not Climate Change.
We are not Aussies.
357. “Yes, mistakes happen but to suggest they’re killing people for the fun of it is both offensive and absurd.”
Look up Governor Perry’s response to the Cameron Todd Willingham execution, and subsequent evidence proving he was innocent. The man is a shit, and sadly very representative of most American politicians on the death penalty.
355. The correct term is onanist.
350/356/360/362. Good post antifrank. That’s (more or less) my position too.
Where I differ is in what we should do to act on it.
Needless to say, being a Tory, I have my feet grounded in reality on what’s practically achievable.
365 Tim, nothing new there; in all parties the party leaderships regard the members as the enemies within.
350 Quite right, antifrank.
My only slight quibble is the sentence “But much of the underlying case still remains, for all the huffing and puffing of the arch-sceptics.”
That might be the case, but at the moment all we get is the likes of Miliband calling anyone who asks the question ‘flat-earthers’, so it is very hard to tell for sure.
Oh Dear
Goldsmith: I did not tell of my ‘non-dom’ status
04.12.09
Sponsored links
Ads by Google
David Cameron News
Read News on David Cameron. Get better results with Bing™.
bing.com/news
NHS Organ Donor register
Find out how to apply to be on the NHS organ donor register.
http://www.OrganDonation.NHS.uk
“Shocking Photos”
Woman Sheds 25 LBS in 2 Weeks! Exclusive Photos - See Now
http://www.AppliedNutritionalResearch.com
Tory candidate Zac Goldsmith faced fresh embarrassment today when it emerged he had failed to tell his local party about his “non-dom” tax status.
Richmond Park Conservative Association is now asking members whether he should face a meeting that could lead to his deselection.
Mr Goldsmith had to surrender his “non-domiciled” tax status this week after it was revealed that his £7.7million home in Richmond was owned by a company in the Cayman Islands.
365. OK - I’ll come clean: I *am* a Tim Yeo denier.
319. “I am an OLD man.
I judge politicians by their actions: unlike the young who are naive enough to believe what politicians say.”
An excellent post. I fully agree, even though I accept the AGW argument, the actions of governments fly in the face of their own rhetoric. I’ve no doubt we’ll agree to a whole raft of targets and then fail to achieve them.
363 Yup - and it’s really obvious who’s on ster0ids - bit like spotting falsies.
Frank Bruno is probably one of the best examples of someone born with lucky physique genes. Brad Pitt is another good one. The damage that ster0ids do even if the user knows how to cycle them is dreadful.
It’s a terrible shame that this sort of short-circuit is getting more commonplace in gyms full of teenagers who want the Photoshop look.
I’ve watched awful tales unfold as users have belatedly asked for help when they’ve cocked-up/grown moobs/lost libido/gone hairy/deep voiced/developed aggression problems.
354
Not the ‘A-Haddock!’
Led by Hannibal Haddock?
Featuring ‘the Plaice’?
365 – Tim, speaking of the ‘enemy within’ care to remind us how many coup attempts have been made against Gordon Brown by his own MPs.
Or how many Labour MPs have resigned from the Cabinet in disgust with Gordon Brown.
Or how many Labour MPs are standing down at the next GE.
369 - As a Tory I say Amen to that and all the other posters of similar hue.
276. With Howlin’ Mad Pollock.
375
Nobody would understand the trials I have gone through for my film star looks - Jabba the Hutt.
350. “I’m no scientist so I’m simply not equipped to evaluate the science with any rigour. ”
I used to be a scientist (well, I’ve got a science degree anyway), but I claim no special expertise in climatology. What I feel I can say though is that what’s been going on in terms of attempting to corrupt the peer review process, silence critics, lose/destroy data and break the law (evading FOI requests) is appalling and most certainly not scientific in any shape or form. The suggestion that has been made upthread that is just what scientists do is simply untrue. These are extremely significant breaches of scientific ethics.
“So far as I can judge, it appears much more likely than not that man-made global warming is taking place and accordingly we should be acting on that assumption.”
Ah. This I think is where you’re being misled. It’s much more likely than not that global warming is taking place, but the extent to which it is being driven by human intervention is much more controversial, and what so much of CRU’s creativity has been pushing towards.
Of course one very effective way of lowering CO2 is to preside over a massive drop in manufacturing…. Which is exactly what this Govt has achieved.
380
376/379,
And BA Barracuda.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233138/No-trifling-matter-Female-councillors-fury-sexist-degrading-comment.html
383 And Mr T-Bone - just to cover all your surf’n'turf needs…
389 No doubt he’ll get his just desserts
I’ll get my coat…
391. For God’s sake, don’t get your coat. Casino will think he’s pulled.
388. Howling Mad Haddock surely!
Oh look.
The rich have the biggest carbon footprints in the UK
David Cameron’s constituents are among the biggest polluters
You can rate your constituency by carbon emissions, and laugh again at Daves husky photo.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8393081.stm
394 - Bet it is smaller than green hypocrites Bono and Trudie Styler.
389 A trifle - light?? He’s never had one of my constructions then…
Calling her a meringue would have been more apposite…but then, the guy was a dickhead - so we shouldn’t expect much of him, still less, the finer points of biting sarcasm.
369. Tim Yeo (chairman of the Commons Environmental Audit Committee) said, “The dying gasps of the deniers will be put to bed. In five years time, no one will argue about [there being] a man-made contribution to climate change.”
He’s right, but not in the way he thinks.
392. Hey! Don’t ruin my chances Andrew
394, as a farmer all that fuel your tractors use must give you a reaaaallllyy big footprint. You’re a carbon yeti, tim.
Now the Lib Dems are tying Ashcroft to Zac n Dave.
Commenting, Chris Huhne said:
“David Cameron must act to ensure that the Tories who vote on this country’s laws pay its taxes.
In the wake of the non-dom Zac Goldsmith revelations, it looks increasingly like the Tories see taxes as something that happens to other people.
The Conservatives have persistently refused to come clean on what Lord Ashcroft’s tax status is – even though he sits in the House of Lords and is bankrolling their election campaign. Cameron must tell us whether Ashcroft is resident in the UK for tax purposes – yes or no.
If Zac Goldsmith must give up his non-dom status to stand for Parliament, how can Lord Ashcroft be a non-dom and sit in Parliament?”
378 I’ve no doubt we’ll agree to a whole raft of targets and then fail to achieve them.
As a pragmatist, I’d be quite happy if we agreed to a set of emissions targets and then did nothing in pursuit of any of them. That seems to be an elegant solution.
386. Indeed. The shutting of the blast and coke furnaces at Corus Teeside alone should save a few thousand tonnes, at the expense of 1600 families’ livelihoods. What a good job Gordon is doing everything he can to keep the economy in such good shape. Just think of the debt and unemployment if he weren’t so masterful.
400, would these be the Lib Dems who took millions in ill-gotten gains from a dodgy donor and won’t pay it back? Mmmm, moral high horse.
400 - this is the same Chris Huhne who sees freshly pressed trousers and NobNobs as things that other people have to pay for?
Over AGW I have a sense of dejavu. I argued inside a tech company that Y2k was a fiction seized on by the suppliers to sell us newer kit and expensive upgrades. All to no avail.
“Countries that spent very little on tackling the Y2K bug (including Italy and South Korea) experienced as few problems as those that spent much more (such as the United Kingdom and the United States)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenium_bug
393. In Scotland they’d have Salmon and Sturgeon to contend with.
Bored now..
Can we not have some Friday afternoon silliness?
407, I don’t know. Is Brown announcing a new spending plan?
400 tim - In political strategy terms, Huhne is an idiot. The LibDems are throwing away their best chance in a generation by this sort of mindless Tory-bashing.
With the Labour Party more unpopular than ever before, the LibDems keep associating themselves with them. It’s as though they are deliberately trying to squeeze tehemselves out, by setting the agenda for the election as ‘Vote Conservative as the only way to hold Labour to account, or if you can’t stand the Conservatives vote Labour’.
Vote Yellow, Get Brown. It is the dumbest strategy of any of the three main parties - even Gordon is doing better in that respect.
405 In 95/96 I worked for Mercury Comms and they had an incredibly crap bespoke billing system that *wasn’t* Y2K compliant - the software supplier was appalling and when I joked that they’d charge us for each extra digit - their project manager said ‘Of course we will’.
Even to this day, I recall my unprintable reaction!
337 I’d expect to find the US legal system a good deal fairer than the Italian legal system.
And don’t forget, Amercians’ views on capital punishment are shared by most people in this country.
409. What can you expect, Richard? Third party, third-rate minds.
407- you called me?
Sam Coates just posted on his facebook that someone set up a group trying to make him resign from his post over an article that another Sam Coates had written. Is that silly enough?
Btw I sort of vaguely know Sam, I’m not cyber stalking him. The first time I met him was at a regional conference back in 2007, he said that he was running some website, I think it may have been called Conservativehouse. Back then I was uninitiated into the murky world of cyber politics and thought there was no chance that a website aimed at Conservative party activists would succeed, so I thought nothing of it.
407 - How about a Tory campaign song based on this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8CTscW3dpI
“Do the Dave n Zac and put the feckless back”
408. lol.
411. Are you pro-capital punishment Sean? (not looking to start a debate, just curious)
67 - popped in here in my lunchbreak to catch up on some politics, read your post instead and then have half the office staring at me as i guffaw at your comment.
You sir are either a genius … or completely mad
(or I suppose both!)
Political parties often use proxies to do their dirty work, like NGOs, charities, pressure groups and the like. Labour are lucky, they can just rely on the Lib Dems to do their dirty work.
BTW, for those who are positive about mankinds ability to better itself, have you heard of Ramjets and Scramjets? Carbon Strings? Silicon Nanowires?
416, thank you, Mr. Floater. I try my best.
413. “Thought there was no chance that a website aimed at Conservative party activists would succeed”
Depends what you mean by ’succeed’. Whilst the articles and thread titles are interesting and well-written - and Tim Montgomerie does a good job in sticking up for the members - most of the posters there are UKIP trolls and the discussions are terrible.
The intelligent Tory analysis is on pb.com.
409 - It makes perfect sense in most Lib Dem seats.
Huhne is fighting a Tory and has 10,000 labour voters many of whom will vote tactically for him.
414. Shall we all just pretend you never posted that tim?
421 - I’m working on a “Dick and Non Dom” theme.
419- yes I abandoned the comments section quite quickly, it is overrun by UKIPers. I do appreciate Tim standing up for members rights, no one else seems to.
411 I have no moral objection to it, although I think the endless appeals and delays probably mean it’s more trouble than it’s worth.
417. Yes.
329. It would be disturbing if Millipede were ugly.
You know someone is desperate when they resort to a of tour de force of strawman construction:
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/12/04/agw-battle-of-the-conspiracy-theories/
421 Ignore the TIMBOT; judging by the timing of his last post ‘yesterday’ and first this morning, his already confused brain has been further addled through lack of sleep.
‘by tim December 4th, 2009 at 3:13 am’
followed by
‘by tim December 4th, 2009 at 7:29 am’
420 tim - Indeed, but the best way to motivate those Labour voters to vote LibDem isn’t to bash the Tories, which can be counter-productive and which is a hostage to fortune in other seats. They need to concentrate on giving disaffected Labour voters positive reasons to vote LibDem; as it is they just come over as shrill cheerleaders for Brown.
422. I wouldn’t waste your time.
424. Fair enough. My position is similar to that of Denis Thatcher -who disagreed with his wife on this.
Previous Thread
So confident am I about UKIP’s poor chances, that I am happy to offer 7-2 to all comers - including my dad - in pretty much any size. And I’ll also offer evens that Bercow will get at least 50% more votes than Farage.
That needs to be clarified. Do you mean 50% of the total number of votes, or 50% of Farage’s votes? In other words, are you betting on 70:20 or 60:40 (ish)?
424. You have no objection to killing someone in premeditated cold blood?
431 - JohnLoony
I’m pretty sure he means the latter (i.e. 50% of Farages votes). Bewcow to get 3 or more votes for every 2 Farage gets.
The result of the Gosport selection is in, Caroline Dinenage is the new Conservative PPC.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/goldlist/2009/12/gosport-result-due-by-noon.html
434: She’s Fred Dinenage’s daughter!! Legend!
Lord Mandleson spat out his dummy on the World at One when the interviewer pointed out that industrial production had dropped by more than under the Conservatives in the 80’s.
435 Isn’t it Dineage?
436 It’s a killer stat against Labour.
None of their “the Tories were worse” firewalls are holding…
This is because this Govt. has been historically and monumentally shite.
427:Nope
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Dinenage
Slackbladder
Fred Dineage’s daughter is the new Gosport PPC ?
HOW ? !?*
Questions to ask people who preach extreme greenery:
What do you believe best describes the probability of AGW:
A - 90% or more
B - 95% or more
C - 99% or more
D - 100%
What do you believe would be the best world to live in, from a climate control point of view;
A - A globalised/convergent world
B - A regionalised/localised world
Could technological solutions provide a major help to combatting climate change:
A - Yes
B - No
Which of these options would you say is closer to the true values for the potential worst-case sea-level rise by 2100:
A - 25-50cm
B - 50cm - 1m
C - 1-2m
D - More than 2m
If they proffer disbelief that answer A (in all cases) is correct, then their stance is not based on the IPCC facts (and yes, I know that question one’s answers are ambiguous - it helps find those who are artificially certain)
440: Thats How…..for now!
432…that argument would not excuse you being conscripted during wartime.
This is rather interesting if you too read that once upon a time grapes grew nr Hadrian’s Wall and Vikings farmed in Greenland.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/jo-nova-finds-the-medieval-warm-period/#more-13698
441 And of course this is what Prf Jones thinks
“…If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish. “
443. No. Sunil is making a different point about the morality of execution.
Conscription is a different issue. In any event, as far as I’m aware, no conscripted British troops were ever ordered to execute people during WWII.
441 - The most level headed and intelligent post I have seen on this subject in my opinion.
329. Another David: “Am I the only person who finds the Clinton/Milipede flirting thing a little creepy?”
If she were a preying mantis, I think this could have a satisfactory outcome (presuming she’s above the child-bearing age).
446 - depends what you mean by “ordered”. I am sure conscripted tropps carried out executions, possibly under local orders. But there was no official policy thereof.
Is this really value for money?
I am cure respected posters on this site would provide advice for less than £300,000 per month.
If David Cameron doesn’t go for this at PMQ’s I will despair
Extract from 24dash.com
The total public sector support for Britain’s banks runs to £850 billion with the final cost of the financial rescue unlikely to be known for years, a report by the public spending watchdog revealed today.
The National Audit Office (NAO) also said the cost of financial advice to the Treasury since September 2007 is expected to balloon to £107 million by next April.
Credit Suisse is expected to earn up to £15.4 million in fees for emergency advice to the Government on the banking crisis, according to the NAO report.
The investment bank is being paid up to £300,000-a-month to provide financial advice to the Treasury as one of a raft of consultants drafted in amid the crisis.
389 - Is he bullying her? what do you think tim?
414 - Is this really all you have to do all day???
449. As far as I’m aware - being a bit of an amateur history buff - no British troops were ever *ordered* to carry out executions by an officer, nor was it ever legal, nor was it ever policy of the British government or military hierarchy.
The closest you’d get would be a debate on the ethics of RAF area bombing.
That doesn’t mean to say it didn’t occur. Summary executions of prisoners by British troops *did* occur - normally by men acting on their own initiative or, at worst, by an NCO or renegade officer - but that is a world apart from its legal sanction.
Besides, the British Army was one of (if not the) most disciplined of all Allied Armies and these numbers were fairly few.
German prisoners preferred to surrender to British troops for this reason (rather than Americans who had a less than impressive record in prisoner treatment) any, failing that, anyone *but* the Russians.
81 agree
428 - Loool tim.
get a life
443. Executions going on right now in the US are not under wartime conditions, are they?
446. “You have no objection to killing someone in premeditated cold blood?”
And you have no objection to murderers being released to kill again I suppose? See how this sort of tendentious logic works?
Speaking personally I think it’s perfectly possible to have a constructive debate on capital punishment, with due respect paid to the fact that both sides have compelling arguments in their favour. It’s not so easy however to have such a debate with somebody who assumes their opponents can only have evil motives.
457. Gah - 446 should read 432 of course.
I see tag-team-tim are putting up quotes without references again. From the Hedgehog Herald this time?
This is hilarious - now, I know that polar bears die as a result of passive smoking but how about these fringe events at Copenhagen
“Gendered Development” (Women for Climate Justice), “Fashion Summit” (Nordic Initiative), International Enduro (electric-powered Motocross racing), “Climate Refugee Camp” (Danish Church Aid), “A universal declaration of Mother Earth rights” (Bolivia), “Zoos and biological consequences of climate change (Aalborg Zoo), “Meat the Truth” (documentary film), Children’s Action Event (Children’s Climate Forum), “Play to Stop Climate Change” (Backstreet Boys).
460 I’m waiting for International Enormo-Enduro (electric-powered Motocross racing co-partnered by a genetically modified Haddock…)
460: It’s a big leftie hang-wringing jamboree. No suprise there.
I’m troubled by the enormo-haddock. Is it a marine amphibian? Is there any other marine amphibian?
O/T
I went to Stratford International statoon (opened back on Monday, apparently) on in my way into work this morning. Cost me a fiver to get to St Pancras, so it looks like another Heathrow Express scenario (station inside the Travelcard area but Travelcards not valid), the upside being the journey was only 5 minutes. Asked blokes outside if it was OK to take a picture of the entrance, they said OK, and they also didn’t object to me taking a picture of the concourse - which at present is very empty! - so I thought, OK maybe I could take some pictures downstairs on the platforms. One staff member saw me, and didn’t say anything as I took shots looking along the platforms in either direction, and of a Kent-bound train pulling into the station, but as that train left and the London-bound train approached, another guy said it wasn’t OK! Anyway the only shot I wanted that I couldn’t take was of the platform name-board to add to my collection.
Oh BTW until the extension to the DLR opens next year, the only way to get to the International station is a shuttle bus from platform 11 of the “normal station” (price included in Train fare).
Front Page of Todays Standard: Blow to Brown’s Pledge of British Jobs for Brtish Workers !
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23779532-border-police-swoop-on-illegal-migrants-at-olympic-site.do
Well Done Gordon keep lying till election day !
Well Don
I’m not too familiar with this site - but it has a big Google Rank score
http://allafrica.com/stories/200912040584.html
Climategate is their editorial.
Labours ethical foreign policy
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/6726818/Iraq-inquiry-Britain-committed-large-land-force-to-buy-influence-with-US.html
Iraq inquiry: Britain committed large land force ‘to buy influence with US’
457. Who said anything about freeing murderers “to kill again” (and suppose they don’t?)?
Do you think life should mean life? Nothing wrong with that.
460. FFS.
A wolfpack of w*nkers.
463 only one close to being a marine amphibian is the Crab Eating Frog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab-eating_Frog
An important question was left out of the survey. There should have been a question or two about Climategate, because those who have not heard about it (or only given a sanitised version) will base their views mainly on the extensive AGW propaganda (which far outweighs the publicity given to sceptics pre-Climategate), ignorant of the questions that Climategate raises.
464. Life under Labour: trainspotters will be prosecuted.
From Betfair - re election date market ( I wanted to collect on 2010)
” Our Market Operations team have advised the below concerning this market:
This market will be settled once January 1st 2010 dawns, as there can then be no other possible winner in the market.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further enquiries “
A poster on the DT blogs reminded me of this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knut_(polar_bear)
How can greenies claim to want to save polar bears but simultaneously want them put down as humans would make crap parents?
Oh and here’s a really cute video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ6zJrnJNCo
469 Actually, you might be being a bit harsh casually dismissing the Nordic fashion summit. I’m thinking it might be totty-tastic…
But “A universal declaration of Mother Earth rights” - who else from across the Universe are they expecting to attend?????
Strange! how the Indy is now doing council byelections, isn’t that unusual for a national or is it only on their website?
Tories crashed to defeat against Labour in the latest council by-elections.
The loss at Dane Valley in Kent’s Thanet District follows last week’s triple disaster for Conservatives when Liberal Democrats gained three seats from them.
Labour’s Thanet victor Sandra Hart scored a net 8.5 per cent swing from Tories who slumped into third place behind Lib Dems.
She is the wife of her party’s group leader on the council.
Counting is under way in a second by-election at Ormesby, Redcar and Cleveland Borough with a result expected about noon.
The Liberal Democrats easily defended their Ormesby seat, taking nearly three-quarters of the votes.
The Tories finished last with just 77 votes - behind Ukip.
RESULTS:
Redcar and Cleveland Borough - Ormesby: Lib Dem 1084, Lab 210, Ukip 103, C 77. (May 2007 - Three seats Lib Dem 1146, 1082, 1038, C 366, Lab 360). Lib Dem hold. Swing 9.6% Lab to Lib Dem.
Thanet District - Dane Valley: Lab 318, Lib Dem 260, C 222, Ind 130. (May 2007 - Three seats C 639, 629, 615, Lab 558, 554, 482, Grey Party for Lower Council Tax 269). Lab gain from C. Swing 8.5% C to Lab.
I assume Tories aren’t big in Redcar.
Ah this should calm the greens down - Sarah Palin has weighed in on Copenhagen and polar bears (not passive smoking or haddocks)
http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/mr-president-boycott-copenhagen-investigate-your-climate-change-experts/188540473434
“Policy should be based on sound science, not snake oil. I took a stand against such snake oil science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population has increased.”
CLASS WARFARE & POLITICS OF ENVY = DESPERATION
Brown really is the biggest t4at to ever set foot inside No10.
He may cheer up his brain dead party by using his class warfare and politics of envy mantra. However if you have read and listened to poltical commentators and journos over the last few days you will note that they all conclude the same thing; such attacks show a party out of ideas and quite frankly desperate. Most importantly they think the voters aren’t interested in any of this nonsense either… they certainly weren’t in Crewe and Nantwich !
So what will it be then Mr Brown -A class and envy mantra or a campaign based on some policies ?
Think we all know the answer to that one !
Somehow I think the Tory vote share is going to start rising again very soon, now those floating voters can see and hear the playground politics of the Labour fold !
475. Marquee Mark - of course you absolutely right.
I was being exceedingly narrow-minded in that regard.
475. Marquee Mark - of course you are absolutely right.
I was being exceedingly narrow-minded in that regard
476 “I assume Tories aren’t big in Redcar.”
They might get a big bigger, with the local steel plant being mothballed and 2,000 jobs going.
I find it hilariously hypocritical that the elite jet around the world burning fossil fuels as if there is no tomorrow, to gather in conference centres which emit tons of carbon, not to say hot air, all in order for them to tell us not to do what they do and to make ourselves poorer on the basis of dodgy data.
A little bit of humility would not come amiss.
And the minute Jonah tells us we have fifty days to save the world the whole edifice begins wobble with ’science’ exposed to be little better than propaganda.
The danger is that there will be a reaction against protecting our environment and that would be really dangerous, as no-one needs a scientist to tell them that millions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere is not a good thing, and nor is damaging the environment around us or exhausting natural resources. Not least for our economic security.
But that is a light year away from demanding trillions and trillions of dollars are spent to reverse something which is unproven and which we are unlikely to be able to do even if it were necessary.
We would look silly if we were caught trying to cool things down when the ice age struck.
468. Are you referring to life imprisonment? Life already does mean life. Anybody serving a life sentence continues to serve it after being released on licence, and can be recalled to prison at any time if the conditions are broken.
470. Mudskippers are a sort of amphibious fish, if that counts.
The 2 byelections for teh Tories were awful yesterday.
Labour even managed to gain a seat from them in Thanet.
On the ground and at the ballot box the Tories are struggling.
This Urm arrr, Miliblair and Hillary stuff is looking suspicious.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1233152/It-really-IS-crush-Hillary-Clintons-delighted-giggles-Miliband-teases-Nato-meeting.html
Ah! a woman of her age behaving like that, she should learn to behave herself like, ‘Ronnie Wood’
485.
Timmo old chap. What you have to realise is that the Tories are in control of 80% of the local authorities, so of course the incumbents will get the blame locally….. The incumbent national government will get the blame nationally at the GE …. so things to be perfectly in sync with the norm I would say !
464. I’m not sure that all of Network Rail’s staff even follow their own guidelines.
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/777.aspx#photography
486. Coldstone
Do you think Hilary has been socialising with Bercow’s Missus ?
472. Well it’s the last new station to open in London prior to the new DLR and East London Line stations next summer.
But I want that platform name-board LOL! I suppose what I’ll do next time I’ll take my picture, he’ll say “Sorry, sir, you can’t take pictures on the platforms”, and I’ll say, “Fine with me”, having taken the shot of the sign I wanted
468. Yes I was referring to Life Imprisonment.
453. Do a bit more research…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Miers
The thought of Hilary letching at you would make any man hide their Banana !
There is I think something about a post that says one should do more research then quotes Wikipedia.
John R @ 194 “Last year, in an interview with CAM magazine …”
I honestly thought no-one had so much spare time, or was so overcome with listlessness and ennui, that they stooped to read CAM magazine.
491. If true as described, that’s shocking Rod.
I’m not so well read on the Navy as on the Army. I’m surprised he wasn’t prosecuted. The Admiralty should have taken a stronger line.
(Forgive me if I’m not more believing: you have a track record of being a Nazi sympathesiser so I always take your posts on “doing a bit more research” with a pinch of salt)
485 The 2 byelections for the Tories were awful yesterday.
Labour even managed to gain a seat from them in Thanet.
On the ground and at the ballot box the Tories are struggling.
Dane Valley is a one off-the Conservative Candidate emigrated and still tried to keep his seat!
Next door in Labour held marginal of Dover/Deal Cons romped home in “solid” labour ward.
That’s because older people have been around long enough to see the full natural cycle of weather, and know that this is just the way things are. I’m sure raw scientific data over the last, say 100 years would back that up. One decade is a bit warmer, another decade is a bit wetter, another decade sees the tectonic plates move significantly and the world gets more earthquakes.
Trust your senses first, gather your own scientific data to check what your senses may be telling you by gathering data from reliable sources, and don’t trust scientists working with politicians. Those who are long enough in the tooth have learned this the hard way should be listened to more by people in the media - but I guess “shock, horror” makes a better headline.