Home > Melanie Phillips

Friday 10 February 2012

By the waters of denial they sit and weep...

Tuesday, 2nd February 2010

A few days ago, Analysis on BBC Radio Four featured a programme about environmentalism by Justin Rowlatt which concluded that the green movement was using climate change as a cover to smuggle in other agendas such as poverty or equality. No! You don’t say. It was a timid, tentative thesis; the fact is that from the start environmentalism has self-evidently been all about changing the nature of society rather than changing society’s views about nature. And of course Rowlatt’s concern was that these hidden agendas might only confirm people’s scepticism about the science of anthropogenic global warming, which as we all know is Settled and an Unchallengeable Consensus, amen.

Nevertheless when the BBC, no less, starts to allow an interviewee to start telling the truth like this:

I hate to say this – but there is a very strong –it’s very small – but there is a very strong green fascism in much of the environmental world. I’ve heard it said at meetings I’ve been at – that climate change is so important - democracy has to be sacrificed

something big is definitely happening. And that something is the disintegration of anthropogenic global warming theory. The ‘scientific’ basis for it is de-materialising day by day, leaving merely the sulphurous stink of intellectual fraud on an epic scale.

The IPCC has been forced to admit that it was wrong to predict that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 and has been accused of falsely linking global warming to a rise in extreme weather events. Subsequently it was revealed that the IPCC stated that

observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information. However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them. The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master’s degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

Roger Pielke further reveals that the influential (and idiotic) Stern review, which relied upon an IPCC misrepresentation of a piece of research to make misleading claims about the link between rising temperatures and extreme weather events such as hurricanes, quietly modified its own figurers after publication to conceal the error – and yet still got it wrong.

The government’s chief scientific adviser, Professor John Beddington, has said the impact of global warming has been exaggerated and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change:

When you get into large-scale climate modelling there are quite substantial uncertainties. On the rate of change and the local effects, there are uncertainties both in terms of empirical evidence and the climate models themselves.

You don’t say!! And just look also at what the Chinese are saying:

...the IPCC reports contained very little data from Chinese researchers. I was told the IPCC refused to consider Chinese data because the Chinese research was not peer-reviewed. China is not a small country. Its landmass spans several climate zones and includes the roof of the world. I have to wonder how data from China would affect the IPCC’s findings.

How indeed! And let’s not dwell again on the scandal at the University of East Anglia where scientists upon whose work the IPCC relied for its apocalyptic predictions were exposed as being willing to manipulate the data to exaggerate the extent of global warming; nor the great Hockey Stick That Wasn’t Cricket, which managed to lose several hundred years of climate history to arrive at the ‘evidence’ that 20^th century climate warming was aberrantly high; nor the testimony of numerous distinguished former IPCC reviewers that their research had been distorted or falsified.

The great Philip Stott, the (now emeritus) professor of biogeography who for the past twenty years has patiently explained the bogus anti-science behind AGW theory and its real agenda of anti-western, anti-capitalist, anti-human ideology, has put up a terrific post about all this on his blog, The Clamour of the Times. It is, as he says, nothing less than the collapse of a Grand Narrative, of a jaw-dropping speed and magnitude:

And what can one say about ‘the science’? ‘The ‘science’ is already paying dearly for its abuse of freedom of information, for unacceptable cronyism, for unwonted arrogance, and for the disgraceful misuse of data at every level, from temperature measurements to glaciers to the Amazon rain forest. What is worse, the usurping of the scientific method, and of justified scientific scepticism, by political policies and political propaganda could well damage science sensu lato - never mind just climate science - in the public eye for decades.

Here’s the kind of thing he means:

Indeed, the nonsense written about the Indian Sub-Continent has been a particular nadir in climate-change science, and it has long been judged so by many experts on the region. My ex-SOAS friend and colleague, Dr. Robert Bradnock, a world authority on the Sub-Continent, has been seething for years over the traducing of data and information relating to this key part of the world. In June, 2008, he wrote:

“However, in my own narrow area of research, I know that many of the claims about the impact of ‘global warming’ in Bangladesh, for example, are completely unfounded. There is no evidence that flooding has increased at all in recent years. Drought and excessive rainfall are the nature of the monsoon system. Agricultural production, far from being decimated by worsening floods over the last twenty years, has nearly doubled. In the early 1990s, Houghton published a map of the purported effects of sea-level rise on Bangladesh. Coming from a Fellow of the Royal Society, former Head of the Met Office and Chair of the IPCC, this was widely accepted, and frequently reproduced. Yet, it shows no understanding of the complex processes that form the Bengal delta, and it is seriously misleading. Moreover, despite the repeated claims of the World Wide Fund, Greenpeace, and, sadly, Christian Aid, the melting of the Himalayan glaciers is of completely marginal significance to the farmers of the plains in China, India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. One could go on!”

Maybe Dr Bradnock might have a word with Ed Miliband, Britain’s Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. Poor Miliband – the Minister for Laputa -- appears to be at breaking point over all this. At the weekend he made a piteous plea:

Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband issued a warning that recent controversies over scientific data must not be allowed to undermine efforts to tackle global warming. Mr Miliband said the evidence that man-made climate change was occurring was ‘overwhelming’ and was backed by the vast majority of scientists.

Miliband resembles one of those people who are discovered living in the jungle decades after the end of a war without realising it is all over. Someone should sit him down with a nice strong cup of hot sweet Fairtrade tea and a blanket over his shoulders, and embark him without delay upon a course of post-traumatic stress counselling. An awful lot of reputations are about to be reduced to, um, carbon – his included.

Previous Back to Melanie Phillips Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (77)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Frank P

February 2nd, 2010 1:50am

Another tour de force, Melanie.
From the wonderful pun in the caption, through the devastating data that destroys denonsense, to the sardonic excoriation of Milimouse, it is a little masterpiece of mischief 'n' malice - every stanza profoundly justified. Bravissimo!

Dixon

February 2nd, 2010 2:13am

I think we are in danger of underestimating the ferocious grip of this narrative. I fear too much triumphalist talk of it being "all over" for AGW and eco-fascism will lead people to relax their gaurd. I suspect that far from being the collapse of the Green dogma what we are now experiencing is but a brief window of opportunity...whilst they are momentarily on the back-foot, reeling from these various scandals, during which a chance might be grasped to truly BEGIN to deconstruct the narrative. But that unless the broad spectrum of genuine scientists and genuinely insightful writers ( such as MP ) take this opportunity to redouble their efforts, this window of opportunity will disapear. The thaw will freeze over. Like the Prague Spring, evaporating under the iron-shod boot of totalitarianism renewed. A re-grouped enviro-fascism then inoculated against and utterly prepared to rebuff all future attempts to expose what goes on behind their even more tightened ranks.

Australians for Non-Bigoted Thinking

February 2nd, 2010 6:31am

THE TRUTH HURTS

Climate Change skeptic and rational thinker Lord Monckton is mocked and muted in Oz.

Go here:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/jon_faine_holds_a_debate/

and here:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/never_mind_the_argument/

journeyman

February 2nd, 2010 7:12am

Meanwhile....over at web-blog "Old Holborn".

Quote:"The man responsible for looking after the fat pensions of the boys and girls at the B.B.C.is a climate change fanatic and he is part of an international group of investment managers who bust a gut to invest in "climate change"schemes.He's called Peter Dunscombe,and he runs the £ 8.2 Bn corporation pension fund."

"is also chairman of the Institutional Investment Group on Climate Change(IIGCC),which has 47 members and manages four Trillion Euros worth of investments;yes,four Trillion."
End Quote
Full article over at
"Old Holborn".

Would it be safe to assume a case of "conflict of interest"here.

Bit of a many headed monster we appear to be dealing with.
Give no quarter,show no mercy,take no prisoners!

Roll the whole Quasi-corporate,neo-cultural marxist,multiculti,Orwellian edifice back....inch by inch and foot by foot.
They are far too dangerous to be left alone.

Larry70

February 2nd, 2010 7:38am

Several things about the real motives behind global warming hysteria, not all are conscious or deliberate.

Overly briefly, it's a way of blaming the evil corporation for environmental destruction, rather than facing the true horrors of deforestation and mass extinctions for example, in which the whole world is culpable, the rich, the middle-class and the poor. Deforestation in the Third World is a catastrophe that should be front page news, but then tackling the corruption of Third World despots, overpopulation and other factors responsible means taking the eye off the evil Western corporation and America, and that isn't in the Left's PC agenda.

Also it's no coincidence that the IPCC is a UN body, AGW is a massive scam to extort billions of dollars from taxpayers in rich (or formerly rich) nations to give to despotic regimes in the Third World under the pretext of adapting to climate change. It's all there in the fine print.

The nuclear power lobby is also pushing AGW hysteria for obvious reasons, it's what got it all going in the UK under Thatcher in the first place. It's an irony most people, even those skeptical of GW, are unaware of. Also this is largley unconscious, AGW hysteria feeds off apocalyptic end-of-times hysteria that is deep rooted in Western religious culture, another irony lost on those professing a reverance for 'secular science'. Their secular science is rooted in a fervent end-of-times eschatology.

ramjam

February 2nd, 2010 9:18am

Melanie,take a look at where the BBC pension fund is investing its monies.

mitcheltj

February 2nd, 2010 9:21am

brilliant post, Melanie.

Dixon - you're dead right. There's going to be a lot of kicking and screaming before "climate science" gets back to being proper science. This is no time to let up on the debate; to take one example, I head somewhere that Osbourn intends to appoint Lord Stern as one of his advisers!

BenM

February 2nd, 2010 9:21am

CO2 concentrations are still rising in the atmosphere Ms Phillips and the average global temperature is rising with it.

These small clarifications and corrections (such as the Himalayan glacial melt - they ARE still melting by the way) are all part of a robust scientific review process.

They may provide you and the dwindling band of so called AGW sceptics with small phyrric victories.

But you're still hopelessly wrong on the facts. And AGW scepticism is dooming the Right Wing to political irrelevance.

Johnnie Barleycorn

February 2nd, 2010 9:26am

Green fascism is nothing new but is part of a wider phenomena. I cannot sit at a wine bar table and say I am a trail layer for the local fox hunt and enjoy hunting, neither can I voice public support for Israel,a country I adore. As a catholic I see my religion being rolled back and vilified. But I cannot publicly denounce Islam. Neither can I say I disapprove of homosexuality or sex outside marriage. We are witnessing the steady erosion of free speech - that most fundamental of freedoms. I do not ask people to believe as I do - but simply tolerate my beliefs.

De Rigueur

February 2nd, 2010 9:39am

Call me na•f, but I have never understood what politics had to do with being "Green". How could man, cleaning up after himself or preventing pollution, not using harmful chemicals in farming be anything but sensible husbandry of the land and its resorces. Something men of the country, left to their own devices, have been doing for centuries. What has that basic common sense got to do with capitalism, liberalism or socialism?
So when, fifteen years ago an old school friend wrote to tell me he was leaving the Labour Party to become a Green councillor, I congratulated him for getting out of politics!
Yes, I was na•f!
Now I am coming rapidly to the conclusion that we should have a McCarthy type investigation into the Greens in all their forms. Reveal their true agendas and hang them out to dry.
Keep up the good work Melanie! We'll really save the planet - from some of the fascistic people who live on it.

De Rigueur

February 2nd, 2010 9:43am

Exactly BenM.

Now we know where your "Green" politics are coming from.

john east

February 2nd, 2010 9:51am

Melanie, you say of Miliband:

An awful lot of reputations are about to be reduced to, um, carbon – his included.

This is the only comment in your piece with which I disagree.
Miliband's reputation as a swivell eyed, ideological fanatic has only been enhanced by his latest stupid comments.

Roger Thornhill

February 2nd, 2010 9:56am

Prague Spring?

Well I think this will be their Stalingrad.

Yes we do need to watch out for their "battles of the bulge" as they try to regain Authoritarian footholds, try to control us again using every Fabian Gramasomarxist trick in the book.

It would be useful to collect all the inane dribblings from those in Government and those in our wannabe Government in the EU and get them to renouce their view. If they hold silent or use weasel words then we know who not to trust again.

Ian C

February 2nd, 2010 10:17am

To confirm Dixon's point Lord Stern has now ben appointed to advise the Tory party. God forbid!

The AGW mandate fight has legs in it yet but the tide has turned and the truth will ultimately out. But what a cost in lves lost in the interim and especially to science and politicians, especially the worse than useless UN.

Harold

February 2nd, 2010 10:36am

I'd have thought that anecdotal evidence from climbers would be useful data.

(Along with ice core data, tree ring data, temperature data, satellite maps and CO2 monitoring, ocean salinity and pH and the geological record).

The biggest problem I have with the 'denialists' is that they do no experiments and produce no data. They publish nothing. They just sit and the sidelines and witter on, offering inexpert opinions and witless criticisms. They contribute no science.

Philo

February 2nd, 2010 10:37am

I have at least taken what Socrates considered the first step towards wisdom: I know that I am ignorant. So I am not going to try to adjudicate on subjects I am not qualified to, like climate. I would just like some clarification, not of the list of criticisms made by "climate-change deniers", which may or may not prove telling, but of the first paragraph.

As I understand it, greens are being criticized for having a social agenda which they hide behind bogus concern for the environment. I do not see why they cannot be allowed genuine concern for both. Indeed arguably concern for the environment naturally leads to concern for how society works. After all, the greens are arguing that the way our society works is causing potentially harmful change to our climate.

I am also not clear why greens are singled out here. The globalization of "free market" capitalism, which has been the strategic goal of the US since the end of the nineteenth century, has imposed a certain structure on societies around the world. The advocates of global capitalism see this structure as necessary for the workings of free markets, so they also have a social agenda, and, given the effects of industiralization, an environmental agenda. (They also have huge amounts of money to spend on lobbying and propagandizing for their opinions to be acted upon by governments and others, amounts of money which dwarf the resources of the pernicious greens.)

Is the first paragraph not beside the point, which is surely to engage in a reasoned debate about the pros and cons of the capitalist agenda and the green agenda?

Another point: I believe this blog has come to the defence of advocates of Intelligent Design who assert that it is a science. Is it not a stretch to defend Intelligent Design as science, but not the variety of work that is done to try to understand our climate? I would be interested in the notion of what science is that allows this distinction to be made.

Rachael

February 2nd, 2010 10:38am

BenM hasn't noticed it's been the coldest January for years.

GeoffM

February 2nd, 2010 11:28am

I love your last sentence!

Australians for Non-Bigoted Thinking

February 2nd, 2010 11:45am

THE TRUTH HURTS

Climate Change skeptic and rational thinker Lord Monckton is mocked and muted in Oz.

Go here:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/jon_faine_holds_a_debate/

and here:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/never_mind_the_argument/

Baron Pippin II

February 2nd, 2010 12:10pm

Harold @ 10.36:

Listen, my sparring friend, listen to this carefully, then calibrate it against your posting.

A long time ago a man called Euclid sat on his arse, no research, no experiments, drawing up on nothing, but the power of logic. I find the stuff he came up with awesome for its simplicity-cum-power of reasoning.

Primes are numbers that have only two divisors: the number itself and 1. ‘Imagine’, said Euclid around 300 BC, ‘that there is a finite number of primes, the largest being 'n'. Then consider the number that is the product (a multiple) of these primes plus one, i.e. 1x2x3x5x7x.....xn +1. The product is by construction not divisible by any of the primes. Hence, it is either prime itself, or it is divisible by a prime greater than 'n'. In either case, it is a contradiction of the initial assumption, proving (reductio ad absurdum) that the number of primes is infinite’.

One doesn’t need to run any experiments, collect data and stuff to debunk the AGW delusion. The idiocy of the theory lies in its internal contradictions.

How could human activity that contributes but a marginal chunk (some 4%) to the aggregate release of CO2 be responsible for the climatic shift when in the long 12bn years of the earth history its density has been far higher that its current levels, and life has not only survived for 3.5bn years, but evolved from simple proteins to highly complex beasts like you and me.

How could but an infinitesimal increase in the CO2 level of one hundredth of one percent (from the 280ppm around 1800 to 380ppm now) destroy life as we know it when we have written evidence that mankind positively thrived when the level was higher (medieval warming), and suffered when if was lower (mini ice-age).

You are spot on with the climbers evidence though. Given the quality of the stuff furnished by the many pseudo-scientists in the AGW loop, it would be.

Alexander

February 2nd, 2010 12:11pm

Excellent article - accurate and superbly written - not a superflous word. I read emeritus Professor Phillip Stott's 'The Clamour of the Times' earlier today and was mightily impressed.
I t is telling that many so-called 'Greens' were once rabid socialists or Communists who have seen the Green movement as a wonderful vehicle for their statist convictions, which have little to do with the environment and everything to do with contro freakery.
If any of my children produced a green movement, I would have called for a pediatrician!

Dr Michael Salt

February 2nd, 2010 12:16pm

How dare you challenge AGW!?

Don't you know the BBC believes in it?! And who are you to challenge the mighty, omniscient BBC and its 76342937 arts graduates.

Harrabin and Shukman say it happening... so it must be!

PS More seriously,I hope the BBC takes the flak it deserves to take for being the chief advocates in this scandal.

John A. Davison

February 2nd, 2010 12:17pm

I agree with BenM.

There is no place for politics in science. When one has to go to the Himalayas, "the top of the world" to find a glacier that is not receding, you know the AGW deniers are in deep trouble. Where else are they not receding?

Neil Craig

February 2nd, 2010 12:27pm

The Catastrophic global warming scam has clearly come apart at the seams. There are 2 things to now be concerned about:

That all the extra regualtions government put in force on the back of this lie be repealed. Otherwise we will find ourselves still being harried by them 40 years from now. In particular our Climate Change Act reducing carbon emissions by at least 80% by 2050 and 34% by 2022. That means cutting GNP by close to 34% & 80% is is plainly insane.

Seconmdly we must be prepared to counter the next eco-fascist scare story. Over the last 50 years we have had dozens of catastrophe stories (pollution, peak oil, peak everything everything else, DDT, nuclear power, ice age, global starvation, death of 1/2 the world's species, death of all sea life, worse pollution, peak oil, global warming, acid rain, AIDS, ozone depletion, sea level rise, Y2K, peak oil. GM foods) all of which have been proven wholly or overwhelmingly untrue. However each have succeeded in giving the Luddites more power as they then moved on to the next lie. Luddism has cut growth by at least 1 1/2% annually which means we are half as wealthy as we could be & explains why western economies are being overtaken by China & India. The eco-fascists must be fought on every front.

February 2nd, 2010 12:47pm

Excellent post Melanie.

But I agree with Dixon and a couple of others, that it's far from over - there's just too much money and tax-wielding power at stake for the warmists to roll over, not to mention the eco-fascists who wouldn't change their minds if you stuffed the facts down their throats. No matter what, they (like Ed Miliband) just keep repeating the mantras:
The science is settled.
The debate is over.
The evidence is overwhelming.
We must not be deterred.
1000/4000 scientists all agree.
You're all flat earthers.

It's going to be a long hard slog to win the day, we may even have to wait for the climate to prove them wrong, as it seems to be trying hard to do at the moment.
Unfortunately millions more will hear Ed Miliband's version of events than MP's (or James Delingpole et al) because of media bias.
The fight goes on!

DougS

February 2nd, 2010 1:16pm

Oops! I forgot to fill my name in for the comment at February 2nd, 2010 12:47pm (I thought it was pre-filled in).

Seeing the '4000 scientists...' in print reminds me of the old joke (mantra);

Eat at Joe's Cafe - 10000 flies can't be wrong!

Dixon

February 2nd, 2010 1:40pm

"BenM
February 2nd, 2010 9:21am
CO2 concentrations are still rising in the atmosphere Ms Phillips and the average global temperature is rising with it."

Yes, Human CO2 emissions keep rising and...as a matter of fact...no, average global temperature has not risen since 1998. How big a factual refutation of a link do you need.

Really "good" pseudo-science doesnt need to tell out and out lies. To feel the need to tell whoppers like that one is a certain sign of desperation.

Dixon

February 2nd, 2010 1:46pm

"Harold
February 2nd, 2010 10:36am

The biggest problem I have with the 'warmists' is that they do no experiments and produce no data..... They publish nothing, except in journals run by their cronies ( "peers" ) and popular rags such as New Scientist and , heaven forbid, sports magazines... They just go on TV and shriek like banshees about everyone else being wrong but them, offering inexpert opinions and witless criticisms. They contribute no ACTUAL science.

Dixon

February 2nd, 2010 1:52pm

Philo:
"I am also not clear why greens are singled out here. The globalization of "free market" capitalism, which has been the strategic goal of the US since the end of the nineteenth century, has imposed a certain structure on societies around the world..."

Capitalism has never been "imposed" on anyone but like climate, is just how things are when left to nature.

"The advocates of global capitalism..." ...dont hide behind a quasi-religious set of beliefs promulgated by cults like "Greenpeace", "WWF", etc.

Australians for Non-Bigoted Thinking

February 2nd, 2010 1:54pm

'THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED' ???

What an anathema to the true nature of science, and especially when it applies to a science so uncertain and unreliable as climate change.

It you think about it the natural default position for a scientist is skepticism,
for science is about making hypotheses and proving or disproving them as the evidence comes to light. Science is dynamic and not static.

Dixon

February 2nd, 2010 1:58pm

"John A. Davison
February 2nd, 2010 12:17pm
I agree with BenM.

Dumb lack of logic. If I prove theres someone lying on the floor of your sitting room dead from a broken neck, that doesnt prove that you did it!

Doh!

Dixon

February 2nd, 2010 2:02pm

Ed Milliband isnt "swivel-eyed", hes swuvel mouthed. Next time he;s on the box, just watch his weird pre-hensile mouth in action.

Just turn the sound off and watch that mouth. You could never lip-read sense out of such wild, unbridled movements.

Wily Trout

February 2nd, 2010 2:08pm

Governments are desperate to get another stock market bubble going - this time it is the Carbon Trading futures bubble. That's why they need the rationale of AGW.

Klem

February 2nd, 2010 2:17pm

Actually it is truly jaw dropping how rapidly this theory has collapsed. What amazes me is that so many scientists remained silent for so long. They waited until Copenhagen was a failure before they felt it was safe to speak up and be critical of the IPCC and the AGW theory in general. The old statement that the science is settled was incorrect; what they really meant to say was the sceince is silenced.

Philo

February 2nd, 2010 2:28pm

Dixon
February 2nd, 2010 1:52pm

"Capitalism has never been "imposed" on anyone but like climate, is just how things are when left to nature."

Read the history of any country in the "Third World" required to follow a "stabilisation programme" before receiving credit.

The idea that free market capitalism is how society operates in a mythical "state of nature" is highly contentious and very unattractive, as anyone subject to gangster capitalism will tell you.

""The advocates of global capitalism..." ...dont hide behind a quasi-religious set of beliefs promulgated by cults like "Greenpeace", "WWF", etc."

I have had to spend too many hours of my professional life in the City reading the words and studying the works of the IMF, the World Bank, the US Treasury and the rest of the Washington Consensus to take this contrast seriously.

Free market capitalism as espoused and practised by Washington requires faith beyond logic and evidence. It is as much a cult as dippy environmentalism, and so far a hell of a lot more damaging.

Tom Durkin

February 2nd, 2010 2:34pm

Neil Craig:
"Luddism has cut growth by at least 1 1/2% annually which means we are half as wealthy as we could be"

care to elaborate on your specific growth figures as they sound you just plucked them out of the sky? what policies have been causal in the reduced growth rate? I read your list and see nothing there relating to drivers of economic growth and also several instances where environmental management has been both sensible and effective.

"& explains why western economies are being overtaken by China & India. The eco-fascists must be fought on every front."

no western economy is remotely close to being overtaken in GDP per capita terms (mean personal income). if you care about overall gdp (lord knows why), and assuming some degree of convergence in the long run, you would be advocating immigration of about 1 billion people to the UK. this statement made me realise that much more sensible and pragmatic than those nasty greenies plaguing your existence...

on a broader point, I cannot comprehend how so-called conservatives can have such flagrant disregard for the environment. Sure AGW may be wrong, to a degree or totally, but defining yourselves in absolute opposition to the prominent institutionalized discourse has made you lose sight of the moral implications, and prioritised putting down battle lines.

Conservatism should be wary of increased resource use by an increasing population from a stable or declining resource base. I would be interested in replies on the wider issue of environmental management but not another critical analysis of the IPCC which is being done by the entire MSM or just plain old name-calling at an imagined coherent community of eco-fascists who are trying to "take-over". if there the only terms you can think in maybe these debates are more your style:
http://www.sidroth.org/site/News2?abbr=tv_&page=NewsArticle&id=8865&security=1041&news_iv_ctrl=-1

Katabasis

February 2nd, 2010 2:34pm

I have to echo ramjam's recommendation above - look at the BBC's pension fund here:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/mypension/en/full_report_and_accounts_2009.pdf

Skip to page 16 (19 in adobe reader) and look at the top 10 list of companies they are invested in. Jaw dropping.

Also a little tribute from me to all the brave people who have challenged the "consensus" over the years:
http://i-squared.blogspot.com/2010/02/next-step-for-climate-scepticscontinue.html

Raymond Douglas

February 2nd, 2010 2:43pm

Brilliant again melanie ! What would we do without you !

In the Wilderness in America

February 2nd, 2010 2:56pm

Harold

Assuming the deniers do not produce any science, it's still a fact that no science is much better than junk science.

Baron Phillip II

Great post. Any scientific theory having internal contradictions and falsehoods will implode upon itself. You don't need experiments to point that out.

Augustus

February 2nd, 2010 3:13pm

From a Time Magazine Special Report, dated Dec. 16, 2008:

The World Meteorogical Organization (WMO) on Tuesday released its weather analysis for the year.It found that 2008 has been the coolest year since the turn of the century. The WMO
reported that the average global temperature in 2008 was 57.74 deg.F (14.3 deg.C) cooler than the past several years. That's due in part to the chilling action of the climatological effect known as La Nina, which cooled the Pacific.

So does that mean Global Warming
has ceased? Afraid not. Even though 2008 is cooler than the past several years, its still likely to rank 10th warmist since the beginning of climate records in the 1850s. and despite the cooling of the Pacific, several parts of the Earth - especially the Arctic, where sea ice melted to its second lowest level ever this summer - were far above normal temperatures.

During 2008 we kept pouring billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, so its easy to assume that the climate would keep warming uniformly - and therefore to use evidence to the contrary as grounds for doubting that human activity really causes climate change. But the climate and the weather are not the same thing:
We experience only the weather, which is the day-to-day changes of temperature, precipitation, wind and more. The climate, on the other hand, refers to the cumulative average of the weather around us over decades,
centuries, and longer.

And then this...from the same reputable Time Magazine, about the terrible consequences of Climate Change entitled: How To Survive The Coming Ice Age, June 24, 1974

In Africa drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the US, Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters
within anyone's recollection.

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place, and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures from around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing steadily cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age. Tell-tale signs are everywhere - from the unexpected
persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7 F. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer, now they are covered year round.

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the green belt of dry high-altitude polar winds - the so-called circumpolar vortex - that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-
bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America
to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the South....etc. etc.

The University of Wisconsin's Reid A Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust
and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

So, unless we changed our wasteful behaviour then, Time reported, the planet was going to suffer an iceage.

With climate change, time is when you want it to be, and what you want it to be: Hot or cold, it doesn't really matter which.

Dave Cross

February 2nd, 2010 3:22pm

Picking up a couple of points made in the comments.

1/ Yes, the Himalayan glaciers aren't melting as quickly as once predicted. But they are still melting - and at a faster rate than ever before.

2/ Yes, it's been a particularly cold winter in the UK. But Global Warming is a global phenomena (the clue is in the name). That doesn't mean that all of the globe gets warmer - just that the average temperature around the globe increases.

John Stone

February 2nd, 2010 3:27pm

I was always very ecological, believed in preserving the environment, not burning too much fuel, not cutting down too many trees, not poisoning the water supply, but I lost patience with the environmental lobby whe I realised that they wouldn't raise a finger to stop mercury being injected into babies, and entering the environment by that means.

I just coudn't understand it.

C. Gee

February 2nd, 2010 3:48pm

-"The biggest problem I have with the 'denialists' is that they do no experiments and produce no data. They publish nothing. They just sit and the sidelines and witter on, offering inexpert opinions and witless criticisms. They contribute no science."

Quite the contrary. Svensmark has empirically demonstrated the cloud-making effects of cosmic rays in ionizing particles in the atmosphere. His laboratory experiments have been peer-reviewed and published.

Other than the classroom demonstration of the the absorption by CO2 of some radiation, I know of no experiments being conducted by alarmists, who spend their time taking temperatures, or reworking the temperature record, and working their computer models.

It is very easy to find a list of the multitude of peer-reviewed skeptic science articles, thanks to the wonders of internet search engines.

Kevinc

February 2nd, 2010 4:00pm

I'm sorry, but I've read the BBC pensions investment page and I cannot see any obvious link between the companies listed and support for AGW!Please explain.

andrew adams

February 2nd, 2010 5:17pm

Yes, Human CO2 emissions keep rising and...as a matter of fact...no, average global temperature has not risen since 1998. How big a factual refutation of a link do you need.

Firstly, it depends on whose figures you use. CRU has 1998 as the hottest year ever, GISS has 2005 hotter and 2007 and 2009 as hot.
But your argument is incorrect anyway. 1998 was exceptionally warm due the most powerful el Nino of the century - you would therefore expect that temperatures would fall again after that, even allowing for warming due to CO2 emissions. However, the trend has continued resolutely upwards.

Harold

February 2nd, 2010 5:25pm

Baron Pippin, allow me to pick you up on a few points. Firstly, sorry for being a pedant, but the Earth is around 4.5 bn years old, not 12.5 bn (the Sun itself has only been around for 4.5 bn years). But that's neither here nor there.

I'm not saying that a warming climate will 'destroy life as we know it', but it certainly will cause problems, especially you happen to live around sea level (in New York, or London, say). It means mass migration of populations. It also means crop failure, water shortages, and the spread of disease.

The Earth certainly was warmer in the Middle Ages, but the human population was a fraction of what it is now, so the effect was essentially negligible. Mass starvation and migration wasn't an issue.

C. Gee, perhaps you could suggest some experiments for the 'warmists' to do in the lab. Personally I think that accurate monitoring of atmospheric CO2 and temperature (- there are many, many ways to do this, both directly and indirectly, of course) is as good a method as any.

I'm glad we both agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas through its IR absorption properties, though (as are methane and water vapor, of course).

andrew adams

February 2nd, 2010 5:31pm

How could but an infinitesimal increase in the CO2 level of one hundredth of one percent (from the 280ppm around 1800 to 380ppm now)

Er, that's about 35%.

destroy life as we know it when we have written evidence that mankind positively thrived when the level was higher (medieval warming), and suffered when if was lower (mini ice-age).

What was higher in the MWP? CO2 levels? No evidence for this. Global temperatures? No evidence for this?

Stephane Picault

February 2nd, 2010 5:41pm

Now we know why the BBC so consistently hypes the AGW-thesis, while steadfastly ignoring the arguments of the skeptics - it is heavily invested in the global warming industry.

Furthermore, there seems to be active collusion between the media, business, and the political class in order to promote AGW for financial gain.

This is a comment posted by andrew30, with reference to James Delingpole's "ClimateGate: Time for the Tumbrils" on his Telegraph blog:

This might help explain the position of the BBC, the Environment Agency and some Universities.

http://www.iigcc.org/index.aspx

“The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a forum for collaboration on climate change for European investors. The group’s objective is to catalyse greater investment in a low carbon economy by bringing investors together to use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors. The group currently has over 50 members, including some of the largest pension funds and asset managers in Europe, and represents assets of around 4trillion. A full list of members is available on the membership page”.

Did you catch that: FIVE AND A HALF TRILLION DOLLARS!!!!

These guys are in this deep, and many may stand to loose their pensions, and some churches other than the ‘Church of AGW’ may also loose their robes.

http://www.iigcc.org/membership.aspx

Members of the IIGCC include [I trimmed the list a bit]:

Baptist Union of Great Britain
BBC Pension Trust
Bedfordshire Pension Fund
BT Pension Scheme
Central Finance Board of the Methodist Church
Corporation of London Pension Fund
Environment Agency Pension Fund
Greater Manchester Pension Fund
Kent County Council
London Borough of Hounslow Pension Fund
London Borough of Islington Pension Fund
London Borough of Newham Pension Fund
London Pensions Fund Authority
Merseyside Pension Fund
Roman Catholic Diocese of Plymouth
Roman Catholic Diocese of Salford
South Yorkshire Pensions Authority
The Church Commissioners for England
The Church in Wales
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth
United Reform Church
Universities Superannuation Scheme
West Midlands Metropolitan Authorities Pension Fund
West Yorkshire Pension Fund

To be a bit more specific as to the BBC AGW Bias:

http://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-pensions/ne…

”
Professional Pensions | 19 May 2009 | 01:00

Categories: Investment

Carbon markets need urgent changes in order to encourage institutional investment and the development of a low-carbon economy, the Institutional Investor Group on Climate Change says.
The group is calling for “strong price signals and caps on carbon emissions that will encourage scarcity and demand.”

IIGCC chairman and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe said: “The credibility of emissions trading schemes would be greatly improved with a robust price signal as well as clear and frequent communication from the regulator on trading data and improved transparency over direct government participation in schemes.”
”

Catch that: “IIGCC chairman and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe…”

The BBC is the Chair of this Carbon Trading driven investment scheme!

I would say that the BBC has a major non-Scientific reason for their AGW Bias.

If this AGW thing does not pan out then perhaps a lot of BBC pensioners will be ‘left out in the cold’.

It is despicable how these charlatans of science are playing with the lives and futures of so many trusting people. These trusting people should pick up the phone, call their MP and get to the bottom of this before their pensions go the way of the dot-com or housing bubble.

This is going to be a mess.

This will all definitely end up in court.

Jack Sprat

February 2nd, 2010 6:11pm

Are these climate change gurus from the same "community of vested interests" that declared avian flu would decimate millions - and then when it didn't, it was swine flu that would?

Baron

February 2nd, 2010 6:20pm

Dave Cross @ 3.22:

Will you kindly explain how do you measure world temperature and construct a series of these measurements over large time spans, please. Bear in mind that the temperature outside my house differs from that in the town near-by, and that the house I live in wasn’t here 300 years ago, and the town got started only some 750 years ago.

Will the word ‘global’ in ‘global idiocy’ be a clue to concluding that everyone in the world is an idiot?

Tom Durkin @ 2.34: you seem to have misunderstood the skepticism of the deniers like me. I’m skeptical than man bears the responsibility for climatic fluctuations, and not about conserving limited resources, eliminating waste and stuff like that.

Our planet is just a speck in the enormity of the Universe, the clocking of which must be subjected to many a law that we don’t even know yet we don’t know. To argue that our burning fossil fuels, not unlike a colony of ants in a small corner of the rain forest in Brazil munching a harvest of fruit and farting, has any bearing on the climate of earth within the vastness of the Universe seems preposterous.

John A. Davidson @ 12.17:

Your wish for politics to be taken out of science won’t let it happen, my friend. In the past it was the rich that funded science, today is mostly the State. The rich with few exceptions seem to be spending their wealth on yachts, cars or football teams.

Dixon @ 1.46:

Spot on, my batting friend. The CO2 density keeps rising and the temperature measured any way the ecochondriacs may want it stays put or is trending down.

Wily Trout @ 2.08:

Wise words, my friend. Here’s what those who trade greenhouse emissions through the EU emission trading scheme (ETS) are forecasting (source: the Guardian, November 29, 2009).

The ETS market may see $3tn (£1.8tn) worth of transactions a year in the next decade or two, according to Andrew Ager, head of emissions trading at Bache Commodities in London. ‘It is still a relatively new industry with annual trades of around 300bn every year. But this could grow to around $3tn compared to the $1.5tn market there is for oil,’ says Ager, who used to be a foreign currencies trader.

The financial bubble seems like a minor flop compared to this delusional activity.

Polly Gamma

February 2nd, 2010 6:23pm

Yep follow the money.

Baron

February 2nd, 2010 7:01pm

andrew adams @ 5.31:

sorry my sparring friend, you’re in the wrong. The 280ppm is a substitute for 0.028%, the 380ppm for 0.038%, i.e. both are fractions, one of a hundred, the other of a million, and one cannot do a percent increase on a percentage, it doesn’t work.

The notional use of ppm (parts per million) confuses, but it shouldn’t. The increase in the density of CO2 in the last 200 years or so was indeed one hundredth of one percent. The air in the atmosphere we breathe is composed of particles other than CO2 to the level of 99.962% today. Shouldn’t we look closer at what happens to constitute the bulk of the atmosphere?

Harold @ 5.25:

Of course, you’re right, the earth has been around 4.5bn years. My original piece started with the age of the Universe in it. I cut the bit out, but left the figure unchanged. And if you still wish to be pedantic and point out that the age of the Universe comes to 13.5bn or 14.5bn or whatever, please feel free. The book I took the 12.5bn from doesn’t claim to be accurate to the last billion.

The rest of your argument doesn’t cut it with me, I’m afraid. The way of species survival has been through adaptation to the changes in the environment. Resisting it seems delusional to the extreme. How can we control climate when we are unable to control the weather?

Baron

February 2nd, 2010 7:16pm

Dave Cross @ 3.22:

Will the word ‘global’ in ‘global idiocy’ be a clue to concluding that everyone in the world is an idiot?

Baron

February 2nd, 2010 7:30pm

andrew adams @ 5.31: sorry, missed your other points.

the majority of species vanished because they couldn’t adapt. We can.

According to the team you are batting for, CO2 levels had barely changed between around 60,000 years ago and the 17th century. Temperatures, on the other hand had. Records exists of vineyards around Newcastle at the time of the venerable Bede, and evidence also exists of the Thames freezing for up to nine months. In fact, the Parliament passed in 1723 what became known as the Black Act. Hundreds of new offences, the majority of which were for people trying to pinch anything combustible. They were freezing.

andrew adams

February 2nd, 2010 9:18pm

Of course it does. That ppm figure represents a finite number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere as a whole so it perfectly reasonable to say that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 35%.
But let's accept for argument's sake that the correct terminoligy is .01% It sounds very small but call it infintessimal is ridiculous unless you consider the original percentage. A change from .028% to .038% can certainly be considered significant if that original 0.28% already has a noticeable effect.

St Bruno

February 2nd, 2010 9:42pm

Yet another Zeitgeist blog that hits the spot.

A little digression.
I’ve been for many years a radio amateur and an insomniac, the two go hand in hand with listening to the ‘Radio.’ To be more precise short-wave radio that carries round the world bringing diverse opinions and comments. Like the Internet but not censored by Google or rather it is the voice of the various countries that transmit their programmes. Reception is not what it was twenty or even ten years ago, mainly because of the advent of the Network Internet system that sends a signal all over the house and the next-door neighbour as well. Interference at times makes it impossible to receive even the strongest signal, many thanks BT.
What’s this got to do with man-made global warming, well, if more people shortwave-listened to the many views of countries like China, Brazil, Iceland, Russia etc in English, get the message? They would have a better worldview of what other people think about the subject. Not much I must admit but better than listening to the BBC World Service and BBC TV 24hr News or reading the daily rags, not weekly/fortnightly ones, please note. Most nights round about 0300 on the BBC World Service there is a couple of women regurgitating the mantra of ‘global warming’ and how disastrous it will be if all is not changed and the western/northern countries pay lots of money to the southern countries because the western/northern countries caused the floods, earthquakes, tempests, plagues of locusts and frogs and food shortages in southern countries. The whole problem of course has nothing to do with over-population and unrestrained, unsupported by food production, human reproduction in those countries concerned or the natural climate change that is happening and has happened since the planet formed.

Historically, why wasn’t man made global warming increasing more when more carbon was used by man. During the two dreadful World Wars lots of carbon was used to kill lots of ‘Man.’ I would have thought a blip in somebodies data/graph would have shown up somewhere. The UN, we all know how impartial it is, has made up its mind, now the subject and remedies are set in stone, you/I can do nothing to change it. The World Government has spoken!

The dangers to the planet Earth are more from the coming sun-spot activity that is about to hit us in five to ten years, if not sooner. An old subject of discussion among Ham Radio followers. Give it time and wait to see how much that will cost to stop.

I think I am in good company when I say ‘I am a Global Warming denier’ More specifically, a ‘Man-made Global Warming denier’

Straydingo

February 2nd, 2010 10:37pm

Dixon, you are spot on mate.

There is too much money and personal equity tied to the AGW mast.

Cheers

JohnW

February 3rd, 2010 1:24am

"...the IPCC refused to consider Chinese data because the Chinese research was not peer-reviewed..."

Peer reviewed? Ha! The UEA know all about avoiding peer reviews, don't they? Especially those pesky peers that may be inclined to be a little sceptical of their findings.

Oh, the irony.

Barry Meislin

February 3rd, 2010 11:03am

Um, shouldn't that be, "By the waters of babble on"....?

And on, and on......

Neil Craig

February 3rd, 2010 12:06pm

Tom Durkin the 1 1/25 is the reduction in growth of western countries in the decades after we went Luddite at the end of the 60s compared to earlier decades. The actual effect is probably greater since we have seen growth accelerating in progressive countries but I tend to err on the side of caution when criticising our eco-fascist bretheren. See http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2008/07/growth-foregone-since-1965.html

The Chinese economy is now surpassing ours, indeed by a significant amount. You clearly do not know that Singaspore & hong Kong are both per capita richer than us which is a considerable achievement.

Or at least I consider it an achievement though you, being against economic growth won't. I'm sure you also regret the passing of the quill pen from political discussion.

Youi may wish to withdraw your claim about Conservatives not casring for the environment. Nobody can honestly deny that those Conservatives opposed to windmills are demonstrating far greater concern for the environment than all the eco-fascists, pretending to be envirobmentalist who support windmills & prefer coal or windmills to nuclear. Almost all the eco-fascists are flying a false flag & are simply anti-progress Luddites willing to tell any lie, eg global warming or "environmentalism" to roll back human progress, preventing the growth you are opposed to.

Rhys Davis

February 3rd, 2010 2:51pm

AGW scientists often claim that their critics are in the pocket of oil companies etc. and as a result can't be trusted. Let us just sit back a moment and think about who funds the AGW scientists themselves, and what these funders stand to gain if people believe in AGW.

The answer? Governments. Governments who now have an excuse to invoke new 'green' taxes and generate billions more in revenue to fritter away on unnecessary and expensive things.

Australians for Non-Bigoted Thinking

February 3rd, 2010 3:21pm

...and even further mocking and muting of Monckton in Oz...It has become a sport !

...The Zealots must be extremely worried !!!, which was summed up in this statement on the ABC'S 7:30 report(I'm paraphrasing)... 'Warming Scientists won't debate Monckton for fear of giving him airtime.'

go here:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_the_730_report_nobbled_monckton/

Nicholas Till

February 3rd, 2010 10:26pm

I would have thought the testimony of mountaineers and of Alpine guides would as a rule be very accurate and trustworthy - whatever they happened to report. They would be noticing things of immediate importance and interest to them, and these - not appended agendas - would be the givens that occupied their attention.

Terry in Oz

February 4th, 2010 2:37am

The simple recognition that green equals deep red the world over is something I've been saying for years and years. They are yesterdays extreme left rebadged as tree hugging saviours of lush backyards and lovely fluffy things in the wild. But like their communist/fascist predecessors, they are happy to see humans die in their millions in order to fit a warped ideology.

A vote for the Greens is a vote against humanity, a vote against democracy, a vote for communist/fascist extremism, a vote for mass starvation, poverty and the collapse of civilisation itself. In the UK, in Europe, in Australia, in the US, anywhere. Vote Green and you will usher in the collapse of civilised society and a new Dark Age.

Australians for Non-Bigoted Thinking

February 4th, 2010 6:51am

I am not wanting to repeat myself but I am compelled to, because if you can believe it, the mocking of Monckton has reached new nadirs of depravity...It has reached the bottom of the barrel, the dregs, the last refuge of the desperately pathetic.

Green Zealots are now attacking Monckton’s physical characteristics with an egregious picture in the left wing propaganda sheet, The Age, mocking his bulbous eyeballs which were tragically the result of Graves' disease from early childhood. The photograph is a top an article titled the "'Mad Monk' meets Monckton" which also belittles the Catholic faith of conservative opposition leader Tony Abbot. This picture parallels comments made by Mike Carlton, an Australian, who worked in the 90's in the UK as a media commentator on London's LBC Newstalk 97.3FM when he said , 'The barmy 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and his performing eyeballs have been visiting us from Britain this week'.

Oh how socially inclusive and what a broad church the Left is ??? I now understand Melanie how you switched allegiances from the Guardian and wrote for the Daily Mail. You were betrayed by hypocrites. No one with an iota of intellectual honesty and integrity as your much admired self would want to be within a bulls roar of the offices to the guardian of lies.

A reference to the photograph and article is here:

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/mad-monk-meets-monckton-20100203-ndl9.html

Retired Dave

February 4th, 2010 11:32am

A superb piece Melanie - It drives you mad doesn't it. It would be nice to think that common-sense will prevail. I am not holding my breath.

Still the Gruniad have been running a series of articles by Fred Pearce - notice how the whole thing is being set up now, with a few admissions of wrongdoing, to kick Phil Jones over the side (fall guy) - BUT they will then declare that yes it was all a bit wrong, but the science is still FIRM, and business is as usual.

It will be a bit longer yet before the dam breaks, and the political/environmentalists will hang on to the bitter end.

Kyle Harrison

February 4th, 2010 5:10pm

How about someone tell the Cameroons running the Conservative party that they have jumped on the climate change band wagon just as the wheels are about to come off!

Martin

February 4th, 2010 8:39pm

The BBC has promoted as quasi religions over the last 40 years --
Marxism,
Mass Immigration.
the European Union,
Feminism,
Multiculturalism,
Hatred of Israel,
Islamism
Man Made Global Warming.

Like many of the above, having done the damage, the BBC will probably let the issue rest

There will be a deafening silence as reputations are destroyed, & hopefully, some fraudsters jailed

Dixon

February 4th, 2010 8:49pm

andrew adams
February 2nd, 2010 5:17pm, quoting me:
" Yes, Human CO2 emissions keep rising and...as a matter of fact...no, average global temperature has not risen since 1998. How big a factual refutation of a link do you need."

Replies:

"Firstly, it depends on whose figures you use. CRU has 1998 as the hottest year ever, GISS has 2005 hotter and 2007 and 2009 as hot.
But your argument is incorrect anyway. 1998 was exceptionally warm due the most powerful el Nino of the century - you would therefore expect that temperatures would fall again after that, even allowing for warming due to CO2 emissions. However, the trend has continued resolutely upwards."

TTo which I say:

The mean has increased, but by far less than the long term trend. On a graph, you would see that it has "peaked" and almost levelled. But CO2 emissions have continued in accrdance with the background trend. So why not temperature? You can omit 1998 if you like...although most AGW proponents insisted on it as "evidence" for AGW, the effect of CO2 not El Nino, but even if you omit it, the previous upward trend still breaks around there and the ...yes, positive, but relatively small subsequent trend is in effect meaningless.

Dixon

February 4th, 2010 9:02pm

Some of the comments that were here, including the very first Gunpat Ram one and a lot from 4th have now disappeared! Any chance of getting them back?

Wilson Flood

February 4th, 2010 9:19pm

The Minister for Laputa - I love it.

Michael Larkin

February 5th, 2010 6:05pm

Bravo. So very, very nice to see some commonsense at long last.

Major Plonquer

February 7th, 2010 1:45am

Can I please have my lightbulbs back now?

logdon

February 7th, 2010 5:46pm

Hello Sir

My name is Jason Lmamo. I am writing to your good self to introduce myself and to share a tiny problem which with your support we could resolve in a mutually profitable manner. And help save the planet.

At present a Nigerian Government Agency has deposited ten million US dollars in the Bank of Ecological Means and Measures in Lagos.

Unfortunately due to a security clause mistake in the Bank regulations, funds cannot be withdrawn by a Nigerian citizen without correlation by an overseas accredited third party. The account is now frozen unless such a foreign guarantee can be provided.

This is where, with your help and valued assistance, releasing these funds for Carbon Trading purposes will bring great benefit.

We know of your credentials in these matters and to ask for evidence of your probity would be an insult to your good name. This is why you were chosen for such a special task.

All we require is that you provide us with your Bank account details, number and not forgetting sort code, then the funds will be transferred to your Bank where impedance of access is no problem.

We will then ask for the moneys, less a ten percent handling fee for all the trouble you have been put to, to be deposited in the Jason Lmamo account at the Carbon Bank of Nigeria set up by no less than Mr Gore for such purposes.

Obviously your name speaks for itself and whilst the paltry commission will take second place to your endeavours in helping Mr Gore and others, we felt a gesture was only polite.

Jason Lmamo.

Substitute Jason Lmamo with Copenhagen and you’re there.

Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley

February 8th, 2010 12:29am

I don't know about a course of post traumatic stress counselling but perhaps Mr.Miliband might be interested in the value of a more critical perspective as a way to better understand the meaning of any so-called "settled" scientific position.

Doesn't this thing called science bear the formal characteristics of any "boom and bust" scenario? Perhaps secretaries generally might benefit from reading more stuff like eg. Kuhn's "structure of scientific revolutions" together with something like Guba and lincoln's "the paradigm dialog" to get a better idea of why some don't see a science as being "settled".

Charles

February 9th, 2010 7:17pm

"Doesn't this thing called science bear the formal characteristics of any "boom and bust" scenario?"

No, it doesn't.

John A. Davisonj

February 11th, 2010 2:11am

I am still waiting for another example of a glacier not receding, a pole not melting and a climate not undergoing radical change. What do you think my chances are of getting an answer here?

jadavison.wordpress.com

Most read
Most commented on

1 Ignore the European Court and deport Abu Qatada tonight - Douglas Murray (97)

2 Don’t let’s be beastly to the bankers - Fraser Nelson (71)

3 We must be honest about honour killings - William Maxwell (62)

4 Lawson: Abolish DECC - Fraser Nelson (48)

5 Where has the pro-EU camp gone? - Daniel Korski (39)

Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist. She also writes for the Jewish Chronicle and is a panellist on BBC Radio Four's Moral Maze. Her most recent book is 'The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth and Power', published by Encounter.

For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here

Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP

Cartoons

By the waters of denial they sit and weep...

Frank P

Dixon

Australians for Non-Bigoted Thinking

journeyman

Larry70

ramjam

mitcheltj

BenM

Johnnie Barleycorn

De Rigueur

De Rigueur

john east

Roger Thornhill

Ian C

Harold

Philo

Rachael

GeoffM

Australians for Non-Bigoted Thinking

Baron Pippin II

Alexander

Dr Michael Salt

John A. Davison

Neil Craig

DougS

Dixon

Dixon

Dixon

Australians for Non-Bigoted Thinking

Dixon

Dixon

Wily Trout

Klem

Philo

Tom Durkin

Katabasis

Raymond Douglas

In the Wilderness in America

Augustus

Dave Cross

John Stone

C. Gee

Kevinc

andrew adams

Harold

andrew adams

Stephane Picault

Jack Sprat

Baron

Polly Gamma

Baron

Baron

Baron

andrew adams

St Bruno

Straydingo

JohnW

Barry Meislin

Neil Craig

Rhys Davis

Australians for Non-Bigoted Thinking

Nicholas Till

Terry in Oz

Australians for Non-Bigoted Thinking

Retired Dave

Kyle Harrison

Martin

Dixon

Dixon

Wilson Flood

Michael Larkin

Major Plonquer

logdon

Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley

Charles

John A. Davisonj

Popular Blog Posts

Search this blog