A reshuffle in Laputa

David

I agree, when it comes to scientific questions, I always find the most reliable information comes from writers and journalists. What do scientists actually know? They can prove anything with facts.

Verity

Yes, it's come to Whitehall. Which is quite a trip. And the Trojan horse that carried the virus in was Anthony Blair Arsehole, Esq. and the coarse, fat wife of Bath, Knickers and Contraception Equipment, Cherie.

What a shambles! The twice disgraced Mandelson swilled back in. The twice disgraced Blunkett swilled in. The assault on the British public and British democracy is so outrageous that it beggars description.

And they're going to continue to try to cram this SS Thought Fascism down British necks. When will the British stop being fearful of being accused of being Islamophobic, Anti-Global Warming Loons, Little Englanders, etc., etc., etc.?

And while I'm at it, Cameron, if gets to be PM, should live at the PM's official residence, which is No 10 Downing St. I don't see that the entire country has to adjust its expectations for his child. Sorry. Sounds cruel, but the PM should be living in the PM's residence.

Rob-NY

Enviromentalism is simpy a trojan horse for marxism. Its goal has nothing to do with the environment and has all to do with weakening and ultimately destroying the largest capitalistic nation, the USA
(period).

Kenn Gividen ENDiana.com

I'm reminded of Marco Polo's introduction of fossil fuels to Europe in the 13th century.

The black rocks he saw the Chinese burning were, in fact, coal; a discovery the Europeans adapted and, in so doing, preserved the continent's landscape denuded for heating fuel.

Coal also fueled the industrial revolution, increasing the quality of human existence exponentially.

Robin

And what makes this bizarre approach even more weird is the emergence of a family dynasty in the Labour Government.

Unlike the other Dynasty led by the fascinating Carringtons, this one is just wet. Perhaps not even that - damp, more likely.

Hank The Hunk

Looks like the titans of Wall St brought the economy down before the Greenies.

Russ Green

In my opinion, Gobal warming is a fact, Is it caused by human activity ? NO, its a myth or "it could even be a down right lie" that as been used to create a huge increase in surprise, surprise, "tax", global warming is in fact caused by sun spots and other solar activity that are occuring and do periodically accure on that enormous ball of nuclear activity in the sky that we call the "sun",

Ron Todd

Kenn

Marco Polo did not introduce coal to Europe. At least not this part.
Read a bit of history.

Tancred

The Greens are just like any other fanatics.

If anyone disagrees they are vilified and, like holocaust deniers, persecuted.

Logic and facts win arguments - not bullying.

Our problem is that there are too many people - not whether it is getting too hot or cold.

Pollution is bad, carbon emissions are bad etc etc but if there were fewer of us, and those who remained could feed, heat and house themselves in a sustainable way, the world would be a better place.

Unfortunately, whilst we expand populations amongst people who cannot feed, govern or organise themselves, the world will continue to be a very unhappy, and dangerous, place.

steve

Rob: I think the Bush administration has done a much better job of destroying American capitalism than the environmental movement. Perhaps you should look for the trojan horse closer to home.

robzrob

I went up and stood beside and under one of those windmills for the first time the other day. What a majestic thing it was! Ugly? Why? Because it doesn't look like one of those cute little Dutch jobs? Well, perhaps we could paint them green/brown instead of white - they might blend in with the trees a bit then.

Anyway...

I just stood there, looking up at this great thing and wondering at it. Just a simple mechanical device, only needing a bit of grease on its bearings for maintenance, not needing anybody to go down into dark shafts to dig up poisonous, dirty coal, not needing vast tankers to bring its fuel from the other side of the world, just standing there, extracting energy from the free fuel in the wind we've got around us. Did you get that? NO FUEL! Yes, NO FUEL! How can you improve on that?

There was a wonderful 'whoosh' every time one of the blades came round. Noisy? Only that whoosh and that was inaudible once you got about 200 yards away.

An exhilarating experience - try it.

robzrob

I went up and stood beside and under one of those windmills for the first time the other day. What a majestic thing it was! Ugly? Why? Because it doesn't look like one of those cute little Dutch jobs? Well, perhaps we could paint them green/brown instead of white - they might blend in with the trees a bit then.

Anyway...

I just stood there, looking up at this great thing and wondering at it. Just a simple mechanical device, only needing a bit of grease on its bearings for maintenance, not needing anybody to go down into dark shafts to dig up poisonous, dirty coal, not needing vast tankers to bring its fuel from the other side of the world, just standing there, extracting energy from the free fuel in the wind we've got around us. Did you get that? NO FUEL! Yes, NO FUEL! How can you improve on that?

There was a wonderful 'whoosh' every time one of the blades came round. Noisy? Only that whoosh and that was inaudible once you got about 200 yards away.

An exhilarating experience - try it.

Augustus

Back in April the BBC reported that UK scientists at the University of Lancaster had produced compelling evidence that modern-day climate change is not produced by changes in the Sun's activity. They used three different ways to search for a correlation, and found virtually none. This evidence puts, at the very least, the cosmic ray theory which formed the centrepiece for 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' documentary under very heavy pressure.

Cosmic rays are deflected away from Earth by our planets magnetic field, and by the solar wind - streams of electrically charged particles coming from the Sun. The Danish scientist Dr. Svensmark's hypothesis was that when the solar wind is weak, more cosmic rays penetrate to Earth. That creates more charged particles in the atmosphere, which in turn induces more clouds to form cooling the climate. But when the Sun's output is strong, the planet warms up. The U.of L. team investigated the link by looking for periods in time and for places on Earth which had documented weak or strong cosmic ray arrivals, and seeing if that affected the cloudiness observed in those locations at those times.

The Svensmark hypothesis has also been attacked by Mike Lockwood from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory. He showed that over the last 20 years solar activity has been slowly declining, which should have led to a drop in global temperatures if the theory was correct.

Killing Joke

Rob NY "Enviromentalism is simpy a trojan horse for marxism"

Well I vote Tory and I believe in MMGW, so does David Cameron & John McCain does that make us all Marxists or Conservatives?

Allan@Aberdeen

"Back in April the BBC reported that . . . "

Augustus, do you see where the credibility gap is?

Ronnie

I don't think I've ever read so much rubbish in my life!

Mel: 'Global warming, like Marxism, is a political theory of actions,...'

Is there anything in Mel's world that is not a Marxist conspiracy? Is the melting Artic ice cap Marxist? Are the disappering glaciers across the world Marxist? Are the rising and warming seas Marxist? Are the changing weather patterns, including massively increased storm activity, Marxist? Is nature the leading player in the world's largest Marxist conspiracy to bring the US down?

And actually, global warming activists are not trying to destroy the US economy (the Republicans have already done that) they are trying to redirect its activity in more sustainable ways. Is that really so bad?

Rob-NY: 'Enviromentalism is simpy a trojan horse for marxism.'

Yes, the trees, the rivers, the polar bears, the tigers... They are all in it together. But, are they Islamists too?

And what did Marx actually say about Environmentalism?

Tancred: 'Our problem is that there are too many people - not whether it is getting too hot or cold.'

So, how many do you think we should get rid of? In less developed countries of course.

Actually if you wait a few years, the global warming that you pretend doesn't exist will have taken care of millions of people in low-lying areas like the Maldives, Bangladesh etc.

That would be another consequence of Rob-NY's Marxist plot.

Verity: I'm sorry, I just didn't understand a word dear.

People! We have real problems and to a great extent it doesn't matter whether they are man-made or not. We will have to find ways of dealing with what's coming, like adults.

This Marxist conspiracy nonsense is not helping.

The Truth Hurts

Yee Haw Mel!
Let's slice through those stinking rain forests and turn the hardwood into kitchen knife handles. The chainsaw was Mankind's best invention to date.
Lets turn the Amazon into a strip mall with Mc Donalds, Starbucks and fine carparks.
Let's rip out all those energy inefficient, wasteful inventions like car silencers, gas scrubbers, and sewage settlement tanks.
Steam trains were exciting wonderfull machines and Victoria Station has lost a lot of its character without the grimy walls.
Three Mile Island was just a little mistake that was blown out of all proportion.
How DARE these lefty wimps suggest that the great US of A be subjected to greenhouse gas emmission standards--they are just for socialist countries.
These environmentalists are COMMUNISTS out to GET US!

Ronnie

Actually, Verity, the PM can live wherever the hell he likes. Who cares? As long as he has internet...

This idea that he can only stay at 10 Downing Street is nothing but a trojan horse.

Augustus

Melanie's political thesis stands up to scrutiny, for it is common sense to argue that the idea that you can manage climate change predictably by adjusting, at the margin, one human activity, namely CO2 emissions, out of the millions of factors, both natural and human, that drive climate is naive. Even if we closed down every factory in the world, crushed every car and aeroplane, turned off all energy production, and threw 4 billion people worldwide out of work, climate would still change, and often dramatically.

Ann

"The idea that human beings have changed and are changing the basic climate system of the Earth through their industrial activities and burning of fossil fuels--the essence of the Greens' theory of global warming--has about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism"

Ignorant tosh from a non-scientist.

Ann

Verity, take your pills. You've lost it big time, ranting and raving - and you are not even British any longer, you ran away, so it's nothing to do with you.

Ann

"Even if we closed down every factory in the world, crushed every car and aeroplane, turned off all energy production, and threw 4 billion people worldwide out of work, climate would still change, and often dramatically"

Logic is not your forte, is it? We are talking (a) about cumulative effects - you can have both natural AND manmade change; (b) about a much faster change caused by humans than the natural one.

Ann

"Enviromentalism is simpy a trojan horse for marxism. Its goal has nothing to do with the environment and has all to do with weakening and ultimately destroying the largest capitalistic nation, the USA (period)"

Utter drivel, period. I am an environmentalist and have always been anti-Marxist.

Dave

Augustus: "Common Sense" is just the label we give our own prejudice. That's why we need science.

Marian C

Rob NY:- "Enviromentalism is simpy a trojan horse for marxism"

Rob, you’re absolutely correct

Killing Joke:- “Well I vote Tory and I believe in MMGW, so does David Cameron & John McCain does that make us all Marxists or Conservatives?”

Killing Joke:- I too vote Conservative (Tory), and so do many others, this does NOT mean that we all have to believe in this crock of crap; this so called “Environmentalism”. Am I to assume that you agree with the rest of Robs comment e.g. “Its goal has nothing to do with the environment and has all to do with weakening and ultimately destroying the largest capitalistic nation, the USA (period)”. Is this correct?

A lot of this so called “environmentalism” is nothing more than guise for raising taxes (stealth taxes), and controlling the lives of people by eroding all their civil liberties, which we have seen plenty of in the U.K.
Just because David Cameron believes in Global warming that does not mean that every Conservative (Tory) voter also believes in it, nor does it mean, that just because John McCain believes in global warming that every Republican voter believes in it. Your comment is ridiculous

Ronnie

Marion C, a great many people believe in things that are not yet, or perhaps cannot ever be, physically proven.

You are refusing to accept physical phenomena that are actually happening right in front of you. Its not a matter of belief.

And it is certainly not an anti-American conspiracy.

James

Don't shoot the messenger.

All Melanie keeps doing is logging the growing number of scientists who doubt the global warming theory. And that's all it still is - a theory.

Go back through the archive. She's not been conducting experiments herself, merely reporting on those scientists who have been putting the theory to the test - what else should a journalist do? Oh, of course, ignore those scientists who dare to ask questions.

Well, if you want that, you know you've come to the wrong blog.

Augustus

Anne - It's not my capacity for logic that's important, it's what people really believe, rather than what the media makes us believe that counts.

About 25 years ago climate change was first mooted in the form of the greenhouse effect. Are we human's really that powerful to think that we can influence the world's climate? And how many people think that climate itself is a stable phenomenon? What is more important, poverty, aids, or a degree warmer? Would one really prefer say 5,600 windmills to a modern efficient nuclear power station?

Of course, there are people like Al Gore interested in the climate. Al Gore himself owns an investment company that invests in green companies. And as for politics, it's obviously easier to impose green taxes on people than other forms of taxation. It's most commendable to want to preserve the world ecosystem etc. etc., but the over-the-top climate change hype, with all its carbon footprints, taxes on packaging, and what have you, is particulaly dangerous for Europe because it undermines it's competiveness in relation to countries in the East who are not so carbon emission conscious. And it is also unfair to tax people heavily for say using a bigger car whilst countless ecosystems are being destroyed on a large scale as in places like Brazil.

Killing Joke

Marian I only asked because according to Rob from NY's and Mel's arguments that would make McCain, Cameron, me and pretty much every climate scientist a Marxist. I can vouch for the rest of them but I know I'm not and I somehow doubt they are too.

I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next man but I do think that its stretching credibility a bit thin to think that this whole thing is a put up job to bring down world capitalism. As a Conservative I think that it's a good idea to to be cautious and pragmatic and I can think of nothing more important to conserve than the planet we live on.

For that reason I will be voting for David Cameron who I think has the balance right between the needs of the economy and the environment.

A friend told me about this blog, he said you were all a bit odd, I thought It's The Spectator sound like my kind of people but I rather think he was right and aren't you all frightfully rude especially that Verity women who seems rather unhinged . In my day it was Socialists who were crude and vulgar not Tories I shan't be returning to this blog.

Dave

James: You might want to read up a bit on what scientists mean when they use the word theory.

Ann

"All Melanie keeps doing is logging the growing number of scientists who doubt the global warming theory. And that's all it still is - a theory"

Like so many non-scientists, you have no idea what the term 'theory' means in a scientific context. You are confused, and you are confusing the word 'theory' as used in everyday life, with the scientific term 'theory' that you heard somewhere and misunderstood.

In science, the phrase 'it's only a theory' is meaningless, because 'theory' is not someone's personal guess: it's a body of knowledge that has withstood rigorous tests. And even if it fails some tests and a stronger theory comes along that passes those tests, this does NOT mean that the old theory has necessarily failed, just as Newtonian mechanics has not become obsolete by Einsteinian special and general relativity; it still applies in many circumstances.

Climate change has been tracked for a long time. The theory may or may not be the last word, but pooh-poohing it by saying 'it's only a theory' is ignorant.

Ann

To Augustus, who mocks the idea that humans can affect the planet: what nonsense. Each single atmospheric hydrogen bomb affected the measureable % of many radioactive isotopes in the atmosphere across much of the globe. Ditto Chernobyl. The natural environment around the Aral Sea has been devastated across tens of thousands of square miles by a few decades of human mismanagement. And so on. Look it up.

Ann

"What is more important, poverty, aids, or a degree warmer?"

Complete strawman and demagoguery. (a) There is plenty of wealth around, but I don't see that poverty has been reduced by centuries of pre-environmentalist industrial rapacity.

"Would one really prefer say 5,600 windmills to a modern efficient nuclear power station?"

Another demagogic strawman. Who said that I prefer windmills? Imo wind power is a complete nonsense. I am in favour of tightly controlled nuclear power stations. That's got nothing to do with the issue, which is about burning fossil fuels and emitting the heat and carbon dioxide and dihydrogen monoxide into the atmosphere.

Ann

"The Greens are just like any other fanatics.

If anyone disagrees they are vilified and, like holocaust deniers, persecuted"

What drivel. Nobody is persecuting you.

Stephen Fox

Hey Ronnie,
I'll tell you what isn't coming - a European agreement to cut emissions. The Poles and 5 other countries are blocking it.
Good job somebody has realised we can't afford futile gestures that will cost us billions, in order to stave off for a couple of weeks a warming which would come as a welcome development in a Europe where seven people die of cold for every one that dies of heat, whose projected degree diminishes with every IPCC report, which is currently completely in abeyance, indeed in reverse, and whose cause increasing numbers of scientists are coming to believe may have little or nothing to do with human activity.
I know when I see people get as quickly enraged as Global Warmists to whom I have expressed disagreement that they are emotionally invested in their belief in a way that makes them unbalanced.
It hardly seems worth arguing with you, but just to take a couple of points at random:
If glacier shrinkage is CO2 based, why is the rate of shrinkage a straight line for the 200 years since the Little Ice Age, with no increase since the steepening of the rate of CO2 emissions that has occurred since WW2?
The world’s foremost expert on hurricanes, Kerry Emanuel of MIT has recanted on his belief that warming will cause any increase in storm activity. Unless you know better than he does, I should leave that one out if I were you.
As for your ridiculous stuff about polar bears and tigers, saying that environmentalism has a Marxist agenda and origin clearly doesn’t mean nature is part of a conspiracy.
It means you are using nature for political purposes. It’s not the first time this has been done, and won’t be the last. I strongly advise you to try being more of an adult yourself.

Ann

I missed out this bit:

(b) A one degree increase is a LOT in a finely tuned ecosystem. But I don't expect an ignorant non-scientist to grasp this.

Ann

"I know when I see people get as quickly enraged as Global Warmists to whom I have expressed disagreement that they are emotionally invested in their belief in a way that makes them unbalanced"

And you have the nerve to rant about people not being adult? Have you looked in the mirror lately? When ignoramuses rant and rave about being 'persecuted' for disagreeing with climate change, I know who is the one that's unbalanced ...

Richard

And of course, we all are not allowed to mention that Lehmann Brothers failed because it was overinvested in carbon trading finance (or better known as selling moonbeams).
The Green agenda is at once ridiculous, dangerous and a fantasy.

Ronnie

Hey Stephen Fox, if you actually read my earlier post you will see that I referred only to the existence of global warming and did not try to comment on what may be its causes.

I am not a scientist and I'm certainly not getting into arguements over which scientist believes what. I do know that for every big name you pull of of your hat, someone else can pull an equally big name out of theirs to provide a contrary arguement.

What I do know is that where I live, over the last 10 years, Spring and Autumn have disappeared, Spring flowers come out the ground in December, the migrating geese fly north a month and a half earlier than they used to and our winter storms are considerably more violent and longer-lasting.

Now you may not regard that as science but these are observable facts and positive evidence of climate change. Whatever Professor Big of MIT says about it.

With regard to politicising nature. I think you should go down to the shops and buy yourself a sense of humour.My point was that nature is not political (that's the joy of it) and I'd hoped that you might be able to work that out for yourself. A bit slow, aren't you?

My general point remains that not everything you disagree with is a Marxist conspiracy. It is a moronic and extremely lazy default position to adopt.

I will be ignoring your strong advice.

EC

Why and when did MMGW become MMCC? Is this the eco mentalists hedging their bets?Is the climate warming or cooling, warming before rapidly cooling or fluctuating about a mean? It seems to me that it doesn't matter to the CC enthusiasts as long as any change can be attributed to mankind and not the planet which has somehow managed to achieve all previous shifts by itself. The eco mentalists are all about spreading fear, uncertainty, doubt and guilt followed by salvation but only if one unquestioningly accepts the agenda of the eco clergy in thought word and deed. Sound familiar? Yup its a religion. It's actually far more pernicious than Mandy's New Labour project. The great satan is really of course America, capitalism and western lifestlye in general.

I am really disappointed to note that a well known atheist on here 'appears' to have joined the cult.

Ronnie

Richard, you just did. Who stopped you?

Ed Vaizey

I am delighted by the new Department. Any one who pays attention to these issues knows that energy is now a top priority. Not just climate change, but energy security and costs. I favour nuclear power, plus a mix of renewables, and possibly clean caol. Incidentally if you google "Energy and Climate Change", the first site you get is the US Dept of Energy! No one wants to hobble any economy which is why it is vital these issues are debated by all of us, not just the Greens
PS can you really get sunbeams from cucumbers? Brilliant. Problem solved!

Marian C

Ronnie:- “Marion C, a great many people believe in things that are not yet, or perhaps cannot ever be, physically proven.
You are refusing to accept physical phenomena that are actually happening right in front of you. Its not a matter of belief.”

Ronnie, I think you misunderstand, I do believe that the planet ‘naturally’ goes through changes, it is a natural phenomena e.g. planet warms up, planet cools down, which it has been doing for millennia, with and without the interference of man. All this Eco nonsense is just that, nonsense; it won’t make one jot of difference to the planet whether or not you recycle your plastic bags. You may well be right, in as much as it is “not an anti-American conspiracy”, however, it is a conspiracy to extort money via stealth taxes from hard working people on the flimsy pretext that we are supposedly killing the planet. It would appear that according to these global warming / climate change theorist (talk about hedging your bets), that nature itself plays no role in the planets behaviour.

Stephen Fox

Ronnie

When we disagree with warmists about Global Warming, you say the science is settled. When I name a scientist that does not go along with that 'consensus’, you dismiss him as 'Professor Big'.
Can't win, can we?

As for a sense of humour, I could make a good living selling them to handwringing Greens. But they already know how to rant, don’t they Ann? Who started all this, after all?

Dominic L-R

It is often said (and by many on this blog) that Environmentalism is more of a political movement, akin to a religion etc etc.
I agree, and I often find the dogmatic attitude of many green campaigners disturbing, but this doesn't mean to say that they are wrong about Global Warming. Many fanatical greens may indeed want to "weaken and ultimately destroy the largest capitalist nations", and indeed I find this motivation repellent (if there is a serious problem, I think it is science and technology that should provide the answer, not a return to the stone age...). However, it doesn't mean the scientific evidence put forward by Environmentalists is wrong. The argument over whether Global warming is true (and how much is due to human beings) should be won or lost by science and reason, not by attacking the political motivations of environmentalists.

Ronnie

EC, why should our well-known athiest not be concerned about our environment?

Is everyone to be pidgeon-holed on these blogs to allow them to be ritually insulted? At least she can't be called a Marxist conspirator.

Ronnie

Marian C, OK I'm with you we've gone way beyond polly bags and I give you 'Y2K' as another example.

Stephen Fox, will you please read what I have written and not what you hoped I had.

I am saying that the science of global warming is anything but settled, that's why there are so many conflicting views in the scientific community. I did not dismiss your particular Professor Big, I am pointing out that there are many Professor Bigs saying different things about global warming and its causes. Its your choice who you go with.

It may be that some environmentalists are more excitable than others but, for the moment, it looks like its your glasses that are steamed up.

EC

Ronnie:
"why should our well-known athiest not be concerned about our environment?"<\i>
Absolutely no reason at all. We should all be concerned about our environment. Just as we should all be concerned about the eco clergy peddling junk science seeking to validate the existence of MMCC.

"Is everyone to be pidgeon-holed on these blogs to allow them to be ritually insulted?"

I haven't insulted anyone recently and specifically not you. (I couldn't better Frank P's recent effort :-) A ritual insult would require some sort of religious observance and I'm not into that, and hopefully neither still is the person you imagined that I insulted.

"At least she can't be called a Marxist conspirator"

Ann

"But they already know how to rant, don’t they Ann?"

Drivel. You haven't answered a single one of my points.

James

Anne - many thanks. You have done a great job in dispatching the anti-scientific nonsense peddled by ignorant ideologues on this blog. Preventing global warming is not a marxist, environmentalist plot - it is a valid objective pursued by all those who have actually bothered to study the science. And yes, nuclear power is probably the key weapon at our disposal.

Rob-NY

Marion C
Thanks for the back up.
Nice to know someone gets it. Cheers

ramblin rose

Swift had 2 Mistresses and oft feared he would go insane - even though he was Vicar of most prestigious St Patricks in Dublin. We fear for the sanity of the nut cases who lead us! They dont even understand the problems

logdon

A reshuffle in Laputa. Does that make these livers on immoral earnings political putain's?