Greenwashing a jury

steve

Ah Melanie, I see you're as selective as ever in your anti-intellectualism. You neglect to mention this bit of the BBC story you reference: "Even so, 2008 is set to be about the 10th warmest year since 1850, and Met Office scientists say temperatures will rise again as La Nina conditions ease."

Julian Fruppapoipepauppioioip

"Even if mmgw was well-founded, that should not be used to excuse and legitimise criminal behaviour. But it isn’t."

Isn't it the long-established role of a jury to throw out a case if, for example, the law is an ass? The Clive Ponting case was a good example of this. I agree with Melanie that MMGW is a load of BS, but I profoundly disagree with her when she says that if MMGW were well-founded it would be wrong to legitimise the "criminal" behaviour in this case. I thought Melanie loved freedom more than this.

john doe

It is partly the power of brainwashing Melanie. But also worrying here is the troglodytic brainlessness of the jury members. Another jury earlier this week failed to convict the Islamic jihadists who intended to blow up transatlantic airliners, in spite of martyrdom videos, explosives and flight lists used as evidence.
Two cases in a row...and their are many more....of juries utterly failing in their duty to carry out justice and safeguard the common weal.
The jury system is a farce given the morons that end up on them. We should be told who they are, what are their backgrounds and what are their religious and ideological persuasions. Are they not vetted? Have they the right, given the obviously low intelligence of some, to serve on a jury? Have they the mental and moral wherewithal to undergo a bombardment of dissembling and misinformation from a callous,cynical and devious barrister? And then come to a decision which, in spite of any truth presented to them by barristers and witnesses of integrity, is entirely determined by their own deep seated beliefs and prejudices. The jury system is derelict, given the zeitgeist and mass brainwashing taking place.

Paul McLaughlan

This is a very sad day for law and order, for common sense, for justice and for Britain as a whole. It makes me sick to the stomach.

Forlornehope

The problem with Melanie's analysis is that the last ten years have, in fact, been warmer than the previous ten. There is a very good little book "Understanding Variation" by Don Wheeler. Not about global warming but about how to understand variable data. It is well worth reading if you wish to avoid drawing incorrect conclusions.

Tom

If the jurors only heard half the case then a second set should be called on the basis of a mistrial; expert witness's were called and it appears no rebuttal was allowed or written of in the court notes.

This could easily be what is needed to put this scam to bed.

David

I see- so juries are only okay when they come to the verdict you want.

Hereford

Steve: 10th warmest, since 1850. Not the warmest ever recorded. Not warmer than previous periods of natural global warming. Not only slightly less warm than next year will be.

It's you that is being selective not Melanie.

Thinkster (changing nickname to Vision Aforethough)

Sorry M, it just doesn't matter. a) Sometimes, protest is the only way to bring about change - 1789 / 1776 etc - even maybe 2009 here if our government doesn't stop messing with the middle classes. Anyway, b) Coal is dirty and a fuel of yesteryear. It is time to make Manhatten Project sized investments in solar energy that has been proven countless times to be capable of providing ALL our power requirements without any need for nuclear, coal or oil. Those energy companies stuck in the past and reliant on a single track profit strategy are hindering mankind's progress towards a new cleaner more sustainable way of life. c) It is fanatstic news that these people have won this case because what they are protesting over is a threat to our quality of life and writing letters to MPs is unlikely to have any effect. d) I am not commenting on whether the Earth is warming or cooling, but dirty polluting fuels have met their Waterloo. Consider this: There is no example in nature where oil, coal or Nuclear is used to 'power' a life form or lifestyle. All rely on the sun, consuming other living 'things' and, well, living the sustainable lifestyle. Cow farts are a by product of our breeding a lot of them for our needs so there are too many cows to balance nature's equilibrium. Solar all the way, please.
lifemachine.com for more details.

Roddy M

Melanie, if 1% of what you think on climate change is correct, then
you are wasted as a journalist and should instead become a Nobel
Prize-winning scientist. Although, I suppose that could be difficult.
After all, every scientist in the world (or at least all the
mainstream ones), are engaged in an elaborate international conspiracy
to produce fake evidence of climate change which will, after some
steps which I've forgotton, result in taxes going to the ringleaders
of this secretive operation. Perhaps you should stick to journalism
after all.

Trefor Jones

Very true. However no other columnist have seized on this obvious and continuous brainwashing in the popular media.More worryingly, the "shower" thas masquerade as a Cabinet are apparently backtracking on Kingsnorth ( Newsnight last night) and are ensuring that we are all about to enter a personal ice age owing to the lack of future electricity supply. Perversely, at least the judgment by "those of whom the light of justice shines" has not produced a single martyr in order to keep this issue in the headlines. When we shiver in a decade's time and OAPs die of hypothermai this coming winter I hope that this jury will be a able to sleep soundly at night knowing that millionaire Zac is snug and warm.

Brian Moshe

If this angry anarchistic mob can get away with it so - using the same arguments - can Islamic terrorists.

Miranda Rose Smith

"Brain washing" is usually written as one word: brainwashing.

Miranda Rose Smith

Even if global warming is taking place and even if it is man-made, that doesn't give the Greenpeace activists the right to damage the power station. How would this jury treat a Right-to-Lifer who blew up an abortion clinic?

Moderation in all

1] John Doe - Very smart for linking the two cases.
2] David - No, nobody said that.

Richard North

Neither Goldmith nor Hansen should have been accepted as expert witnesses. In some senses, the fact that they held sway might down to the prosecution for failing to challenge their expert witness credentials hard enough (or at all). By any reasonable assessment, neither should have qualified as experts because they are so obviously campaigners - which is grounds for disqualifying an expert.

Aonther point is that the jury may have been misdirected in law.

In R v. Hill and Hall (1989), the Court of Appeal introduced an objective element to the defence of "lawful excuse". The defendants had been convicted of possession of a hacksaw blade outside a US naval base in Wales, having admitted an intention to use the blade to cut through the base's perimeter fence.

They claimed a lawful excuse in that they had acted to protect their own property located near the base; their reasoning was that the base would at some point in the future attract a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union. Given that Hill was "forced to admit that she did not expect a nuclear bomb to fall today or tomorrow", the Court concluded that this threat to property was too remote and thus the defence had not been made out, however honest the belief had been.

In the context of "global warming" from the emissions of one power station, where the effects are not measurable in the foreseeable future (or at all), it seems hard to argue that the threat was anything other than remote.

Forlornehope

The confusion on warming or cooling seems to come because 1998 was a particularly warm year, which has not been beaten since. There is a lot of variation in global temperature from year to year so a little care is needed when discussing trends. Take the ten years up to and including 1998 and the ten years following. By including 1998 in the first set of data this will reduce any indication of warming. Use the UK Met office data to calculate the difference in the mean temperature between the two data sets and you get 0.17 centigrade degrees. This probably underestimates the trend because of the way in which we have treated the 1998 result. Apply a T test for significance to the data and you will find that there is a one in 500 probability (p = 0.002) of this being due to chance.

This may be considered a all bit mathematical, not to say nerdy, but if we are going to discuss data then that is what we have to do.

Andrew

I wonder what any of those jurors who say to someone who smashed up their cars and then claimed they did so in defense of the planet?

I am all for alternative energy, but we have to be practical in terms of time frames. What do these activist expect to happen right now? That all coal fired power stations will be shut down tomorrow. And then all the nuclear ones too? I think they would be taken a little more seriously is they approached the issue more pragmatically.

Tiberius

David: if, by chance, these fascists had smashed your car up as part of the collateral damage, would you have been pleased with the verdict?

David Alexander

Melanie is spot on, much evidence is here http://antigreen.blogspot.com/ .

MMGW is Communism reborn and an effective means of redistribution of funds & rescources. Scientists in the employ of the UN and the EU etc will simply not get funding (employment) if they are "off message".

Nick Kaplan

I was totally astounded by this decision and even more amazed that some comments here have been supportive of it. The message that such a decision sends out is terrible. In essence it implies that if one passionately believes in a cause one can do as one pleases in an effort to combat those who disagree. How can it be right to acquit anybody who has caused £35000 of criminal damage to another person’s property? The entire purpose of the law is to prevent just such acts.

Disagreeing with the continued use of coal power stations is a reasonable position (not one I share) and can be discussed rationally. However, the fact that one believes that it is wrong to use coal does not give justification to take it upon oneself to ‘solve’ this problem, just like the fact that I believe this government is an absolute disaster for this country does not give me the right to organise a military coup and overthrow it. One should never be allowed to use violence to damage the perfectly legal activities of others. If one believes it is wrong to use coal one should use peaceful democratic means to bring about a change in the law to ban it. Peaceful protest for example is perfectly legitimate, as is the lobbying of government. What is not acceptable is violence and vandalism.

It makes me despair that the law is in such a state that a jury has the ability to make the decision to acquit people who freely admit they are guilty of damaging the property of others engaged in a perfectly legal activity. A decent legal system and society would make it clear that there are no mitigating circumstances or loopholes that could be used to manipulate a jury into acquitting such people for such a crime. Whether or not one believes in MMGW this decision is wrong wrong wrong!

David McAdam

Terrifying indeed but not a surprising outcome. Given the dumbed down and post-modernist infested state of education, social services, television, radio, the arts etc not to mention the levers of social order such as the judiciary, the jury's finding comes as no shock. It has merely reflected the cerebrally damaging impact that such relentless dumbing down has had upon the individual's ability to rationalise logically and morally. A herd mentality has supplanted that of the individuals. Defining wanton vandalism and destruction a 'lawful excuse' sets a dangerous precedent. Backed by such an absurd ruling, opponents of these narcissistic protesters could, if they were as emotionally incontinent and ignorant as these 'anarchists', now legitamately damage the property of these people with impunity. I'd like to see how the same jury would respond to that. Of course such a situation would never materialise for violence and hooliganism is not the property of rational protest but that of the extreme left without any constituency. It's alarmingly infectious. Witness the hatred, threats, intimidation and violence displayed by extreme leftists at the recent Reupublican Convention. Over 250 arrests were made. Will those charged with public order offences now be able to claim 'lawful excuse'for running amuck?

Jones

"The problem with Melanie's analysis is that the last ten years have, in fact, been warmer than the previous ten." According to Hansen, perhaps, but he is known to 'adjust' his figures upwards. The true temperature story shows a flattening and cooling trend since 2000. It has been proven that there is no real warming outside of natural variation yet the mainstream media keep on showing stories that are at variance with actual events to sensationalise the 'Warming' agenda. Eco-activism is portrayed repeatedly as 'good' when actual events show a far murkier picture of their activities. No wonder the jury threw the case out.

Jack Burton on The Pork Chop Express

I wish the energy lobby would start vandalising wind farms and Toyota Priuses (Prii?) on the grounds that they believe passionately that they are a waste of money and will make not one iota of difference to mmgw. They could also kick the sh1t out of those smug technically-not-criminal Trots on C4 News last night, bleating at nauseating length about how concerned they are.

John

I imagined magazines such as this and their readers would be irate at this decision. But I must say that I am a bit surprised that the anger at the outcome of the case has descended into climate change denial. That's 'climate change' by the way, because 'global warming' doesn't give half of the story. It's about extremes in weather, including floods, like the ones we've been having, droughts, hurricanes (say Gustav or Katrina), species extinction and destruction of ecosystems. As a climate change campaigner, at Kingsnorth for the climate camp back in August, I've never heard of the acronym 'mmgw', I don't really think it's used much to be honest. Another thing, causing damage to property is not violence. No-one was hurt, this was a peaceful display of non-violent direct action, and I personaly am thrilled with the result. You may also be interested in the Raytheon 9 case, concluded back in June: www.raytheon9.org. Another heroic display of non-violent action, that was a huge victory for the anti-war movement. I reckon this magazine will have a lot more to complain about in the months and years to come, unless serious action on climate change is taken by those in power. Happy reporting!

Straydingo

One work describes all of the noise we see from the mmgw disciples "GROUPTHINK"

Straydingo

One word describes all of the noise we see from the mmgw disciples "GROUPTHINK"

Susan Hill

More dictatorship. In summer we heat water via an immersion. This needed replacing so two days ago the plumber fitted us a new one. Tepid bathwater. Tepid shower. Rang plumber. Yes, he said, I know. 'You KNOW ? What do you mean you know ?'
'The new heaters are not factory pre-set at 60 degrees. You cannot alter them. The government has said that is as hot as they can be programmed to reach because of what he called 'this f...ing global warming c...p.'
I asked if he couldn`t adjust it upwards. He said he wished to God he could as he was sick of everyone like me ringing him to complain about tepid baths where they used to have hot ones.
Fortunately, - or not, depending on your point of view - come the winter we switch off the immersion and heat the water and CH via the oil-fired boiler. It costs us both arms and legs but at least we will have decent hot baths and just let them try to stop us.

phil

Why do so many on this thread go for a red herring?-regardless of who is right scientifically ,we are looking at a trial of those that attacked other peoples property and there should surely have been only one verdict -guilty -mitigation and clemency could be discussed before sentence .the poster who has most affected me here is-------"David
September 11th, 2008 1:23pm
I see- so juries are only okay when they come to the verdict you want."" this encapsulates so much of the way our country is descending into farce,so left wing and so against authority it is heartbreaking to read .

John Doe has made well the point about juries ,we prefer to believe they give a reasoned and balanced view -I prefer to believe the evidence I hear from jurors that some fall asleep ,some want a quick decision so they can go home especially prior to the weekend ,some are politically biased and many are totally inept -does anyone think many months of complicated evidence can be handled by those described above ? Times have changed since everyone did jury service ,nowadays many successful people are given leave to avoid it and it is left increasingly to those with nothing better to do -harsh words? but is it true ?

This week has given us a wake up call if in fact we need one ,this trial was peanuts compared to the terrorist one ,and that now is set to cost the nation a fortune to retry the alleged airplane plotters -I have no idea who is right on climate change but I think I know that our beloved nation needs to get real on our legal system -one for this millenium

Wolf Terner

Wait till the masses wake up and realize that global warming, and its taxes, are a fraud! The British subjects will then chop off the future Charles III and place it next to Charles I's!Then they'll attack all the academics and Greenpeace scum. I' be happy to pay for a front row seat to view this guillotining!

Verity

Forlorne Hope - "The problem with Melanie's analysis is that the last ten years have, in fact, been warmer than the previous ten."

No. The problem with your analysis is, you don't understand that juries are compelled to reach decisions within the boundaries of the law. Juries are not formed to excuse people breaking the law if they believe in fashionable theories that are not legislated. That is the problem with your post, Forlorne Hope.

Forlornehope

Jones,

I don't want to appear impolite but you might like to get a GCSE higher mathematics text and work through the section on data analysis. You would find it helpful in understanding this type of problem. Quite a few of the posters on this subject (not to mention some journalists) might also benefit.

Conservo

Keep it up Melanie! From a right thinking American from across the pond you are making sense the communists will never acknowledge. One thing, please take George Soros back. He already did damage in your country, we don't want him here anymore. Also, we want to ship a whole lot of sheeple your way that will be able to blend in and perhaps help balance your socialist budget.

Jim Greenhalf

The French, who wisely secured their energy supplies by building nuclear power stations more than three decades ago, must be laughing at us. With every day that passes this country is becoming the embodiment of some Swiftian satire, with Mr Cameron, Mr Brown, Mr Clegg, and their respective colleagues, arguing about the extraction of sunshine from cucumbers. God help us; but then the Almighty is probably still crackled up over that Big Bang experiment under Switzerland.

themagicmonkey

For a moment I wondered what "mmgw" was - I thought it might be the noise columnists make as they seize up and then explode, from all the rage building up within their gut.

Loots

Environmental terrorists? Forgive me, but they painted the word Gordon on a chimney. Trespass, certainly. Damage to property, also, especially if one considers time and profit to be property, as the law does. But terrorism? I think we could all do with remembering that terrorism is violent and indiscriminate, and that people die from it, often in large numbers. If Melanie considers this terrorism, she needs a sit down, a cup of tea, and a moral compass. Urgently.

Monty

Activist juries, just like activist judges, have the potential to unleash a big can of worms and leave the rest of society to clean up the mess afterwards.

d1carter

It's been nice knowing you...

Shaun Harbord

Oh dear!! The possibility that 12 people might have been indpendent enough to make up their own minds appears to frighten you. If any of them are Daily Mail readers as well, that must be truly horrifying.

Forlornehope

Verity,

There is a long and respected tradition of 12 good men, and women, and true being able to put their perception of justice ahead of the letter of the law. Whether or not they were right to do so in this case is another matter. Personally I am inclined to agree with Melanie that they were not. However they were the jury and it was their decision. That is the law of England and it is a fundamental defence of freedom.

Anyway, my original post was about the need to understand data before drawing conclusions. This is a problem in public debate in Britain that was summed up by C P Snow as the two cultures. Polly Toynbee is an example from the left who produces similar mathematical nonsense. Left or right it is necessary to do the maths.

David Revelman

Ever since the global warming scare started I have been observing my fellow man. Based on opinion polls, blogs, articles, elections, talkback radio, TV and conversations across a wide range of issues I can now conclude that only 20-40% of people have any common sense at all. The rest of the human race will swallow anything shoved down its throat, from communism to National Socialism to global warming. “O brave new world: That hath such people in't!" I despair.

Blue Sky Thinker

Thatcher actually "invented" global warming - in the 70s the scare was cooling, but she wanted to build nuclear power stations so she started funding research on the little known theory of warming. The scientists followed the money.

Note it is always the toffs that are environmentalists - they have been since the Industrial Revolution which ended their ruling hegemony and gave the rest of us ideas above our station. The Japanese scientist is right - the rich are working (albeit subconsciously) to further their own interests and remove competition from the poor (ie developing) world.

The classic example of this closer to home was when Cameron came up with his "get those oiks off my Easy Jet" policy - he just couldn't help himself!

mikiwud

The prosecution should have had Hanson discreditted as "the most distinguished climate scientist in the world",he is an astronomer.He could not give expert evidence,only an opinion.
He has been shown to "massage" temperature data released by NASA.A lot of scientists can not understand how he keeps his job as he repeatedly breaks his terms of employment.There is now an open campaign to get him removed.
Forlornehope,
The temp data compares a running mean,of say 5 yrs, to a long term average.This gives a trend,which at the present,is downwards.
The annual temperature shows a marked downward movement over the past few years.

jose garcia

John Doe said...

"The jury system is a farce given the morons that end up on them. We should be told who they are, what are their backgrounds and what are their religious and ideological persuasions. Are they not vetted? Have they the right, given the obviously low intelligence of some, to serve on a jury? Have they the mental and moral wherewithal to undergo a bombardment of dissembling and misinformation from a callous,cynical and devious barrister?"

what IF they are being recruited on the basis of positive discrimination aganist islam/green issues for fear of being un pc?

there isnt another explanation except them being bought....

Yokel

I fear that in this perverse decision, this jury has given the Executive the excuse it needs to abolish Jury Trial. The "Justice Dept" has been sniffing around this for a while, they might now have a winning hand.

Ronnie

Phil and Verity are absolutely right, either we have law or we don't and mitigation should be considered in the sentencing process.

Juries are not qualified to or in the business of making the law up as they go along, they are supposed to make their conclusions within its framework. This particular jury should have been dismissed and I hope the relevant people take this immense point of principle higher.

I don't understand how the case centred on the contentious 'political' justification of the actions of the accused actions rather than the criminality of the actions themselves.

Who knows about global warming, or many other things, but if juries start thinking that cases can be decided on whether those before them, 'might have a point y'know' without reference to the law then we are truly sunk.

Forlornehope

mikiwud,

The UK Met Office data gives a global mean for individual years (NASA data is similar). In order to identify a change you need a rather more sophisticated analysis than using a short term rolling average. Professionally, for time dependent data, I have found that plotting a regression line of the data against time and showing a 95% confidence interval gives an indication of when a departure from trend is significant. There is a caution to be observed in that one departure from trend in every twenty identified in this way will be spurious, the underlying trend being unchanged. Just looking at a graph and seeing a few points reversing from the previous trend is inadequate to draw conclusions. A very useful technique to apply here is called CUSUM analysis. Look it up! You also need to be careful with climate data as there are major frequent fluctuations, El Nino and La Nina, which can affect that underlying trend over several years. There is a lot of maths behind interpreting highly variable data and it has to be approached with care.

By the way, yes almost all climate change demonstrations are just a form of moral masturbation. If people are really serious they should be getting on with the relevant science and engineering,which is quite capable of giving us a very comfortable low carbon economy. On the other hand the deniers do appear to be "useful idiots" in support of the Saudis, Iranians and Russians (follow the money as Deepthroat would have said).

J. Eric Johnson

Irony or hypocrisy? Yesterday Maggie was evil for her treatment of coal miners. Today the burning of coal is evil. Maggie vindicated? Hell no. She's still evil. Her sin was the mistreatment of the proletariat who should be allowed to go on mining coal at taxpayer expense. It is the burning of coal that must be supressed. Lunacy is on the march.

Before The Beginning of Time - The Movie!

John - I must say your argument makes perfect sense historically: "It's about extremes in weather, including floods, like the ones we've been having, droughts, hurricanes (say Gustav or Katrina), species extinction and destruction of ecosystems."

I know for a fact that there were never any hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico before Katrina a couple of years ago, and Gustav last week, and now Ike. Everything happened within he last couple of years, really.

I think the ancient story of Noah and the ark was desert fantasy, don't you?

And all those skeletons of dinosaurs who lived on tropical vegetation being dug up in deserts. Absolute fantasy!

I heard that during the Roman occupation of Britain, north of York was a big wine-growning region.

That's the problem with our ancestors. They recorded everything all wrong! There were no warming and cooling cycles before the internal combustion engine.

Listen, I'm going to start a new fashion of wearing a banana skin on my head instead of a hat. What do you think?

Verity

Forlorne Hope - Why do you misspell "forlorn"? God knows, it's a common enough two-syllable word that is spelled as it sounds.

You write: "There is a long and respected tradition of 12 good men, and women, and true being able to put their perception of justice ahead of the letter of the law."

There is? People utterly without qualifications, many of them not able to spell in
their native tongue, have been making up law on the hoof for a long time?

I find this strangely alarming.

Determining extenuating circumstanes, if any, is at the discretioln of trained, educated, mentally disciplined judges, not moonbats whose name came up for jury duty trying to hammer their personal obsessions onto our body of law.

Paul

Unrelated, but I'm sure you'll approve of this, Melanie:

"Sir Paul McCartney has insisted his first show in Israel will go ahead, despite pressure from campaigners who want him to cancel it.

The 65-year-old will perform some of his biggest Beatles and solo hits at the Tel Aviv gig later this month.

But protesters asked him to reconsider over Israel's occupation of the West Bank and its Gaza Strip blockade.

He told newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth: "I refused. I do what I think, and I have many friends who support Israel." "

More here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7612038.stm

David M

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 09/12/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

http://thunderrun.blogspot.com/2008/09/web-reconnaissance-for-09122008.html

Paul

Verity, if you're going to bang on (in your usual unpleasant, snobbish manner) about the way other people spell, you really ought to make more effort to ensure that your own ramblings are free from error. Go on, have a look at your last comment and count 'em up. Idiot.

Ulf

Good post, Ms Philips!

The verdict reached is indeed schocking.

If it is all right to vandalise private property with impunity, using this sort of "lawful excuse"-eco-argument, then what is next? Murders of those who do not sort their trash? SUV-carbombs?

With this shameful verdict, the British legal system is legitimising militant anarchy, and thus effectively trying to commit suicide.

Hergaman

I'm afraid that, if recent experiences watching cases at Harrow Crown Court are anything to go by, there is evidence to suggest that jurors do not always have the mental acumen or correct attitude to serve. I saw one dozing off repeatedly and another surreptitiously reading a paper on his lap - the usher did nothing. More subtle body language suggested lack of comprehension or utter disinterest.

Forlornehope

Verity,

Thank you for the spelling lesson. I use Forlornehope as one word as a name on blogs. The first time that I chose to use it someone else had got there first, hence the "e". As it is a proper noun, I can spell it as I like. If you were more observant, you would have noticed that I write it as one word. Anyway, I have always admired the Elizabethans for their creativity in spelling their own names.

Ultimately, if I am concerned about justice, I would rather trust myself to twelve of my fellow citizens than anybody else on the planet. That's one reason that I'm thankful to be British.

P.S. Thanks Paul!

Verity

Ulf - The destruction of our centuries of culture, laws and rights began with the malignant Tony Blair. "Political correctness" was invented by his enforcers. He took a wrecking ball to our Constitution and our Bill of Rights and our House of Lords which was unique and served us well. Angered by pride in Britishness and birthright, he flooded the country with Stone Agers and elevated them above those whose ancestors had developed, and fought for, our country for centuries. And millennia - as in fighting for the turf of these islands - before we were a country.

This was all part of a malign plan to destroy our identity and our heritage and force us into a Politburo-run EUSSR that we had fought for centuries to stay out of. Reduce us to serfdom, in other words, cowering before political masters.

Meanwhile, we were ordered to "celebrate" diversity, and "multiculturalism" was presented as an old British tradition - not something alien that had just been nailed on with a sledge hammer. Somehow, "celebrating diversity" didn't include celebrating Jews or Hindus.

Lawlessness was encouraged with risible "sentences". Money was removed from the pockets of those in the wealth-creating sector and given to people who contributed nothing to the national weal, nor ever will.

People became fearful to speak, which was the idea, and Blair and the Trots and Gramscians triumphed.

Ronnie

Verity, I have questions for you as I scroll madly up and down this infuriating blog thing.

1 What Bill of Rights? We make it up as we go along and can and do have our rights shredded at the whim of any government of the day as a result.

2 What constitution? See 1 above.

3 Are you saying that Blair replaced the Saxons with Stone-agers, or what? Where did he dig the Stone-agers up from and how were they still breathing? I didn't get that bit, kind of fell of the rails somewhat.

4 Have we really been fighting to stay out of the EU for centuries? I didn't realise that it had been going on for so long.

5 Do you think that our having an enormous empire on which the sun never set might have had something to do with the subsequent rise of multi-culturalism? I mean, there has to be some reason why so many people from the southern hemisphere would want and be able to come to these cold northern isles of ours. I think you'll find the empire had something to do with it.

6 Has Blair really triumphed? He left office in disgrace. All of his policies have failed. Nobody believes anything he says about anything and his 'legacy' is shot to pieces. The only thing people now give him credit for is keeping Gordon Brown out of 10 Downing Street for so long.

7 What exactly is it that you are drinking over there on a Friday afternoon?

Excellent stuff, very entertaining, congratulations to everyone. Reminds me of Margo Leadbetter.

not so nasty

Verity you wrote about Tony Blair that he "flooded the country with Stone Agers and elevated them above those whose ancestors had developed, and fought for, our country for centuries".

Can you please explain to whom you are referring when you write of "Stone Agers". Methink it may be what Frank Pulley calls "effnik minorifices".

James Hodson

I fall into that group of people that is rather nastily called "climate change deniers". There is, to mind, a fundamental difference between "my" group and those the opposing my point of view. Quite simply, I am prepared to accept that I may be 100% wrong, but not just yet. Please sway me, not insult me.

Lord of the Rings

"Blair and the Trots and Gramscians triumphed."

Until a 'hockey mom' appeared over the horizon, and they were shown up for the evil Orcs they really were. So began the fightback for middle-earth .......

Nicholas

John @ 5.18 "I imagined magazines such as this and their readers would be irate at this decision."

That is very smug and condescending. I imagined the Lefty rags (Guardian, New Statesman, other assorted bilge on paper) and their barmy readers would ruin this country - and they did.

I don't have that on my conscience even though as an evil conservative I read the evil Spectator.

ChromeCypher

"More and more climate-related scientists are coming out and saying the whole mmgw theory is wrong or fraudulent, with many reversing previously held views in the light of the evidence in front of their eyes"

So says Melanie Phillips, in The Spectator. Of these 'more and more scientists', it seems a little odd that Melanie can only find quotes from:-

1. A retired Professor of Engineering.

2. A hurricane expert at NOAA pointing out that the statement that all scientists believe global warming is anthropogenic is a lie. So it would be, but this happens to be a lie that nobody is telling (aka A Straw Man).

3. Professor Kunihiko Takeda, who has precisely zero qualifications in climate science and who blames the sun for the rising temperatures. Earlier Melanie claims that MMGW is wrong because the world has been cooling for a decade (not so, btw), the irony that solar output has flatlined for three decades, making a solar explantion for GW implausible apparently escapes her ... http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/tsi_vs_temp.gif

4. The Space and Science Research Center. http://www.spaceandscience.net/

A curious organisation and an odd choice to refute the reports and position statements of the IPCC, Royal Society, NAS, American Geophysical Union et al. Apparently formed last year it is led and indeed seems to consist mainly of one John L Casey plus 2 other academics from Bulgaria and Tanzania, respectively. It describes itself as 'the leading science and engineering research company internationally '. This global and reputable organisation seems to have fallen upon hard times, sadly, as its office address of 4700 Millenia Blvd., Suite 175 matches that offered by a 'virtual office' company ...

http://www.intelligentoffice.com/locations/Florida/Orlando/O...

who will rent you a receptionist, call-taking and message-forwarding services for a small fee and indeed apparently provides this service to 200 other businesses at the same address. Some mistake, shurely?

Presumably these are the cream of the crop. I conclude that either the proposition that 'More and more climate-related scientists are coming out and saying the whole mmgw theory is wrong or fraudulent' is wrong or else Melanie is an incompetent investigative journalist, unable to find actual credible examples to support her assertion.

Hmmmmm.

Dave

Talk about brainwashing and propaganda! Look at the picture used to go with this article. That's not the six professional, smart, normal people who walked out of court the other day.

"MMGW" (sound of choking) what these are hard working normal people with jobs!!!??? We can't have that! They don't look 'terrifying'!

Nick Kaplan

I hope Verity doesn’t mind if I answer a few of Ronnie’s questions but I found her (Ronnie’s) ignorance staggering and couldn’t resist.

1 What Bill of Rights?

Ever heard of the 1689 English Bill of Rights that was passed after the Glorious Revolution? It’s a fundamental piece of legislation that built of principles first established in Magana Carta 1215. It is a statement of some very important individual rights such as the right to petition the crown (i.e. government), the right to bear arms, Habeas Corpus, and the right to elect parliamentary representatives. In essence it enforced the idea of constitutional monarchy and limited government. Shamefully the principle of limited government is now virtually ignored by most politicians who care more about their own power than the great principles established in this Bill.
2 What constitution?

We have an uncodified not an unwritten constitution which used to be the envy of the world before it was destroyed by successive ‘progressives’ who saw it as a barrier to their grand schemes to mould society. This constitution was the first to establish modern democracy, the sovereignty of parliament, the brilliant idea of a bicameral legislature acting as a check on each other and the government, the first past the post electoral system, and many other little gems that the left are so intent on destroying (mostly because these things act as a barrier to the excessive power lefties crave).

3. Are you saying that Blair replaced the Saxons with Stone-agers, or what? Where did he dig the Stone-agers up from and how were they still breathing?

I believe Verity is referring to multiculturalism which in essence is the poisonous idea that all cultures (including those that think it is appropriate to stone women and homosexuals) are of equal worth, which is patently nonsense. This really boils down to an instruction to “worship all cultures except Western Capitalist culture which is evil and must be condemned as such.” This is just Gramscian theory put into practice.

4 Have we really been fighting to stay out of the EU for centuries?

We have been fighting against European domination for centuries (successfully since 1066) which is essentially the same thing. Ever heard of the Spanish Armada and our triumph over it in 1588, or perhaps the Battle of Trafalgar and our victory in 1805? Perhaps you have never heard of these things, which would indicate the lefts attempt to destroy our history (again a result of multiculturalism) has been extremely successful.

5. Do you think that our having an enormous empire on which the sun never set might have had something to do with the subsequent rise of multi-culturalism?

I do not understand why the fact we once had an empire should lead us to conclude that stoning homosexuals and living under a theocracy is as good as limited government and the Rule of Law. Perhaps you could explain the connection?

6 Has Blair really triumphed?

Just look around at our rotten judiciary that let murders serve sentences of but a few years. Look at the ludicrous PC decision, just the other day, which let vandals who caused £35,000 worth of damage get away completely free even after admitting their guilt. What about the fact that we have a government that would rather pay benefits to known terrorists than deport them? But when it comes to Gurkhas who have given so much in service to this country we cannot even stretch to a pension. These things are the result of multiculturalism and its life blood political correctness. 80% of our laws are not even decided in this country anymore, so successful have been Blair’s Europhile policies. Your own ignorance has demonstrated just how successful Blair’s government was in destroying our history. Alongside that will go patriotism which should clear the way for us to become fully fledged members or a Federal EUSSR, and if he’s truly lucky he might even get to be president of it one day.

Verity

Ronnie, I picture you with a wobbly head for some reason.

"What exactly am I drinking on a Friday afternoon?" Why would I be drinking anything but water or tea on a working afternoon?. Your question reveals a volume about you.

There is no point in my responding to you as the tentacles of thought fascism, aka political correctness, coil round The Speccie.

John West

Nowadays we have sophisicated means of taking the earth's temperature, involving telemetry from satellites and from ocean buoys relayed via satellite. These data are posted on the Internet (for example, by the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH), and by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) of Santa Rosa, California), and are freely available for anyone to download and check for himself. I encourage commenters here to do that, rather than continuing to rely on this or that book they may have read, or something they have heard someone say. Free open-source software for statistical analysis can be downloaded from The R Project.

I would remind commenter Forlornehope that climate data time series are highly autocorrelated, so that simple linear regression isn't really appropriate. Likewise CUSUM, which assumes i.i.d. variables, normality, and stability. But the real problem isn't statistical technique, but rather the lack of good data. There is only 30 years of satellite results, hardly enough to talk authoritatively about climate trends. Data before that is sparse, local, and imprecise. Who do we suppose was regularly sampling temperatures to a tenth of a degree 100 years ago in the middle of the Southern Ocean, say, or the Brazilian rain forest?

phil

forelorne hope -I thought you might like to ask the ever fragrant but sarcastic verity ,who is giving you spelling lessons ,about her paragraph! ,as it seems she is not quite qualified to teach-- see below

"Determining extenuating circumstanes, if any, is at the discretioln of trained, educated, mentally disciplined judges, not moonbats whose name came up for jury duty trying to hammer their personal obsessions onto our body of law."

now she has a point there but her spelling in the light of her sarcasm leaves a lot to be desired ,but of course it always does .

phil

Forlornehope and Paul just noticed your comments on verity,s spelling , sorry to duplicate -well maybe not :)

Billy Haven

Melanie, Melanie, Melanie. What world do you live in? You seem to be relying on 0.1% of the scientific community for your arguments. I'm guessing you have major issues with the environmental movement. Is this you throwing your toys out of the pram because they won a major point? Your article is truly terrifying. See you've taken to creating new acronyms (mmgw) to attempt to give your articles some credibility.

Forlornehope

It is quite possible that further analysis could disprove the anthropomorphic global warming theory. This is the case with any science but, as with evolution, I wouldn't put money on it in this case. Any systematic risk analysis based on combining probability and consequence,however, would identify global warming as a critical risk requiring mitigating action.

So far, all the comments that I have read on this blog that attempt to negate the theory show a level of mathematics that does not go beyond the year 9 syllabus at best. If you wish to discuss a subject you really have to have the tools to do so.

I find myself puzzled by the right wing reaction to global warming. A hypothesis to explain it could be a conspiracy by the Russians, Iranians and Saudis to keep the West hooked on hyrdrocarbons. After all nothing would remove Putin's wedding tackle so effectively as a low carbon economy! So people making these posts are either part of the conspiracy or "the useful idiots". Otherwise, what is the problem?

Ronnie

Nick Kaplan, you are actually being staggered by his ignorance (not her's), you ignoramous.

And...?

So...?

How far back do you want to go and how long do you want to live there? Some time ago China built wall but it doesn't keep anyone out today.

How long do expect to remain a victim of your interpretation of our history? What would you like to do now, other than remember?

Incidentally, in the interests of balance, Blair's failed regime was not entirely responsible for our being sucked-up by the E.U. A number of Conservative governments participated in this process along the way, notwithstanding red lines, rebates and opt-outs.

Richard Lawson

Melanie says "This year is set to be the coolest globally this century, as even the BBC has acknowledged".

"this century" is a tad misleading, as what it is only 8 years old. And the BBC link does not bear out her argument. What it says is:
"This year appears set to be the coolest globally this century.

Data from the UK Met Office shows that temperatures in the first half of the year have been more than 0.1 Celsius cooler than any year since 2000.

The principal reason is La Nina, part of the natural cycle that also includes El Nino, which cools the globe.

Even so, 2008 is set to be about the 10th warmest year since 1850, and Met Office scientists say temperatures will rise again as La Nina conditions ease".

Forlornehope

John,

Please note that my comment on the level of mathematics on this blog did not include you!

I take your point about autocorrelated data, however CUSUM, presumes neither normal distribution nor stability. In fact like other control chart techniques it is most useful to identify departures from stability. This is often the subject of debate between engineers and statisticians but goes back to Shewhart's original work published in 1931.

I think that we can probably agree that there are a number of ways to test this data but just looking at the trend over the last five years or so is insufficient.

Your comments on the paucity of historical global data are fair up to a point. However, among others the Royal Navy has been collecting data around the globe for over 200 years and thanks to amateur scientists, there is good local data going back even further. As you know it is also possible to infer temperatures from other physical and biological measurements.

The real issue is the relatively rapid rise in temperature over the last 100 years and the link to industrial activity. Increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will absorb more infra-red. There are obviously other things going on but as Margaret Thatcher said, conducting an uncontrolled experiment on the whole planet is not a terribly good idea.

We are getting some way from the original point of perverse jury verdicts. On that, I stick to the point that while I may not like some decisions, I'll put up with those ones to defend a fundamental freedom.

Joe Strummer

Why are we surprised that a modern British jury came to this bizarre decision.? Due to almost daily media bombardment of " global warming" they would be now hardwired to see these idiots as "heroes".

I just wonder if those on that jury who are motorists would come to the same verdict if hoodies had wrecked their cars with the reason given that they committed the vandalism in order to "prevent potential future deaths by road accidents."?

Britain is now officially insane.

Verity

Nick Kaplan - Thanks for an excellent post.

Horatio F

Melanie you are completely off track on the S.Palin issue. This woman is a genuine Bible Thumper, who wishes to impose her philosophies on the rest of us. She must be considered a highly dangerous addition to Mcain's campaign. Don't you get it .....

JC

I cannot say that I am surprised by this. As far as I am concerned, the foundation of what has long been a civilised nation has been the fact that the law is the law. One cannot a priori deiced what is legal or illegal, one must obey the law of the day - right or wrong. This ruling sets a dangerous precedent. Rather than changing the law through legal and democratic processes, it seems that we may break the law and in doing so change it. I will now give an analogy which I feel many of you will question. When you raise a child correctly (!) you set the rules and must be seen to stick to them else the child will have no true boundaries. This ruling seems to me to break this basic rule of managing human behavious (and yes I do think it does need to be managed - to a point). The law must be enforced. If the law is wrong then it should be changed - democratically. I believe that this ruling flouts these basics principles and invites disorder.

Greylag

Are we to understand that if Melanie did agree that global warming is a reality that needs to be addressed, she would agree that it is okay for private individuals to decide whose property is to be respected and whose not, and whose lawful activities are to be allowed to continue and whose not?

Nick Kaplan

Greylag; Melanie explicitly said “Even if mmgw was well-founded, that should not be used to excuse and legitimise criminal behaviour,” so the answer to your question is clearly no.

Colin

Goldsmith is my prospective parliamentary candidate. Up until this episode I was relishing the prospect of helping put the supercilious susan kramer ro the electoral sword by voting tory.

What on earth was he thinking? Where on earth was his judgement on this? Where was Dave's judgement in letting him take part in this stunt?

If kramer is ousted, as she deserves to be; it won't be because I voted for a billionaire eco warrior with ropey judgement.

nicodemus31

Since when did the offence of criminal damage result in the instigation of solemn court proceedings?

Surely this matter could have been dealt with effectively by a magistrate, summarily, using the maximum fine applicable to the amount of damage caused?

I assume the Crown decided to proceed solemnly so that when found guilty, the accused could have been dealt with more severely. If so, m'learned friends at the CPS have a vast quantity of egg on their faces.