The ‘controversy’ over global warming


by Sunny
30th May, 2007 at 11:20 am    

Tory blogger Iain Dale is rather put out that Greenpeace don’t want to come on and debate that eminent of scientists Dominic Lawson (I’m being sarcastic, he’s a former newspaper editor) on 18 Doughty Street. Not that Iain is annoyed or anything, he only labels them ‘enviro-fascists’. What do they say about the first person in a debate who uses the word fascist? Not that he’s alone of course… this fervent Dale supporter calls them ‘environazis’. I should rest my case, but I digress.

I suspect Iain Dale and others on the typical Tory right have missed the point entirely. I alluded to this point last year in the death of debate on CIF: the view taken by some producers that they can have a ‘balanced’ discussion by inviting two completely opposing viewpoints and watching the sparks fly. Looks like Doughty Street might be going down the same route.

The reason why Greenpeace is right in avoiding such programmes with such participants is because it gives the false impression that there is still a debate to be had and that it could go either way. No. When 90% of the evidence supports one position then such a ‘balanced debate’ only creates a false impression. Other than in the world of loons such as Melanie Phillips, another eminent scientist, most people have slowly woken up to the fact that we have gone past climate change to global warming and that it is mostly a man-made phenomena. That Channel 4 airs unadulterated rubbish such as The Great Climate Change Swindle doesn’t change anything.

In fact there is so much disinformation out there that New Scientist has an extensive section dedicated just to rebutting those idiotic conspiracy theories. Anyone still willing to believe this is all a myth quite rightly deserves to be ignored by charity workers who have better things to do with their time.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Environmentalism






191 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. soru — on 30th May, 2007 at 12:42 pm  

    Yes, facts don’t present themselves on TV. If two people go head to head, the person who happens to be a better speaker, quicker at thinking on their feet, better briefed, and less hesitant about tactical simplifications, distortions or plain lies is going to be more persuasive.

    Scientists are in general notoriously bad at all that, although there are one or two ‘media scientists’ who have it down.

    In a head-to-head format, being right is pretty much irrelevant, at least unless you directly contradict the personal experience of viewers.

    I’m not sure refusing to show up is the best approach though: to the extent those on the other side have a media platform, it just gives them more to talk about.

    The ideal solution is probably a better format: turn the debate into a kind of a game show. Something like a neutral fact-checking jury, with encyclopedias and web access, that could give speakers yellow and red cards, and summarised the results at the end.

  2. Riz — on 30th May, 2007 at 12:59 pm  

    Thanks for the link to the New Scientist. I need some more background on this topic to form an informed opinion. C4 manipulated me with that programme, the borgeouis commie nazi capitalist pigs!

  3. Kismet Hardy — on 30th May, 2007 at 2:21 pm  

    Personally, I thought something was fishy the moment Arnie became green. It’s a fact that where there’s a cause, there’s a tax that can go nicely with it

    What makes me ill at ease is the fact that they’re using this ‘go green’ command to supress the third world, especially Africa, from having its industrial revolution

    Think about it. preach all you like Bono, there’s a reason why some places need to stay poverty-stricken

  4. douglas clark — on 30th May, 2007 at 2:37 pm  

    Sunny,

    18 Doughty Street had a one on one between Iain Dale and Dominic Lawson quite some time ago, in which Lawson was unchallenged in his assertions about the ‘global warming hoax’. I wrote to Iain saying that it was somewhat unfair that Lawson was not directly challenged on his allegations. He wrote back and seemed to take the point, at the time.

    For a debate on this to be meaningful, it would really need to be like some of the worthy stuff on C-Span, where folk are given the time to say what they have to say. Entertainment, it ain’t.

    It is probably the case here, that if you want to actually understand what is going on, your better sticking to print media. Or Web Sites like this:

    http://www.realclimate.org/

    or, for a more general round up:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/

  5. antifrank — on 30th May, 2007 at 2:45 pm  

    I posted on Iain Dale’s site disagreeing with him. I now propose to do the same for you. Your central flaw is in the penultimate paragraph. You imply that it is beyond doubt that there is global warming and that it is mostly manmade. This may well be so, but it is not proven to a scientific standard or anything like. At present the balance of probabilities strongly support the Greenpeace view, but there are many areas of uncertainty, further evidence is coming in all the time and our current understanding may be confounded. In the third paragraph of the New Scientist article are the words “Yes, there are still big uncertainties in some predictions”.

    What Greenpeace are seeking to do is to put beyond debate something that is as yet far from certain. As a campaigning group they are entitled to do what they like, but they cannot declare a debate over when it is not – yet. I agree with the New Scientist article: “With so much at stake, it is right that climate science is subjected to the most intense scrutiny.”

  6. ChrisC — on 30th May, 2007 at 2:55 pm  

    The scientific “consensus” does change.
    I am old enough to remember when, as that C4 documentary showed, we were all worried about global cooling. All based on the “science”, of course!

    The sociology (if that’s the right term) of global warming is fascinating.
    Lefties have siezed upon it as the new stick with which to beat the market.
    Righties have siezed upon it as a conspiracy against the market by the lefties. They of course also see the market (technological innovation, carbon trading etc.) as the solution.
    While 99% of both lefties and righties (myself included) have no real idea about the science at all, generally leading to any discussion of the science to be quickly abandoned in favour of a headlong rush towards the moral high ground, on which the lefties feel especially comfortable.

    The self-righteousness of Mr Greenpeace is unfortunate but hardly surprising.

  7. Sunny — on 30th May, 2007 at 3:19 pm  

    anti-frank: In the third paragraph of the New Scientist article are the words “Yes, there are still big uncertainties in some predictions”.

    But it does state: “Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere”

    Just because the science isn’t fully formed doesn’t mean the overwhelming evidence isn’t useful. This is rather like the evolution debate – we don’t have all the pieces of the jigsaw but the overwhelming evidence is there. To deny that… and pretend there is some sort of equilibrium is disingenuous.

  8. justforfun — on 30th May, 2007 at 3:24 pm  

    I’m sort of with Kismet and Chris C on this one – Global warming Global cooling – its not the real issue – change will happen in the climate whether we cause it or not – but it makes a good weapon to use in a dual to fight for your ideology.

    We can, and I believe we are being sidetracked by the debate and it is being turned into a cash cow to allow the present economic model and political setup to continue in a modified form , but still in the form where the ruling elites around the world ( and we are talking 100millions of people, not just the 1000(?) billionaires in America or where ever still maintain top dog status. The real debate is about the finite resources in the world and how they will be apprtioned humanely while our technology and social attitudes to consumption, which has not advanced enough to compensate for our increased consumption on a global scale, are given enough time to catch up and allow a more sustained longterm future for us as a species, and to allow time for our societies to alter to suit , but while not allowing our liberties to be lost in panic measures, as they surely will if panic draconian measures are required in the future.

    1 -Technology can help reduce consumption but needs time.
    2 – Alternative Economic and Social systems will have to be developed that do not require societies to flourish ONLY when their economies are based on continual economic growth as measured by consumption of material’things’. We have to be immaginative. Any thoughts?

    I personally believe we have to educate ourselves and our children that that their is more to life than just consumption. I believe economic strength is just a manifestation of predicted long term political stability. This whole carbon trading bullshit is just a psudo scientific stunt to establish a pluasible case that there is a PLAN in place that provides long term stability. Like the banks in the wild west, they cannot be seen not to have your money safe or else is arun on the bank. We currently feel safe – ;-) Tony Blair has a PLAN , or is it Gordon Brown , or is it Dubya? My God I’m giving myself the willies!!
    As soon as carbon trading is proved not to be just a bullshit plan badly executed as will be the case in the case in 20 years, and carbon trading is seen by all to have has failed to halt the hidden war for reasources to maintain our current expontial growth, then the rush to revolution , rather than evolution, will be unstoppable. Then we will surely lose our liberties as communism we certainly not save us. Carbon trading and these small flee bite schemes are just flim flam to stop us really seeing where we need to change and blinding us to the real debate.

    Evolution now or revolution in the future?

    Justforfun

  9. Kismet Hardy — on 30th May, 2007 at 3:24 pm  

    I’ll tell you what bugs me over the ‘carbon footprint’ brigade

    Ooh it was the hottest day recorded since 1867. Global warming’s at fault

    Well, it was this hot in 1867 wasn’t it?

    Ooh ooh the ice caps are melting. Hairsprays are to blame

    What about the ice age?

    The world changes. That’s what she’s been doing from the dawn of time. We can’t destroy the planet anymore than we can create one

    Humans are so fucking arrogant

  10. Kismet Hardy — on 30th May, 2007 at 3:27 pm  

    Oh and cows have been farting long before we invented 4x4s…

  11. Kismet Hardy — on 30th May, 2007 at 3:43 pm  

    And don’t fricking charge me to take my binbags away in the name of global protection you green gobbling bunch of turds

  12. Riz — on 30th May, 2007 at 3:53 pm  

    Just when we’ve got mother nature down on her knees in submission, we are setting about trying to undo all our hard work !

  13. Kismet Hardy — on 30th May, 2007 at 4:09 pm  

    Buy new eco-friendly Daz, it means you can set your washing machine at 3 instead of 4. Go on, do your bit for saving the world

    Fuck off, you’re trying to sell me washing powder

  14. soru — on 30th May, 2007 at 4:11 pm  

    . As a campaigning group they are entitled to do what they like, but they cannot declare a debate over when it is not

    I think you are confusing ‘debate’ with ‘scientific investigation’. There is scope for further investigation, there is no scope for radical scepticism about what has been found out so far (unless you enjoy discussions of the form ‘can you prove america actually exists’?).

    Say there is a wall, and it is currently painted white.

    You can have a debate about what colour the wall should be painted (i.e policy in response to facts). You can have a debate on whether the evidence of your eyes should be trusted in matters of colour (i.e. philosophy of vision, or of science).

    But there is no reasonable debate about what colour the wall actually is, it is not a matter of two equal sides, the ‘whitists’ and the ‘blackists’. If you try to set up such a debate, the only people who will show up on the ‘blackist’ side are fraudsters, charlatans and hucksters, people who have not the slightest interest in what colour the wall actually is, only in how they can make money out of a media appearance.

    Debunking such people is something that needs to be done, but it is a specialist, highly skilled task that has nothing to do with the skills of scientific investigation, or even debating with honest opponents.

  15. Kismet Hardy — on 30th May, 2007 at 4:13 pm  

    You wanna do something about saving the planet? Stop lecturing me about flushing my toilet and stop endorsing bombs

  16. Rumbold — on 30th May, 2007 at 4:15 pm  

    Sunny:

    “When 90% of the evidence supports one position then such a ‘balanced debate’ only creates a false impression.”

    Most people used to believe that the sun revolved around our planet (some still do). Regardless of whether the science is right or not (because May in Britain is clearly the hottest May ever), scientific ‘truth’ is something that should always be constantly analysed, since new evidence often emerges.

    Attempting to shut down debate by ignoring it seems to be a speciality of this new breed of environmentalist, labelling anyone who does not agree with them as a “denier”.

    I happen to think that climate change is mainly man-made, but would not try and make those who disagreed with me into pariahs.

  17. Kismet Hardy — on 30th May, 2007 at 4:21 pm  

    Who is it Avril Levigne or some similar talentless waste of necessary oxygen is doing a concert where no tickets are printed to ‘save the environment’, it’s all done online. Woo hoo. Right on.

    And what exactly is Al Gore’s flipping concert in aid of? Let’s raise awareness woo hoo. Let’s make people feel so bad about their eco-destroying products that they pay through their noses for eco-friendly stuff? Worked nicely with organic stuff didn’t it woo hoo

    Jokers

  18. ChrisC — on 30th May, 2007 at 5:09 pm  

    The problem with the Greenpeace attitude, and the Sunny attitude(!), is that people may SAY they believe in man-made global warming (isn’t the “man-made” bit the doubtful bit – is that 90%??) in large part because they will be treated as lepers if they don’t say so, but they don’t act that way, do they?
    Rather the opposite (more cheap flights please).

    I really don’t see how sitting smugly back and thinking “case closed” helps their own cause.

  19. antifrank — on 30th May, 2007 at 5:15 pm  

    Sunny, if you’re going to bandy around words like “disingenuous”, please read what people write carefully. I did not say that I do not believe in manmade global warming, or that I regard the balance of probabilities as even. My views should have been abundantly apparent from my first post. What I said was that the evidence is not yet at the overwhelming level that justifies disregarding arguments to the contrary. Moreover, to call a debate to a close too early is actively dangerous, and risks discrediting a good argument if a lazy assumption (and there are many made on both sides on this subject) is proven by the hostile to be untrue.

    I picked out the key quotation in the New Scientist article first time round, which is the last sentence of my post. I am disappointed that you disregard it because it is inconvenient for your thesis.

  20. GM — on 30th May, 2007 at 6:18 pm  

    There is aproblem here, as many of the above posts suggest, of closing down debate. While there is evidence that the climate is warming, evidence (though less clear) that it is human activity that is to blame, there is little clarity on what the effects of this will be. Any reading of the Stern report or the IPCC report must conclude that there are some wide margins on the human impact. Just becuase the planet is warming and that there is a strong possibility that it is human-made, is that enough to curtail devlopment in Asia and Africa or penalise people who don’t recycle. It is the effects that are most important and the effects upon which the science appears least clear.

    Also, the problem of the ‘end of debate’ on an issue is that as a cause it gets appropriated by a number of other causes, it becomes conflated with other problems and the root of all evils. One only has to look at the deeply flawed use of ‘climate change’ to sell Christian Aid Week week recently.

  21. Soso — on 30th May, 2007 at 6:56 pm  

    Back in the 70s they had those “Whole Earth Catalogues”, taken as divine revelation, that “scientifically claimed we’d run out of oil an d fresh water by 1985.

    Just filled up the car and am drinking Perrier water..

  22. Riz — on 30th May, 2007 at 7:03 pm  

    Along with the New Scientist blurb here is a vrey detailed piece on how to talk to an environmental skeptic.

    http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

  23. Soso — on 30th May, 2007 at 7:04 pm  

    Attempting to shut down debate by ignoring it seems to be a speciality of this new breed of environmentalist, labelling anyone who does not agree with them as a “denier”.

    It’s all a form of substitute religion, Rumbold.

    I find the carbon-credits aspect astounding.

    Can anyone think of anything more similar to the old sale-of-indulgences?

    Carbon-credits are right out of the Catholic Church’s handbook for medieval theology.

    And enviromentalism is but the guilt-whimper of wealthy champagne leftists ill at ease with their ostentatious levels of consumption.

  24. soru — on 30th May, 2007 at 8:05 pm  

    It’s all a form of substitute religion, Rumbold.

    Anti-environmentalism seems to me to be the movement that more resembles a traditional religion, more interested in winning converts by pandering to existing prejudices.

    Seriously, the question of whether the planet’s climate is changing under human influence or not is a straightforward matter of physical science. Any statement that argues _from_ the belief patterns of people _to_ the physical facts of the matter, _from_ metaphors and analogies _to_ reality, is either mysticism or charlatism.

  25. douglas clark — on 31st May, 2007 at 12:15 am  

    Good God, I completely agree with soru!

    It is odd that newspaper editors and their brothers in law who have no training whatsoever in climate science feel that they can start a debate, one that is damn near over amongst those that know what they are talking about.

    It would be quite good for the future of the planet if the great ape (us) could get it’s head around the precautionary principle. Or in laymans terms if your digging yourself into a hole, stop digging. Stand back and reconsider.

    There is no need to be Luddite about this, there are options.

    Do any of you remember smogs?

  26. ZinZin — on 31st May, 2007 at 12:20 am  

    I agree with Sunny the debate on global warming is a misnomer. There is no debate to be had. Human activity through the the burning of fossil fuels for energy has an effect be it Global cooling or global warming.

    Would anyone want David Caesarani to have a debate on the holocaust with David Irving? (i am aware of Godwins law)To do so would be to legitimise his position and to give the impression that there is a debate to be had.

    As for Greenpeace they are right not to participate. Iain Dale on the other hand has a brass neck in calling anyone a fascist especially as he has a reputation for deleting comments, sock puppetry and is a hypocrite and a liar.

    http://prisonersvoice.blogspot.com/2007/05/john-hirst-3-iain-dale-0.html

  27. Rumbold — on 31st May, 2007 at 12:34 am  

    Soso:

    “Carbon-credits are right out of the Catholic Church’s handbook for medieval theology.”

    Exactly Soso. All these elite persons (celebrities, politicians), damage the environment then try and make up for it with a gesture? If you wish to lecture us ordinary folk, why not stop flying as a token?

    “And enviromentalism is but the guilt-whimper of wealthy champagne leftists ill at ease with their ostentatious levels of consumption.”

    It goes deeper than that Soso. They will often excuse their own behaviour as necessary (“we just had to fly darling- it was so important ya”), then blame everybody else. I include Cameron and his mates in this; they are rich enough to ‘offset’ their emissions, then they tell everyone else to behave. As with grammar schools, it is a way for the paternalistic wings in the three main parties to deny poor people the chance that they themselves got through their wealth. “Flying to Spain for a holiday? That is wrong. Flying in order to be photographed with huskies? Great.”

  28. sid — on 31st May, 2007 at 12:45 am  

    Thanks for the link to New Scientist’s authoritative debunking of the Dominic Lawson and Christopher Horner circle-jerk. (aren’t they all funded by Exxon Mobil anyway?) Indispensable.

  29. douglas clark — on 31st May, 2007 at 12:53 am  

    Rumbold,

    Y’know, if I were a class warrior, I’d probably agree with you. Still, if rich folk actually do offset their carbon footprint in a proper manner, then that is a good thing, ya?

    Please try to get it into your head that this is a scientific issue, not a capitalist plot. Unless I am missing the point about losing huge chunks of land to the sea. Perhaps it a merman plot?

    In fact it seems to be capitalists and their toadies that are in the denial camp.

  30. soru — on 31st May, 2007 at 1:14 am  

    merman plot

    I suspect it’s actually the newts.

    Their agent has already infiltrated London…

  31. douglas clark — on 31st May, 2007 at 1:54 am  

    Soru,

    Thanks for that link. I cannot do it justice at this hour. But it is brilliant stuff.

    HEY GUYS, READ SORUS LINK. Yes, I am shouting.

    Satire as truth, maybe. Did you write it?

    Too much, too late though.

    “Their agent has already infiltrated London…”

    Ken Livingstone, I presume?

  32. Sunny — on 31st May, 2007 at 3:34 am  

    What I said was that the evidence is not yet at the overwhelming level that justifies disregarding arguments to the contrary.

    Anti-frank, at what point does the evidence become overwhelming? When 90% of the worlds climatologists agree? There isn’t 100% proof that we evolved from monkeys either, but scientists piece together information to make the larger picture.
    Such is the nature of science.

    If anything, it is the global warming deniers who are acting like a religious cult, desperately seeing a leftist conspiracy in everything and thus denying it on that basis.

    Furthermore, the left has been trying to raise awareness on environmental degradation and the threat to other species for decades, this is not a new campaign. Just because some people believed in the ‘global cooling’ a few years ago doesn’t mean the environmental movement is discreditd.

    If anything, it is the right that has been consistently discredited on social issues. Look at gay rights, on racism, on abortion, on divorce, on civil liberties – these are all campaigns tha originated from what can be described broadly as the left.

    Do I have point at old Conservative scare-mongering about the Jews and “if you want a nigger for a neighbour vote Labour” to point out how wrong-footed they have been on issues?

    Gimme a break. Read the overwhelming evidence. Read the refutations of the deniers. Then tell me the debate is still equally balanced.

  33. dizzy — on 31st May, 2007 at 6:21 am  

    Actually Sunny, I havn’t missed the point at all, you have. My concern is not about balancing things, my concern is the overt politicisation of science particularly around the subject of climate change, although largely it also envelopes environmentalism in general.

    I mean take this for example, you say that when “90% of the evidence supports one position then such a ‘balanced debate’ only creates a false impression.” Consequently, what your saying is 10% of the evidence supports another position. Now, science, is not about picking the one with the most evidence and saying “it is right, the debate is over”. That would be bad science. If we did that we’d still be convinced Newtonian dynamics were the be all and end all of physics.

    Nor is science about consensus. If 99% scientists in the world believe the moon is made of cheese it does not make it so. However that is framing of the discussion on climate change which concerns me. This is not a “typical tory reaction” either, it’s a politics and philosophy graduates reaction to an assault on intellectual sanity.

    Science is never about cast iron proofs, and there is ample evidence that scientists that have questioned some aspect of “man-made climate change” evidence with testing have been targeted because of an over-zealous politicisation of their academic world. The day the pursuit of knowledge is restricted is a bad one in my view.

    If you wish to have a further discussion about this and the philosophy of science you’re free to email me. However trying to frame this all as “typical tory” reactions actually exemplifies the point about the intellectual insanity around the debate on this subject.

  34. dizzy — on 31st May, 2007 at 8:07 am  

    Incidentally, I do not deny there are many conpsiracy theorists out there on the subject. For me tho the rights and wrong of either is not the problem. The problem is the way one side is treated science as if it deal with certainties, it does not. Even Richard Dawkins acknowledges that there is the possibility of the existence of higher power precisely because he understands the limitations of what science actually does.

  35. Puffy — on 31st May, 2007 at 8:26 am  

    What have you got against “journalists” Sunny? I thought you described yourself as one. In my day to become a journalist you had to work on a newspaper or magazine on a pittance for a couple of years before being allowed to take a raft of tough exams with a failure rate of 56 per cent, at least that was the case when I passed my Proficiency. I suspect the same was true of “Mad” Mel and Dom Lawson. How about you Sunny?

    Journalists are not supposed to accept the asssurances of the establishment, whether scientists or politicians. I don’t know the “truth” about global warming, but to acccept the word of scientists just because they’re scientists doesn’t sound like very good journalism to me.

    As for the right and left debate, actually environmentalism is traditionally the preserve of the right. Hence Zac Goldsmith now standing for a Tory seat. Hence David bloody Cameron and his battle to keep the oiks off his Nimes-bound Easy Jet.

    The Toffs have always been green because they hark back to a rural pre-Industrial Revolution idyll when they ruled the roost and before the poor were able to force universal suffrage as a result of their economic muscle, etc.

    Indeed, as someone with a background in international development I tend to view greens with suspicion – they tend to oppose development in Africa and elsewhere in the name of the environmentalism with the inevitable result of keeping the poor poor. Bet they’re kicking themselves for not thinking that one up earlier!

  36. Leon — on 31st May, 2007 at 9:55 am  

    it is the global warming deniers who are acting like a religious cult, desperately seeing a leftist conspiracy in everything and thus denying it on that basis.

    Well said.

  37. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 31st May, 2007 at 10:14 am  

    Great link into the New Scientist site.

    Thanks Sunny.

    TFI

  38. ChrisC — on 31st May, 2007 at 10:18 am  

    Sunny – I assume you agree that the 10% (or whatever it is) of scientists who disgree should not be pilloried, have their funding cut off and so on?

    Perhaps they should have their funding increased?!

    This is a serious issue. If the global warming consensus is right, then it is indeed the poorest who will suffer if we do nothing.

    But if it is wrong, and we act to restrain global growth, it is the poorest who again will suffer most.

  39. ChrisC — on 31st May, 2007 at 10:19 am  

    PS I am slightly disappointed in Sunny’s obvious Labour tribalism!

  40. sid — on 31st May, 2007 at 10:37 am  

    But if it is wrong, and we act to restrain global growth, it is the poorest who again will suffer most.

    Nah, bollocks. The poorest will be the last to benefit from global growth and the first to suffer the effects of increased flood levels.

  41. ChrisC — on 31st May, 2007 at 11:11 am  

    You’re right sid, let’s hold the bastards back.
    If the poorest are the “last to benefit from global growth” how coming the poorest countries (e.g. China and India) are outgrowing the richest ones??

  42. sid — on 31st May, 2007 at 11:24 am  

    ChrisC, do you think a society in India and China are perfectly homogeneous? Does a spike in GDP mean that, all things remaining equal, wealth distribution would be perfectly uniform?

    Even a cursory knowledge of Chinese and Indian societies will show you that national growth does not benefit the lowest levels of society. You won’t be seeing the abject poor driving Mercedes 4x4s overnight because there is a national increase in GDP.

    However, if the flood plains of the Yangzte and the Ganges gradually fill up, causing flash floods and increased salination of cropland, it won’t be the elites in Beijing and Delhi and Dhaka who will be losing their lives and livelihood.

  43. Rumbold — on 31st May, 2007 at 12:16 pm  

    Sid:

    “do you think a society in India and China are perfectly homogeneous? Does a spike in GDP mean that, all things remaining equal, wealth distribution would be perfectly uniform?”

    No one pretends that it will. However, GDP growth will help the poor, but perhaps not at the same rate as the middle class/rich. It is still a good thing though.

    Douglas Clark:

    “Y’know, if I were a class warrior, I’d probably agree with you. Still, if rich folk actually do offset their carbon footprint in a proper manner, then that is a good thing, ya?”

    I am no class warrior myself. But don’t you find it risible that celebrities, politicians and CofE bishops fly around the world to go to conferences and big important events, then tell India and China that they have to stop lifting their people out of poverty? Carbon ‘offsetting’ does not work anyway. A person damages the planet then plants trees in a vain hope that this will somehow counter the effect.

  44. sid — on 31st May, 2007 at 12:21 pm  

    No one pretends that it will. However, GDP growth will help the poor, but perhaps not at the same rate as the middle class/rich. It is still a good thing though.

    Undoubtedly, but that’s not what I’m arguing, is it. In South Asia, growth in overall GDP, rocketted by the urban rich elides the downturn of incomes of the poor not to mention their displacement caused by encroaching flood levels.

  45. Rumbold — on 31st May, 2007 at 12:26 pm  

    How should we, as the West, help the poor in India then, if we are going to restrict their right to economic growth?

  46. sid — on 31st May, 2007 at 12:36 pm  

    How about lobbying for western pressure on South Asian governments for increased protection of land rights for the poor? Increased welfare mechanisms which will protect their incomes from the inevitable loss of homes, property and income that will become increasingly apparent in the coming 20-30 years? Then there is international .

  47. sid — on 31st May, 2007 at 12:39 pm  

    Then there is international international ecological activism.
    Stolid, boring stuff, I’m afraid.

  48. Soso — on 31st May, 2007 at 1:41 pm  

    Anti-frank, at what point does the evidence become overwhelming? When 90% of the worlds climatologists agree?

    For god’s sakes, Sunny!

    90% of the worlds *climatologists* can’t distinguish between an oral and an anal thermometer!

    In case anyone’s wondering, the difference is in the taste……

    On a more serious note, we should never, ever forget that climatology is NOT a hard science in the same sense that physics and chemistry are.

    The discipline simply can’t account for all the minute details, factors and variables that combine in an unknown myriad of ways to create the weather.

    The proof of this claim lies in the fact that meterologists can’t so much as predict next week’s weather with even a 50% success rate.

    And yet we’re gonna trust these suckers when they tell us what the sea levels will be a century from now?

    Hard science has a predictive aspect, it can reproduce with 100% accuracy the same phenomenon, the same reactions, over and over and over again.

    Jeez, if climatologists were so convinced of the predictive properties of their meterological certainties, then why aren’t more of ‘em planning outdoor weddings?

    The day climatologists can make it rain anywhere at anytime in the Atacami, you’ll know the discipline has become a “science”.

    For the moment, it’s all just glorified alchemy.

    That is, of course, when it’s not a substitute religion.

  49. Chairwoman — on 31st May, 2007 at 1:49 pm  

    I will start by admitting that my time during science periods at school consisted mainly of watching the squirrels cavorting on the tennis courts, but I was very good at history.

    I am not expecting a round of applause for my academic prowess a long time ago, but I am mentioning history as it is germane to this thread.

    The Earth has gone through many climatic and geological phases since it first began revolving alarmingly round the Sun. There have been ice ages and tropical ages. This country has seen both of them. The continents have all shifted. Perhaps ‘Global Warming’ is just another one of those, and instead of trying to fight the inevitable, we should be finding a way to live with the changes.

  50. ChrisC — on 31st May, 2007 at 3:04 pm  

    Is there any doubt that climate change has shifted from science to faith? The “deniers” are treated as heretics. We see in in miniature on this thread.

    That is not healthy. If growth is to be restricted, (whatever Sid may say) the poorest on the planet will be held back, and there is clearly a complex tradeoff between dispacement for some and development for others.

    And this to me is the bigger danger, that we have taken two steps in one go. The first is to say that *man made* climate change is certain. The second is to say that it is obvious what to do about it. To challenge the first is now heresy. OK. But to challenge the second is simply common sense.

  51. soru — on 31st May, 2007 at 3:07 pm  

    The proof of this claim lies in the fact that meterologists can’t so much as predict next week’s weather with even a 50% success rate.

    You do know the difference between weather and climate, don’t you?

    Perhaps ‘Global Warming’ is just another one of those, and instead of trying to fight the inevitable, we should be finding a way to live with the changes.

    At at least one stage in the past, the entire planet has (probably) been covered with kilometer-thick ice from pole to equator.

    I think, on the whole, adjusting a few things about the way various technical background details of industrial society works, with a total cost of say 5% of 2100 world GDP, is going to be rather less hassle than moving to live in igloos in Brazil, or underground bunkers at the poles.

  52. Chairwoman — on 31st May, 2007 at 3:16 pm  

    Soru – I have absolutely in favour of spending 5% of 2100 world GDP to deal with what is obviously becoming a problem, I just want to be certain that the money is being spent in a way that is going to be of benefit, not just jump on the global warming bandwagon.

  53. soru — on 31st May, 2007 at 3:20 pm  

    Is there any doubt that climate change has shifted from science to faith? The “deniers” are treated as heretics. We see in in miniature on this thread

    Once again, the contents of this thread do not in any way influence the relevant technical factors behind climate change.

    Even if the catholic church started wearing conical hats and burning anyone who doubted climate change at the stake, that could not possibly change cloud albedos and ice melt rates. (At least, unless they burnt so many people the cloud covered a decent percentage of the planet).

    So if you are reasoning, as you seem to be, from the behavior of people to the behavior of physical systems, be aware that you are using an explicitly mystical or religious argument: things are deserved, appropriate, just.

    Not observed, calculated, predicted.

  54. ChrisC — on 31st May, 2007 at 3:20 pm  

    Where does this 5% of 2100 GDP number come from, and exactly what will it be spent on?

  55. sid — on 31st May, 2007 at 3:21 pm  

    and there is clearly a complex tradeoff between dispacement for some and development for others.

    Yes, damn right there’s a tradeoff. Not sure how complex though. It’s quite simple for most:

    In Bangladesh’s terms, which is on the frontline of climate change effects thanks to its geographical position, over the next 30 years, economic development will directly benefit 2% (if that). But the increase of the rise of sea-level at 5m will result in the displacement of 30 million people in southern Bangladesh. See report.

    Not sure how effective an extra $200 per year for these people, caused by an increase of GDP, will be in that situation, can you?

  56. ChrisC — on 31st May, 2007 at 3:34 pm  

    And how sure are you of that 5m rise?
    But as now a matter of faith, I assume the answer is 100%?!

    And even if sure, those 30m are but a fraction of the world’s poor.

    Or should the rest be prepared to give up their development?

    Who will ask them?

  57. sid — on 31st May, 2007 at 3:40 pm  

    And how sure are you of that 5m rise?

    By mathematical projections.

    And even if sure, those 30m are but a fraction of the world’s poor.

    I don’t think you’re understanding the enormity of the situation. That’s 30 million of a population of 140 million pushing nortwards into a peice of land less than the size England and Wales.

  58. ChrisC — on 31st May, 2007 at 3:47 pm  

    Do you mean the same “mathematical projections” which 25 years ago no doubt the National Geographic told us were forecasting the new ice age?

    No room for error there, then!

    “That’s 30 million of a population of 140 million pushing nortwards into a peice of land less than the size England and Wales.”

    How much sacrifice by the rest of the world does that warrant?
    Serious question – how do you start to make that calculation?
    The answer isn’t obvious, is it?

  59. sid — on 31st May, 2007 at 3:50 pm  

    Well, certainly for you. Fortunately, the government of Bangladesh, for all it’s ineptitudes, is waking up to the crisis that is at hand. And measures are being taken in spite of the flat-earthers like you who insist on doing nothing except sticking their heads up their arses.

  60. ChrisC — on 31st May, 2007 at 4:13 pm  

    I’m not insisting on doing nothing.

    It is you insisting on a very specific cause of action.

    I am glad that the Bangladesh govt is taking action.
    They seem to be the right people to be doing so.
    Insisting that the rest of the world scarifices economic growth on their behalf may be right, may be wrong.
    Even with my head up my arse it does not seem *obvious*
    what is right.
    I envy you your certainty – fanatical though it appears.

  61. ChrisC — on 31st May, 2007 at 4:14 pm  

    Sorry – I meant “course” of action.

  62. sid — on 31st May, 2007 at 4:24 pm  

    I envy you your certainty – fanatical though it appears.

    Not sure how I am being “fanatical” when you already accept something has to be done. Are you then partly-”fanatical”? There is a growing body of evidence that underlines the patterns. Your insistence on disregarding this data on the single economic argument of “economic growth” is irrational, not to mention bogus, and therefore tantamount to faith-based belief that it will all blow over. It won’t.

  63. ChrisC — on 31st May, 2007 at 4:36 pm  

    Irrational and bogus?

    Maybe.

    But you seem determined to misunderstand me.

    (1) 25 years ago the data pointed the opposite way: it might change again, but my main point is:

    (2) even accepting that “something has to be done” requires a more detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of *particular* courses of action.
    It might be that preventing the displacement of x number of people here is too costly in terms of y number of people somewhere else having to forego the economic growth they would otherwise have enjoyed.

    I have no idea or faith that it will all blow over.
    But the analysis of the costs and benefits of “doing something” has hardly begun.

    And the fanatical tone in which the debate – such as it is – is being conducted is hardly helpful, which goes back to the specific topic of this thread!

  64. soru — on 31st May, 2007 at 4:37 pm  

    Do you mean the same “mathematical projections” which 25 years ago no doubt the National Geographic told us were forecasting the new ice age?

    This stuff is like arguing with an Islamist or Scientologist – they have their religious beliefs, which are sufficiently important to their self-image that they flat out say they are going to carry on holding them, no matter what.

    As ChrisC says above, to them, evidence is bunk mathematics is something to be placed in air quotes, only True Faith holds the answer.

    I guess they even take the fact that people react to them as if they were scary religious nutters as further self-validation.

    Has anyone ever had any sucesss in deprogramming a cultist of that type (preferably without kidnapping them and playing them Bon Jovi songs 24/7)?

  65. sid — on 31st May, 2007 at 4:47 pm  

    Bon Jovi songs 24/7? Oh come Armagedeon, come.

  66. Chairwoman — on 31st May, 2007 at 4:47 pm  

    Completely off topic – Where is El Cid?

  67. ChrisC — on 31st May, 2007 at 4:49 pm  

    We can swap internet links all day.

    Point (2) of post #63 is my main point.

    What *scale* of sacrifice should we be making.
    (NB “we” generally meaning people much poorer than us!)

  68. Rumbold — on 31st May, 2007 at 4:49 pm  

    Sid:

    “Increased welfare mechanisms which will protect their incomes from the inevitable loss of homes, property and income that will become increasingly apparent in the coming 20-30 years”

    How will governments in poor countries afford such welfare programs without economic growth?

  69. ChrisC — on 31st May, 2007 at 4:50 pm  

    Off to WALK home now.

  70. sid — on 31st May, 2007 at 4:55 pm  

    How will governments in poor countries afford such welfare programs without economic growth?

    Western-patronage. Donor countries already fund much of the economic development via grassroots NGOs in many LDCs. Divert the economic growth initiatives to environmental ones.

  71. Rumbold — on 31st May, 2007 at 5:02 pm  

    “Western-patronage. Donor countries already fund much of the economic development via grassroots NGOs in many LDCs.”

    Maybe in some countries, but in countries like China and India economic growth is fuelled by trade. The West could not afford to subsidise billions of people in these two countries. Much better to concentrate Western money on developing alternative energy sources, such as nuclear power.

  72. sid — on 31st May, 2007 at 5:11 pm  

    Yeah, it would have to be a massive diversion of policy of some form or another.

  73. Rumbold — on 31st May, 2007 at 5:15 pm  

    Alternative energy sources would also reduce our need to deal with countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia, hoepfully producing a more just foreign policy.

  74. sid — on 31st May, 2007 at 5:43 pm  

    Yeah I miss El Cid. One of the few PP regulars more chippy than me.

  75. soru — on 31st May, 2007 at 8:03 pm  

    ‘Point (2) of post #63 is my main point.’

    As I said way back in post 14, you can certainly have a debate about policy in response to facts.

    You just don’t get to pick the facts based on how much support they would lend a preferred policy.

  76. Pacian — on 1st June, 2007 at 1:54 am  

    One important thing to note, in my view, is what we understand by ideas like: “With so much at stake, it is right that climate science is subjected to the most intense scrutiny.” The scrutiny in this case must refer to ensuring that the scientists involved are doing sufficient work scrutinising their boring old data and mathematics. ‘Debates’ between slick politicans and ardent defenders are, as Soru has repeatedly stated, irrevelevant and deceptive.

    If Greenpeace are doing anything here, it is not ‘shutting down debate’, but defining it. If you believe that global warming is not happening or is not caused by humans, then by all means submit your scientific paper for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

    That may seem elitist. To an extent it is, but not wholly. Anyone can become a scientist, barring significant barriers. And sadly, gaining years of relevant knowledge of the field is the only way to be able to ‘debate’ the matter properly. If it’s any consolation, history shows that a lone scientist swimming against the tide can still alter a consensus – if they are backed by enough evidence.

    (The new understanding must still account for the evidence that supported the old one, though. When Einstein ‘over-turned’ Newton’s idea of gravity, it didn’t mean that planetariums had to alter the way they showed the Solar System – the planets still moved in a way consistent with Newton’s theory – but it did mean that we then could understand certain peculiarities in the orbit of Mercury.)

  77. douglas clark — on 1st June, 2007 at 4:39 am  

    Pacian,

    Excellent post.

    Or not the orbit of Mercury, which is still defined by Newtonian Laws. What was bent was light by the Suns gravitational field, which made the old Newtonian physics look a bit suspect. Proved gravity bends light, didn’t effect Merurys orbit one whit.

    Still, you are right.

    When ex editors, their brothers in law and sundry other snake oil salesmen suggest that there is still a debate to be had, we should be aware that these are laymen, much as ourselves, well, myself, anyway.

    As you say, if you don’t trust the science, which is peer reviewed and open to scientific criticism, you have completely lost the plot. Do we die for the sake of a democratic consensus?

    I know I keep harping on about smog, but we dealt with it, didn’t we? And dirty rivers. And polluted beaches, etc, etc. The point is if you know, or even suspect that you are doing harm to the environment you live in you should stop it at once! It’s the only environment you’ve got. And it is that environment that keeps us alive.

  78. Mr Golly — on 1st June, 2007 at 11:44 am  

    ZinZin:

    “There is no debate to be had. Human activity through the the burning of fossil fuels for energy has an effect
    be it Global cooling or global warming.”

    Duh? and???

    So human activity may be making the planet earth warmer (or perhaps cooler?).

    Obviously then no human activity would mean the planet would stay at the same temperature forever…

    …oh dear what were these, then? (take particular note of this diagram)

    So next time someone tells you you’ll need to pay more taxes to help stop CO2 emissions to stop global warming (or is it global cooling?) to save the planet!!! ask them at exactly what temperature Green Peace (et al.) plan to hold the Earth at and for exactly how many years in the future.

    Oh and how exactly they plan to achieve this…

  79. Katy — on 1st June, 2007 at 1:28 pm  

    Everyone agrees that the planet is getting warmer. The debate centres upon the cause. If it is the case that 90% of climatologists agree that the causes are man made and not natural, and I am not sure that it is, then that is not the same as 90% of the evidence pointing in that direction. If 90% of people are all looking at the wrong thing and drawing the wrong conclusion, then all it means is that 90% of people are wrong.

    I don’t understand the scientific issues well enough to have an informed opinion on the cause of global warming, and I suspect that most political bloggers don’t either. What I do know is that (a) it shouldn’t be a political issue and (b) science is not about quantity of consensus, but about quality of data. Let’s not forget that at one point 90% of scientists believed that the sun revolved around the earth.

  80. Kismet Hardy — on 2nd June, 2007 at 12:19 pm  

    “What I do know is that (a) it shouldn’t be a political issue and (b) science is not about quantity of consensus, but about quality of data.”

    I love you Katy

  81. Clairwil — on 3rd June, 2007 at 12:04 am  

    I too love Katy but not only that, I think she’s spot on.

  82. Katy — on 3rd June, 2007 at 3:21 am  

    I love you too, my babies, and I am sorry that I was too busy shouting at Kulvinder to say so earlier.

  83. Juggy — on 3rd June, 2007 at 7:26 am  

    I think the main problem everyone has with this Enviromental debate is just how annoyed, cynical people have become that this is going to be used and exploited as a means to raises taxes, and thus make our living already harder.

    We’ve already seen it, goverment minsters fly around in private jets, yet the public have found raised aviation tickets, because the goverment has increased taxes on the sector.

    It’s the whole issue of taxes = saving enviroment, that irkles the non believers, and for that i think the politicians should take the blame.

  84. Leon — on 3rd June, 2007 at 6:51 pm  

    As you say, if you don’t trust the science, which is peer reviewed and open to scientific criticism, you have completely lost the plot.

    Heh well said.

  85. Leon — on 3rd June, 2007 at 6:53 pm  

    Let’s not forget that at one point 90% of scientists believed that the sun revolved around the earth.

    I think you’ll find scientific inquiry and techniques are a little bit more advanced than those times…

  86. Don — on 3rd June, 2007 at 7:14 pm  

    Let’s not forget that at one point 90% of scientists believed that the sun revolved around the earth.

    That’s what scientists were told to believe, by non-scientific vested interests. On pain of, well, pain and stuff.

    That human activity is accelerating climate change to the point where we are going to be leaving our comfort zone seems to be the concensus among almost all non-mercenary scientists is, of course, not proof that it is true, but it does make it a very reasonable working hypothesis.

    The idea that we are on the verge of a catastrophic change that could kill billions but that it is outrageous that we should modify our behaviour or pay a few pence more in tax strikes me as head-in-the-sand insanity.

    Anyway, Attenborough says it’s right, that’s good enough for me. ;)

  87. Katy — on 3rd June, 2007 at 8:06 pm  

    I think you’ll find scientific inquiry and techniques are a little bit more advanced than those times…

    Yes, thanks for that. I had noticed. That’s actually sort of my point. Scientific inquiry and techniques are also likely to be more advanced in 2107 than they are now, aren’t they?

    That’s what scientists were told to believe, by non-scientific vested interests. On pain of, well, pain and stuff.

    Yes. Again, that is sort of my point. You know how I said that global warming shouldn’t be a politically driven issue?

    Does ANYONE actually read what I say before they comment on it? Just wondering.

  88. Sunny — on 3rd June, 2007 at 8:13 pm  

    Dizzy: My concern is not about balancing things, my concern is the overt politicisation of science particularly around the subject of climate change, although largely it also envelopes environmentalism in general.

    Hi Dizzy, this is rather naive since science has been politicised from the day someone invented gunpowder to the Manhattan Project and now Stem-cell research. So let’s assume that any science which has a huge impact on humankind in general will be politicised.

    Now, science, is not about picking the one with the most evidence and saying “it is right, the debate is over”. That would be bad science.

    But I’m not talking about ‘bad science’ here…. because I fully expect and hope scientists will continue to disagree amongst each other.

    My worry here is about ‘bad journalists’ using science, which is now overwhelmingly rejected, to push their agenda just because they don’t like the left. I mean most of the discourse on the side of the ‘deniers’ seems to be around trumpeting that because this is a big issue for the left, then it must be rejected. That is rather more worrying than the ‘politicisation of science’. After all, you have Melanie Phillips in your camp, a woman who still hasn’t apologised for the MRSA debacle.

    However trying to frame this all as “typical tory” reactions actually exemplifies the point about the intellectual insanity around the debate on this subject.

    Right… and what do you think about using the words ‘environfascists’ and ‘environazis’? My language was a lot more relaxed, you’ll notice.

    ChrisC: But if it is wrong, and we act to restrain global growth, it is the poorest who again will suffer most.

    This is rather lame economics. Environmentalists and NGOs don’t argue for the restriction of growth, nor for denying the poor jobs. That may be the communists but the two are not the same. Environmentalists, including myself, argue for sustainable growth, which is based on promoting and investing in renewable sources of energy, to preserve natural landscape and not destroy natural resources by exploiting them.

    Short-term growth plans, such as cutting down the Amazon rainforest may provide the poor Brazillian some extra money for a little while, while American multinationals make most of the cash, but it won’t last forever. And when the problems of global warming hit, it will be the poorest. So please don’t make fatuous economic arguments. I’m all for economic growth, but the kind that helps the poor and the environment.

  89. Leon — on 3rd June, 2007 at 8:16 pm  

    Does ANYONE actually read what I say before they comment on it? Just wondering.

    Nope, we just read what we want, then post up the most useless piece of information we can think of in the hope that it might get a reaction. :P

  90. sid — on 3rd June, 2007 at 8:31 pm  

    you do that too?

  91. ZinZin — on 3rd June, 2007 at 8:34 pm  

    We all love our men of straw Sid.

  92. sid — on 3rd June, 2007 at 8:51 pm  

    some straw men are bigger than others
    some straw men’s mothers are bigger than other straw men’s mothers

  93. Rumbold — on 3rd June, 2007 at 8:51 pm  

    Sunny:

    “After all, you have Melanie Phillips in your camp, a woman who still hasn’t apologised for the MRSA debacle.”

    I did not realise it was her fault. She seems to get everywhere.

    “Environmentalists, including myself, argue for sustainable growth, which is based on promoting and investing in renewable sources of energy, to preserve natural landscape and not destroy natural resources by exploiting them.”

    This will deny the poor jobs though. India and China are industrializing, which basically means jobs in factories. If your plans are implemented, what jobs exactly will the poor be doing? Do not say farming, because that can also hurt the environment, with land cleared for planting/grazing.

    Leon, Sid:

    Brilliant. Beat me to it.

  94. sid — on 3rd June, 2007 at 9:27 pm  

    completely off topic and in the absence of a weekend open thread (whatever happened to those) here is the Onion News Network on the Human Cost of US Immigration.

  95. William — on 3rd June, 2007 at 9:58 pm  

    In the UK in April it was unusually warm and I heard a couple of people say “oh this is to do with global warming”. May comes along and we get drenched all month but no one said “oh this is to do with global drenching”.

    Seriously though I did see the Al Gore film An Inconvenient truth and was convinced. Have not looked at the counter arguments yet but maybe should be open minded. If does seem however that all kinds of bending can be done with scientific theory and data but lets also remember that after a while the only people to deny that tobacco caused cancer seemed to the the British American tobacco company. They also claimed a kind of scientific skepticism that there was not yet enough scientific evidence for the case that tobacco caused cancer.

  96. Sunny — on 4th June, 2007 at 2:53 am  

    I did not realise it was her fault. She seems to get everywhere.

    Whoops, I meant MMR of course:
    http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DCD6.htm
    http://www.badscience.net/?p=249

    This will deny the poor jobs though. India and China are industrializing, which basically means jobs in factories. If your plans are implemented, what jobs exactly will the poor be doing?

    You get me wrong. I don’t believe any NGO with half a brain will argue for the elimination of factory jobs. In those cases what is being referred to is proper working conditions and time off for breaks and over-time etc. Why should workers in China/India be denied that? Why shouldn’t there be pressure on western and Indian companies to provide better facilities for their workers?

    The ethos of sustainable growth is not only caring for the environment but the workers employed. That in itself is not at odds with capitalism.

    and we get drenched all month but no one said “oh this is to do with global drenching”.

    The exact consequence of global warming does not necessarily mean hot weather all the time. After all, hot weather does lead to a lot of water being evaporated, which subsequently has to rain down.

  97. ChrisC — on 4th June, 2007 at 8:31 am  

    “The exact consequence of global warming does not necessarily mean hot weather all the time. After all, hot weather does lead to a lot of water being evaporated, which subsequently has to rain down.”

    I wish I’d done ‘O’-level Geography!
    :-)

  98. Katy — on 4th June, 2007 at 8:56 am  

    Damn you. Damn you all. Damn you.

  99. Kulvinder — on 4th June, 2007 at 9:14 am  

    In the UK in April it was unusually warm and I heard a couple of people say “oh this is to do with global warming”. May comes along and we get drenched all month but no one said “oh this is to do with global drenching”.

    Weather isn’t the same as Climate.

  100. Kulvinder — on 4th June, 2007 at 9:25 am  

    nb i believe climate change is ‘real’ and linked to human activity (to whatever level) but i still haven’t been convinced why i should care. Aside from hollywood noone is advocating cities freezing within a matter of minutes; the earth isn’t going to tilt out of its orbit. I’m in favour of more recycling and emissions standards for purely practical reasons (noone likes smog). If they want to cut carbon output and reduce pollution im all for it. But worrying like some about your ‘impact’ on the earth in some kind of universal ‘we’re harming Gaea’ sense is absurd. I’m not a jain monk and im not overly bothered about by earth karma.

  101. Kulvinder — on 4th June, 2007 at 9:26 am  

    i’m waiting for an earthquake now…

  102. Kulvinder — on 4th June, 2007 at 9:46 am  

    My concern is not about balancing things, my concern is the overt politicisation of science particularly around the subject of climate change, although largely it also envelopes environmentalism in general.

    Theres never been a time – in the 20th century at least – when science and politics haven’t been intertwined though. The pressure for conformity doesn’t always come from outside a herd mentality can be developed from within thats simply reflected in the ‘outside’ media. Probably my favourite example of that are the debates happening literally right now about string ‘theory’ which despite pretty wide recognition (in the sense of people having heard about) in the ‘outside’ world, isn’t actually a proper theory. You’re never going to avoid a politicisation of science when policy decisions of different interests are based on that science favouring/disfavouring them.

    All you can really ask for is for all scientists to declare their funders and for all information to be shared.

  103. Devil's Kitchen — on 4th June, 2007 at 10:06 am  

    Seriously though I did see the Al Gore film An Inconvenient truth and was convinced.

    Then you are a fuckwit. Remind me what Al Gore’s scientific qualifications are?

    Oh, yes, he doesn’t have any.

    DK

  104. Leon — on 4th June, 2007 at 10:09 am  

    Damn you. Damn you all. Damn you.

    Hehe you don’t have to Katy, I’m already damned apparently for being a godless infidel!:D

  105. Leon — on 4th June, 2007 at 10:12 am  

    Then you are a fuckwit. Remind me what Al Gore’s scientific qualifications are?

    ROFL! I love comments like this!

  106. Kulvinder — on 4th June, 2007 at 10:22 am  

    You’re a big daft cock would have been more in keeping with the theme.

  107. Devil's Kitchen — on 4th June, 2007 at 10:25 am  

    When 90% of the evidence supports one position then such a ‘balanced debate’ only creates a false impression.

    On a serious note, no it does not. Because the IPCC has not actually published the evidence yet. It is getting feedback from the four – count them: FOUR – “summaries for policy-makers” before it publishes the data.

    This is not really usual scientific publishing procedure, believe it or not.

    DK

  108. douglas clark — on 4th June, 2007 at 10:45 am  

    DK,

    So, the problem with the IPCC is that it has been overly politicised? That debate will be stifled much as it was in the US by careful editing of conclusions by politicians or their spin meisters? Is that what you are saying?

    Incidentally, the WG1 and WG2 papers are a matter of public record. What you are talking about is the WG3 paper. You can however download a copy here, although we mustn’t cite or quote it, whatever that means:

    http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/pages_media/AR4-chapters.html

    I found Chapter 12, which obviously I am not citing or quoting, quite interesting.

  109. Devil's Kitchen — on 4th June, 2007 at 11:03 am  

    No, Douglas, the problem with the IPCC is that they haven’t published the raw data.

    DK

    P.S. Yes, they are overly-politicised as well, but it will be so much easier to tell when they release the lastest data.

  110. Rumbold — on 4th June, 2007 at 11:27 am  

    “I don’t believe any NGO with half a brain will argue for the elimination of factory jobs. In those cases what is being referred to is proper working conditions and time off for breaks and over-time etc.”

    An admirable cause, but I am not sure how that helps the environment. Factories use raw materials and power, thus adding to the environmental problem. If you want to negate this then you have to shut factories down, which causes the poor to lose their jobs. Some measures can be brought in to help the environment without compromising economic growth (such as energy-saving light bulbs), but most environmental measures restrict economic development. If you want to argue for that, fine, but do not pretend that the poor will have the same opportunities.

  111. Devil's Kitchen — on 4th June, 2007 at 11:40 am  

    “I don’t believe any NGO with half a brain will argue for the elimination of factory jobs. In those cases what is being referred to is proper working conditions and time off for breaks and over-time etc.”

    Um, which will reduce competitiveness and put many out of work. Remember the textile laws in India during the British Empire?

    DK

  112. douglas clark — on 4th June, 2007 at 12:29 pm  

    DK, Rumbold,

    Interesting headline in Yahoo:

    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070604/tts-uk-china-climate-13002c7.html

    Does anyone actually understand what the Chinese mean when they say things like this? They seem to be pointing in two directions at one time.

    I do agree though with the idea that exporting manufacturing industry just shifts the issue around the globe.

  113. William — on 4th June, 2007 at 12:31 pm  

    of course I was just kidding when talking about global drenching in 95#

  114. douglas clark — on 4th June, 2007 at 2:07 pm  

    William,

    I think you’ve been mugged by a climate change denialist who swears a lot:

    “”Tim Worstall highlights rather a severe problem with the whole CO2 emissions crap, in relation to a Telegraph article.

    Antonio Hill, of Oxfam, said: “G8 counties face two obligations in this year’s summit – to keep global warming below two degrees and to start helping poor countries to cope with harm already caused.”

    Well, yes Antonio, but when it’s no longer the G8 countries powering the growth in CO2, what then? How can they face an obligation for something they have no control over?

    Why has no one suggested the obvious solution?

    All we need to do is to invade these countries and, in the process, bomb them back into the Stone Age, fuck their economy and murder the fucking lot of them.

    Come on, guys, it’s our planet that’s at stake here: who’s with me?”"

    This is the joyous outrage of a polemecist in full swing. It adds nothing to the gaiety of nations. It is pish.

    And the wee laddie also has this up on his web site:

    “Is it too Sunny for you?
    Ah, your humble Devil has found fame at last as Sunny Hundal takes a swipe at me over my denunciation of Greenpeace idiot, Ben Stewart.

    Whilst one wouldn’t like to sink to the level of the naughty person who has vandalised Sunny’s Wikipedia entry the other day… [Emphasis, but not entry, mine.]

    He is one of the founding members of the New Generation Network. A group and manifesto set up to challenge the current discourse of race relations in the UK.He also smells like cat pee.

    … one really cannot let some of his assertions go. The thing is that Sunny not only knows absolutely toss all about climate change, he also, quite obviously, knows bugger all about the IPCC or, indeed, the state of scientific publishing at the moment.

    I suspect Iain Dale and others on the typical Tory right have missed the point entirely.

    First, I am not a Tory. Second, your links to Dizzy and myself miss a crucial point: we know a fuck sight more about science than you do, sunshine.

    I alluded to this point last year in the death of debate on CIF: the view taken by some producers that they can have a ‘balanced’ discussion by inviting two completely opposing viewpoints and watching the sparks fly. Looks like Doughty Street might be going down the same route.

    And what else would you suggest, Sunny? Get two people on who agree with each other? That makes for tedious television. Oh, is it because you share Dave “ignorant fuckwit” Miliband’s assertion that the results are “unambiguous”? In which case, you are a fuckwit.

    The reason why Greenpeace is right in avoiding such programmes with such participants is because it gives the false impression that there is still a debate to be had and that it could go either way.

    Sunny, you lack-wit buffoon, in science there is always a debate to had; that is how science progresses. Go and look up falsifiability, you fucking numbskull.

    No. When 90% of the evidence supports one position then such a ‘balanced debate’ only creates a false impression.

    As does your fucking ignorant post, you stupid fuck. What you ignorant cretins don’t seem to understand is that the IPCC has not yet actually published the “evidence”. To describe you as a stupid, fuckwitted bigot seems almost charitable at this point, frankly. No, very charitable, actually. Fuck off.

    What ignorant arseholes like Sunny don’t understand—because the politicians don’t want you to know and because journos are too lazy and ill-informed to do any decent research these days—is that the debate is far from over. The excellent Bishop Hill has been cataloguing some of the extremely dodgy practises of climate scientists; the main contentions are their cherry-picking of data, their unwillingness to publish their data and the fact that the supposed concensus doesn’t fucking exist.

    And the IPCC is far from being any better. Here’s a comment that I left on Pickled Politics.

    On a serious note, no it does not. Because the IPCC has not actually published the evidence yet. It is getting feedback from the four – count them: FOUR – “summaries for policy-makers” before it publishes the data.

    This is not really usual scientific publishing procedure, believe it or not.

    I get sick of repeating myself, really, hence the lazy cut and paste job.

    Other than in the world of loons such as Melanie Phillips, another eminent scientist, most people have slowly woken up to the fact that we have gone past climate change to global warming and that it is mostly a man-made phenomena.

    Fucking hell, you really are a sententious twat, aren’t you? No, Sunny, we haven’t, much as the politicians and media would like you to think that.

    Just as a matter of common sense, how much of the atmosphere is made up of CO2? It’s just below 0.04%. Oh, and…

    Global warming on Neptune’s moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets.

    I simply cannot be arsed to go over this shit again: just search The Kitchen for “climate change” and you will find all the links you need. These should, at the very least, make you think properly about the whole issue rather than joining in with the kind of knee-jerk, ill-informed crap that Sunny Hundal comes out with.

    That Channel 4 airs unadulterated rubbish such as The Great Climate Change Swindle doesn’t change anything.

    It always amuses me that those who have a problem with that programme, which featured a large number of scientists giving their scientific opinion, seem happy to accept Al Gore’s piece of shit film without question. Let me fucking remind you: Al Gore has no scientific qualifications whatso-fucking-ever. OK? ‘Kay.

    In fact there is so much disinformation out there that New Scientist has an extensive section dedicated just to rebutting those idiotic conspiracy theories.

    Unfortunately, the New Scientist lost any credibility when it embraced, uncritically, the Stern Review which, as most of us know by now, was so fucking flawed—or, rather, deliberately deceitful—that it really is of no use at all. If they couldn’t be fucking arsed to look at the report (which they very obviously didn’t) then they do not deserve any kind of respect. Or credibility.

    Of course, wankers like Hundal will happily accept anything that the New Scientist says because it has the word “scientist” in the title.

    Anyone still willing to believe this is all a myth quite rightly deserves to be ignored by charity workers who have better things to do with their time.

    Anyone who believes that scientific theories should not be questioned at every opportunity is a lack-wit arsebiscuit of the very first water and should probably stick to writing about what they know.

    So, in Sunny’s case, he should just shut the fuck up because a careful reading of his articles reveals that he knows fuck all about anything, especially about science.”

    Can I suggest that my Aunt’s geriatric cat knows more about climate change than DK does? Would that be unfair?

    No, it wouldn’t. He is a fucking moron.

    And that a careful reading of DK’s rants would lead one to believe that it is he that knows fuck all about anything. He is that worst of all creatures on t’internet, a moron with a keyboard.

    C’mon DK. Out of your wee friendly zone, try me.

  115. sid — on 4th June, 2007 at 2:14 pm  

    douglas, learn a few html tags will ya. would do wonders for your formatting.

    I had to go back and re-read the Devil Kitchen site to separate which bits were from you and which bits were copied off that flatearthist’s wank.

  116. douglas clark — on 4th June, 2007 at 2:20 pm  

    sid,

    html has always been a mystery to me. Is there some place you can point me? I agree, I wanted to put all of DK’s stuff in red, appropriate, huh, but I don’t know how. Though I can put latté over coffee, wrong as it may be.

    Sorry if it came across poorly, but the bastard can’t be let away with this shit.

  117. Rumbold — on 4th June, 2007 at 2:39 pm  

    You do swear rather a lot on your website, Devil’s Kitchen; but then it is your website. You have been relatively restrained on ‘Pickled Politics’ in terms of foul language.

    What is html? I would like to italicise quotations, but when I cut and paste from Word they return to the upright position.

  118. Duc De Nemours — on 4th June, 2007 at 2:41 pm  

    For a moment there Douglas I thought your personality had split in two totally and we had lost you to the CIF threads for all eternity.

    There went the best dam poster I’ve ever seen….

    Tell us it’s not true with perhaps some idea of which bits are which.

  119. Duc De Nemours — on 4th June, 2007 at 2:45 pm  

    There’s a good piece on DK’s muppetry on fisking central http://fiskingcentral.typepad.com/fisking_central/2007/04/worst_fisk_ever.html

    People who refer to themselves in the third person should really have their computers taken away from them.

  120. douglas clark — on 4th June, 2007 at 2:57 pm  

    Rumbold,

    See at the top, see your name? If you’ve got a web site, your name is highlighted. So people like me can go and read what people like DK has to say. You and I don’t have that link. DK does. So he links from here to what he says about Sunny, there. All I did was bring his comments about Sunny from there to here. Lets see if he wants to try to defend himself here, ’cause, frankly I don’t think he can. Even if he has the advantage of knowing what html is!

    I think he is a plonker with a bee in his bonnet. Still, better we discuss it, and tease out the issues, don’t you think? Here, not there.

    Interesting to see if the ‘sweary one’ can take it as much as dish it. Though I doubt it. I suspect a ‘hit and run’.

    I am still looking for advice on html, as I think I could be much more incisive if I knew how to do it.

  121. douglas clark — on 4th June, 2007 at 3:03 pm  

    Duc de Nemours,

    OK, I really, really don’t understand html! I am not usually a spilt personality! Well, only sometimes. OK, you point me to an idiots, me, site to html, and I’ll repeat the comment with decent paragraphing, or whatever.

    Please!

    Help me, I am dying here.

  122. Rumbold — on 4th June, 2007 at 3:04 pm  

    Douglas Clark:

    I was not criticizing you, just pointing out that Devil’s Kitchen has not really brought his bad language over here to any great extent. By all means, quote from his website. I am sure that he will be willing to stick up for his somewhat coarsely expressed views.

    Duc De Nemours:

    “People who refer to themselves in the third person should really have their computers taken away from them.”

    And those who name themselves after ultramontane papists as well (just joking).

  123. Duc De Nemours — on 4th June, 2007 at 3:07 pm  

    To be honest neither do I!!

    Anyway if you read your post a few times it is clear enough what you’re saying.

    Glad to see your sanity is holding up.

  124. Leon — on 4th June, 2007 at 3:15 pm  

    html has always been a mystery to me. Is there some place you can point me? I agree, I wanted to put all of DK’s stuff in red, appropriate, huh, but I don’t know how. Though I can put latté over coffee, wrong as it may be.

    It’s fairly easy, assume that ( ) are actually angle brackets and ‘wrap’ the text as follows:

    (blockquote)the quoted text here(/blockquote)

  125. Duc De Nemours — on 4th June, 2007 at 3:17 pm  

    Rumbold you have indeed rumbled me.

    When I was at Uni I read Princesse de Cleves and I thought he was the best character in it. Hence I still use the name.

    Sorry

  126. Duc De Nemours — on 4th June, 2007 at 3:18 pm  

    [blockquote]What like this?[blockquote]

  127. Duc De Nemours — on 4th June, 2007 at 3:19 pm  

    SORRY!

  128. Leon — on 4th June, 2007 at 3:20 pm  

    Nearly there, just add a / before the second angle bracketed blockquote. Also these <> are angle brackets.;)

  129. douglas clark — on 4th June, 2007 at 3:22 pm  

    Duc De Lemours,

    It would have been all a lot clearer if I understood html. Thanks for that.

  130. Duc De Nemours — on 4th June, 2007 at 3:24 pm  

    I see

  131. Duc De Nemours — on 4th June, 2007 at 3:25 pm  

    Fuck me I did it!

  132. Rumbold — on 4th June, 2007 at 3:26 pm  

    “When I was at Uni I read Princesse de Cleves and I thought he was the best character in it. Hence I still use the name.

    Sorry.”

    No need to apologize your grace. I was thinking of the actual Nemours, rather than his novel counterpart. We need a few more sixteenth century noble French names on this site. A Montmorency, Coligny or a Navarre would do nicely. Or even a Guise, if somebody would stoop that low. Is ‘Princess de Cleves’ any good? It sounds interesting.

  133. douglas clark — on 4th June, 2007 at 3:27 pm  

    OK, you intellectual folk, where is the source of all this html stuff? Kulvinder indents comments/quotes and shows them in red, which is really cool. How the hell does he do it?

  134. Rumbold — on 4th June, 2007 at 3:29 pm  

    (blockquote)Is this right?(/blockquote)

  135. douglas clark — on 4th June, 2007 at 3:29 pm  

    Oh, you are all show offs, I hate you :-)

  136. Duc De Nemours — on 4th June, 2007 at 3:33 pm  

    I tried to persuade my lecturer that all pre-revolutionary french literature – especially Marivaux and the salon stuff – was written by a bunch of people who were subconciously just begging the proletariat to cut their heads off. I went on a rant that included star trek for some reason.

    Needless to say, after picking up on the more obvious holes in this argument, my lecturer told me to get lost.

    I expect though that I would enjoy the book more now in much the same way that one does with books one ‘had’ to study.

  137. Rumbold — on 4th June, 2007 at 3:36 pm  

    “I went on a rant that included star trek for some reason.”

    Did you start to yell KHAANN! KHAANN!

  138. douglas clark — on 4th June, 2007 at 3:39 pm  

    Look,

    I am about to (well he’s run away maybe) have a fight to the death with DK. Where are those meaningful html links. I need them.

    Addmitedly, he has no abilitly.

    Or brains,

    or intellect,

    or brawn,

    or stuff.

    Where is the nasty little polemecist? Where is he now?

  139. Leon — on 4th June, 2007 at 3:40 pm  

    Doug Clarke, listen up dude!

    (blockquote)Is this right?(/blockquote)

    Excellent, now replace the ( ) with <> and you’re set. :)

  140. douglas clark — on 4th June, 2007 at 3:45 pm  

    Testing:

    (blockquote) or intellect,(/blockquote)

  141. sonia — on 4th June, 2007 at 3:46 pm  

    :-)

    douglas you are sweet

  142. douglas clark — on 4th June, 2007 at 3:48 pm  

    Err,

    No.

    Be gentle with me Leon, Just point me to an html site that makes sense. I have a very simple mind. Though not as simple as DK.

  143. Duc De Nemours — on 4th June, 2007 at 3:48 pm  

    Rumbold:

    LOL

  144. Rumbold — on 4th June, 2007 at 3:53 pm  

    Thank you very much Leon

  145. sonia — on 4th June, 2007 at 3:54 pm  

    http://www.w3schools.com/

    here you go douglas

  146. Duc De Nemours — on 4th June, 2007 at 3:55 pm  

    I wonder if this works

  147. Duc De Nemours — on 4th June, 2007 at 3:56 pm  

    Awesome!

  148. douglas clark — on 4th June, 2007 at 4:02 pm  

    Sonia,

    Love you too. Do you know anything about HTML? If you do, tell me. Please.

    This is getting ridiculous. DK is escaping down the loo. Which is where this stupid little person should reside. In a whirpool of his own damnation. He has the intellectual capacity of a moron, nuff said.

  149. Rumbold — on 4th June, 2007 at 4:07 pm  

    “Do you know anything about HTML?”

    You have to use rather than ( ). I think.

  150. Rumbold — on 4th June, 2007 at 4:08 pm  

    These ones:

    not

    (
    )

    (for some reason they did not appear on the previous post, sorry).

  151. Duc De Nemours — on 4th June, 2007 at 4:09 pm  

    I’ve just read DK’s site

    Douglas is right. He is a moron

  152. Rumbold — on 4th June, 2007 at 4:10 pm  

    Just see Leon’s post at #139. Sorry. The proper brackets (next to the M on the keyboard, keep vanishing).

  153. Duc De Nemours — on 4th June, 2007 at 4:12 pm  

    Have you also seen DK’s argument in the comments section of his ‘post’ on Sunny?

    Moron.

  154. douglas clark — on 4th June, 2007 at 4:12 pm  

    Anyway, to the point, DK is a complete utter idiot. Is a total little wank, I use his words, up for the challenge? No. He can’t argue a stick up his arse.

    Thought not.

    So, fuck off you fat git.

  155. Leon — on 4th June, 2007 at 4:15 pm  

    Be gentle with me Leon, Just point me to an html site that makes sense. I have a very simple mind. Though not as simple as DK.

    Whaaa?!

    bangs head against the wall in frustation

  156. douglas clark — on 4th June, 2007 at 4:17 pm  

    Duc de Nemours,

    Yes, I have. And, yes, he is a moron.

    Why do you think I am calling him out? The fucking wanker that he is? DK, respond, you tit.

  157. douglas clark — on 4th June, 2007 at 4:25 pm  

    Leon,

    You have not, repeat not, given me an HTML site that I could understand. I tried, see post, oh I bloody don’t remember. You know I need help here. You are a big beary sort of chap, going to give me an HTML site that makes sense?

  158. Leon — on 4th June, 2007 at 4:30 pm  
  159. douglas clark — on 4th June, 2007 at 5:12 pm  

    Leon,

    Thanks. Now to the point. Where is DK? The ignorant little arsehole?

  160. douglas clark — on 4th June, 2007 at 5:56 pm  

    DK

    Well where are you sweary wee cunt? Fucked off when challenged, you wee aresehole? c’mon you wee idiot.

    If all you can do is swear, then firstly I can do it back, and secondly it makes you look like the arsehole everyone here thinks you are. DK you are a tit.

  161. Rumbold — on 4th June, 2007 at 8:14 pm  

    “If all you can do is swear, then firstly I can do it back, and secondly it makes you look like the arsehole everyone here thinks you are. DK you are a tit.”

    He probably has gone into hiding. Are you even pretending to swear anymore?

  162. Katy Newton — on 4th June, 2007 at 8:29 pm  

    I have met DK and can state with absolute authority that he is neither a moron nor fat.

    In fact he is both highly intelligent and very thin, the fucker.

  163. Katy Newton — on 4th June, 2007 at 8:30 pm  

    You could always argue with him in his comments box if you want to, like Sunny did.

  164. Leon — on 4th June, 2007 at 8:34 pm  

    He makes some good points but sometimes comes across like a complete wanker…I actually thought he was in his late teens until I saw him on 18DS.

  165. Bishop Hill — on 4th June, 2007 at 9:41 pm  

    Leon, Douglas Clark

    Can I please take issue with your claims that the science is open to scientific criticism. It isn’t, or at least the paleoclimate reconstructions aren’t. There are multiple instances of dendroclimatologists refusing to archive or release their data and code, or finding that they have “lost it”. This means that the science is not capable of replication. If replication is not possible then it is not science, I’m sure you will agree. That this kind of thing is happening in relation to such an important question is scandalous.

  166. douglas clark — on 4th June, 2007 at 10:26 pm  

    Leon,

    No, he doesn’t. Katy, maybe he is gods answer to women. He is also a thick denialist. He brought his beliefs here, not the other way around. I am quite happy to debate the moron, but here, not there, where his fans probably agree with him. What is the problem with that?

    Do you agree with him, deep breath html coming up, when he says:

    And the wee laddie also has this up on his web site:

    “Is it too Sunny for you?
    Ah, your humble Devil has found fame at last as Sunny Hundal takes a swipe at me over my denunciation of Greenpeace idiot, Ben Stewart.

    Whilst one wouldn’t like to sink to the level of the naughty person who has vandalised Sunny’s Wikipedia entry the other day… [Emphasis, but not entry, mine.]

    He is one of the founding members of the New Generation Network. A group and manifesto set up to challenge the current discourse of race relations in the UK.He also smells like cat pee.

    … one really cannot let some of his assertions go. The thing is that Sunny not only knows absolutely toss all about climate change, he also, quite obviously, knows bugger all about the IPCC or, indeed, the state of scientific publishing at the moment.

    I suspect Iain Dale and others on the typical Tory right have missed the point entirely.

    First, I am not a Tory. Second, your links to Dizzy and myself miss a crucial point: we know a fuck sight more about science than you do, sunshine.

    I alluded to this point last year in the death of debate on CIF: the view taken by some producers that they can have a ‘balanced’ discussion by inviting two completely opposing viewpoints and watching the sparks fly. Looks like Doughty Street might be going down the same route.

    And what else would you suggest, Sunny? Get two people on who agree with each other? That makes for tedious television. Oh, is it because you share Dave “ignorant fuckwit” Miliband’s assertion that the results are “unambiguous”? In which case, you are a fuckwit.

    The reason why Greenpeace is right in avoiding such programmes with such participants is because it gives the false impression that there is still a debate to be had and that it could go either way.

    Sunny, you lack-wit buffoon, in science there is always a debate to had; that is how science progresses. Go and look up falsifiability, you fucking numbskull.

    No. When 90% of the evidence supports one position then such a ‘balanced debate’ only creates a false impression.

    As does your fucking ignorant post, you stupid fuck. What you ignorant cretins don’t seem to understand is that the IPCC has not yet actually published the “evidence”. To describe you as a stupid, fuckwitted bigot seems almost charitable at this point, frankly. No, very charitable, actually. Fuck off.

    What ignorant arseholes like Sunny don’t understand—because the politicians don’t want you to know and because journos are too lazy and ill-informed to do any decent research these days—is that the debate is far from over. The excellent Bishop Hill has been cataloguing some of the extremely dodgy practises of climate scientists; the main contentions are their cherry-picking of data, their unwillingness to publish their data and the fact that the supposed concensus doesn’t fucking exist.

    And the IPCC is far from being any better. Here’s a comment that I left on Pickled Politics.

    On a serious note, no it does not. Because the IPCC has not actually published the evidence yet. It is getting feedback from the four – count them: FOUR – “summaries for policy-makers” before it publishes the data.

    This is not really usual scientific publishing procedure, believe it or not.

    I get sick of repeating myself, really, hence the lazy cut and paste job.

    Other than in the world of loons such as Melanie Phillips, another eminent scientist, most people have slowly woken up to the fact that we have gone past climate change to global warming and that it is mostly a man-made phenomena.

    Fucking hell, you really are a sententious twat, aren’t you? No, Sunny, we haven’t, much as the politicians and media would like you to think that.

    Just as a matter of common sense, how much of the atmosphere is made up of CO2? It’s just below 0.04%. Oh, and…

    Global warming on Neptune’s moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets.

    I simply cannot be arsed to go over this shit again: just search The Kitchen for “climate change” and you will find all the links you need. These should, at the very least, make you think properly about the whole issue rather than joining in with the kind of knee-jerk, ill-informed crap that Sunny Hundal comes out with.

    That Channel 4 airs unadulterated rubbish such as The Great Climate Change Swindle doesn’t change anything.

    It always amuses me that those who have a problem with that programme, which featured a large number of scientists giving their scientific opinion, seem happy to accept Al Gore’s piece of shit film without question. Let me fucking remind you: Al Gore has no scientific qualifications whatso-fucking-ever. OK? ‘Kay.

    In fact there is so much disinformation out there that New Scientist has an extensive section dedicated just to rebutting those idiotic conspiracy theories.

    Unfortunately, the New Scientist lost any credibility when it embraced, uncritically, the Stern Review which, as most of us know by now, was so fucking flawed—or, rather, deliberately deceitful—that it really is of no use at all. If they couldn’t be fucking arsed to look at the report (which they very obviously didn’t) then they do not deserve any kind of respect. Or credibility.

    Of course, wankers like Hundal will happily accept anything that the New Scientist says because it has the word “scientist” in the title.

    Anyone still willing to believe this is all a myth quite rightly deserves to be ignored by charity workers who have better things to do with their time.

    Anyone who believes that scientific theories should not be questioned at every opportunity is a lack-wit arsebiscuit of the very first water and should probably stick to writing about what they know.

    So, in Sunny’s case, he should just shut the fuck up because a careful reading of his articles reveals that he knows fuck all about anything, especially about science.”

    Here is a guy assuming that he knows what he’s talking about and assuming no-one else does. Not true. He needs to be outed for the stupid person he actually is. Sorry Katy, your judgement of men has always been suspect, tasers anyone, though I still think you are probably a sex bomb :-)

    And that is a hatchet job by someone who is not safe with a fucking keyboard.

  167. douglas clark — on 4th June, 2007 at 10:33 pm  

    Yay! At least one more bit of the mysteries of html cracked.

    I will, shortly repost my criticism of the brainless fuckwit that is DK. Using html, which is my new friend. Maybe. Thanks Leon.

  168. Leon — on 4th June, 2007 at 10:35 pm  

    No, he doesn’t.

    He doesn’t? But you just gave some good reasons why he does! :D

  169. douglas clark — on 4th June, 2007 at 10:42 pm  

    Well, this was it with added html:

    William,

    I think you’ve been mugged by a climate change denialist who swears a lot:

    Tim Worstall highlights rather a severe problem with the whole CO2 emissions crap, in relation to a Telegraph article.

    Antonio Hill, of Oxfam, said: “G8 counties face two obligations in this year’s summit – to keep global warming below two degrees and to start helping poor countries to cope with harm already caused.”

    Well, yes Antonio, but when it’s no longer the G8 countries powering the growth in CO2, what then? How can they face an obligation for something they have no control over?

    Why has no one suggested the obvious solution?

    All we need to do is to invade these countries and, in the process, bomb them back into the Stone Age, fuck their economy and murder the fucking lot of them.

    Come on, guys, it’s our planet that’s at stake here: who’s with me?

    This is the joyous outrage of a polemecist in full swing. It adds nothing to the gaiety of nations. It is pish.

    And the wee laddie also has this up on his web site:

    Is it too Sunny for you?
    Ah, your humble Devil has found fame at last as Sunny Hundal takes a swipe at me over my denunciation of Greenpeace idiot, Ben Stewart.

    Whilst one wouldn’t like to sink to the level of the naughty person who has vandalised Sunny’s Wikipedia entry the other day… [Emphasis, but not entry, mine.]

    He is one of the founding members of the New Generation Network. A group and manifesto set up to challenge the current discourse of race relations in the UK.He also smells like cat pee.

    … one really cannot let some of his assertions go. The thing is that Sunny not only knows absolutely toss all about climate change, he also, quite obviously, knows bugger all about the IPCC or, indeed, the state of scientific publishing at the moment.

    I suspect Iain Dale and others on the typical Tory right have missed the point entirely.

    First, I am not a Tory. Second, your links to Dizzy and myself miss a crucial point: we know a fuck sight more about science than you do, sunshine.

    I alluded to this point last year in the death of debate on CIF: the view taken by some producers that they can have a ‘balanced’ discussion by inviting two completely opposing viewpoints and watching the sparks fly. Looks like Doughty Street might be going down the same route.

    And what else would you suggest, Sunny? Get two people on who agree with each other? That makes for tedious television. Oh, is it because you share Dave “ignorant fuckwit” Miliband’s assertion that the results are “unambiguous”? In which case, you are a fuckwit.

    The reason why Greenpeace is right in avoiding such programmes with such participants is because it gives the false impression that there is still a debate to be had and that it could go either way.

    Sunny, you lack-wit buffoon, in science there is always a debate to had; that is how science progresses. Go and look up falsifiability, you fucking numbskull.

    No. When 90% of the evidence supports one position then such a ‘balanced debate’ only creates a false impression.

    As does your fucking ignorant post, you stupid fuck. What you ignorant cretins don’t seem to understand is that the IPCC has not yet actually published the “evidence”. To describe you as a stupid, fuckwitted bigot seems almost charitable at this point, frankly. No, very charitable, actually. Fuck off.

    What ignorant arseholes like Sunny don’t understand—because the politicians don’t want you to know and because journos are too lazy and ill-informed to do any decent research these days—is that the debate is far from over. The excellent Bishop Hill has been cataloguing some of the extremely dodgy practises of climate scientists; the main contentions are their cherry-picking of data, their unwillingness to publish their data and the fact that the supposed concensus doesn’t fucking exist.

    And the IPCC is far from being any better. Here’s a comment that I left on Pickled Politics.

    On a serious note, no it does not. Because the IPCC has not actually published the evidence yet. It is getting feedback from the four – count them: FOUR – “summaries for policy-makers” before it publishes the data.

    This is not really usual scientific publishing procedure, believe it or not.

    I get sick of repeating myself, really, hence the lazy cut and paste job.

    Other than in the world of loons such as Melanie Phillips, another eminent scientist, most people have slowly woken up to the fact that we have gone past climate change to global warming and that it is mostly a man-made phenomena.

    Fucking hell, you really are a sententious twat, aren’t you? No, Sunny, we haven’t, much as the politicians and media would like you to think that.

    Just as a matter of common sense, how much of the atmosphere is made up of CO2? It’s just below 0.04%. Oh, and…

    Global warming on Neptune’s moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets.

    I simply cannot be arsed to go over this shit again: just search The Kitchen for “climate change” and you will find all the links you need. These should, at the very least, make you think properly about the whole issue rather than joining in with the kind of knee-jerk, ill-informed crap that Sunny Hundal comes out with.

    That Channel 4 airs unadulterated rubbish such as The Great Climate Change Swindle doesn’t change anything.

    It always amuses me that those who have a problem with that programme, which featured a large number of scientists giving their scientific opinion, seem happy to accept Al Gore’s piece of shit film without question. Let me fucking remind you: Al Gore has no scientific qualifications whatso-fucking-ever. OK? ‘Kay.

    In fact there is so much disinformation out there that New Scientist has an extensive section dedicated just to rebutting those idiotic conspiracy theories.

    Unfortunately, the New Scientist lost any credibility when it embraced, uncritically, the Stern Review which, as most of us know by now, was so fucking flawed—or, rather, deliberately deceitful—that it really is of no use at all. If they couldn’t be fucking arsed to look at the report (which they very obviously didn’t) then they do not deserve any kind of respect. Or credibility.

    Of course, wankers like Hundal will happily accept anything that the New Scientist says because it has the word “scientist” in the title.

    Anyone still willing to believe this is all a myth quite rightly deserves to be ignored by charity workers who have better things to do with their time.

    Anyone who believes that scientific theories should not be questioned at every opportunity is a lack-wit arsebiscuit of the very first water and should probably stick to writing about what they know.

    So, in Sunny’s case, he should just shut the fuck up because a careful reading of his articles reveals that he knows fuck all about anything, especially about science.

    Can I suggest that my Aunt’s geriatric cat knows more about climate change than DK does? Would that be unfair?

    No, it wouldn’t. He is a fucking moron.

    And that a careful reading of DK’s rants would lead one to believe that it is he that knows fuck all about anything. He is that worst of all creatures on t’internet, a moron with a keyboard.

    C’mon DK. Out of your wee friendly zone, try me.

  170. Leon — on 4th June, 2007 at 10:47 pm  

    Haha lookit douglas ‘I can’t do HTML’ clark go! :D

  171. douglas clark — on 4th June, 2007 at 10:51 pm  

    Leon,

    What? That K Newton of this parish thinks he’s skinny and bright? Or that he appeared on 18DS? Give us a break mate.

    There are entirely ‘bright’ folk advocating Scientology, most of whom seem to look like Tom Cruise. It doesn’t mean that the rest of us shouldn’t tell them to go to where the sun don’t shine.

  172. douglas clark — on 4th June, 2007 at 10:54 pm  

    Leon,

    I wouldn’t be where I am today without you. And, as I hold this golden globe for web clarity in my hands, I remember the little people that got me here… :-)

    Thanks mate.

  173. Leon — on 4th June, 2007 at 11:04 pm  

    Heheh no probs. Ah right, I see what happened, I thought you meant he doesn’t come accross as a wanker sometimes, what you were saying no to was that he makes good points (at times). Damn my skim reading…

  174. Katy Newton — on 4th June, 2007 at 11:14 pm  

    Douglas, I’m a bit baffled. I met DK after I started reading his blog and also after I started writing for it. I’m sure you appreciate that I wouldn’t write for a blog that I thought was run by a moron.

    I am amused, though, by your characterisation of DK as a coward. He came over to this blog to join a public debate on a subject that he is interested in. Then he blogged about it on his own blog, which has an unmoderated comments box in which anyone can say what they please – but you’re afraid to go over and take him on there in case you get a hard time from his “fans”. I am not sure how DK emerges as the coward in that scenario.

  175. Katy Newton — on 4th June, 2007 at 11:18 pm  

    Sorry Katy, your judgement of men has always been suspect, tasers anyone, though I still think you are probably a sex bomb

    I’m sure you didn’t mean it, Douglas, but that really is the second most patronising, dismissive, insulting, sexist thing that has ever been said to me on this website.

    I don’t have an opinion on climate change because I don’t know very much about it. DK has a background in science and has done a huge amount of background reading. Insofar as I have an opinion on this topic, it is summarised in my post at 79 above.

  176. douglas clark — on 4th June, 2007 at 11:19 pm  

    Leon,

    Seriously, thanks. It is not your fault that I can’t follow instructions until they are drummed into me!

    Re DK. No. If he ever made a good point, I missed it. He just comes across as a sweary tit. Fire with fire and all that.

  177. Leon — on 4th June, 2007 at 11:26 pm  

    Seriously, thanks. It is not your fault that I can’t follow instructions until they are drummed into me!

    No probs, you’re more than welcome.

  178. douglas clark — on 4th June, 2007 at 11:31 pm  

    Katy,

    Last time I said that, you said I was the most intelligent poster on here :-) (well, the sex bomb bit anyway!)

    I was joshing with you then, when you took it in good faith, just as I am now. Please don’t take offence.

    I don’t give a monkey’s for DK background in science, he is arguing against a clearly established consensus.

    I am open to discussing it, he, apparently is not.

  179. Sunny — on 4th June, 2007 at 11:55 pm  

    Douglas – it’s not worth debating with someone who writes with tourette’s syndrome.

    Apparently it’s an intelligent argument to suggest that I’m salivating over the New Scientist link because it has the word ‘scientist’ in it…. Even leaving aside that it’s a highly reputable magazine, he says nothing of the links actually refuting the global warming deniers.

    You never know, DK may secretly be a top scientist and is fooling us all with his piss-poor attempt at fisking.

  180. douglas clark — on 5th June, 2007 at 12:04 am  

    Sunny,

    Point taken.

    Katy, humble apologies. Love you really, shouldn’t have got wound up.

  181. ChrisC — on 5th June, 2007 at 8:35 am  

    Two observations.

    (1) It probably doesn’t help to call people “denialists”.

    (2) What data has the IPCC published?

  182. fidothedog — on 5th June, 2007 at 9:01 am  

    Well lets see rising tempretures on other worlds, how is that man made? Oh and massive climate change many times in the Earths past.

    Manmade disaster, only in the money we are wasting.

  183. Leon — on 5th June, 2007 at 10:12 am  

    (1) It probably doesn’t help to call people “denialists”.

    Maybe for those who don’t really understand or haven’t read much on the issue but for those that are organised or well briefed I think its a very good word. It describes them perfectly well.

  184. Rumbold — on 5th June, 2007 at 12:27 pm  

    Grammar schools improve social mobility. Those who argue otherwise should be labelled as ‘deniers’. Or maybe not; Can’t someone hold a differing view on a contentious scientific matter without being labelled a ‘denier’?

  185. sid — on 5th June, 2007 at 12:35 pm  

    Gerard Baker is a denier, not to mention a twat.

  186. Juggy — on 5th June, 2007 at 11:35 pm  

    How does taxing people help the enviroment? They have come up with no solutions to problems, such as with the aviation sector other than to raise taxes.

    I’ll be happy to pay a little extra when their is a proper solution, like recycling, etc

  187. Devil's Kitchen — on 18th June, 2007 at 3:38 pm  

    Douglas,

    So sorry for not responding more quickly; I had moved on to other things (and I do actually have a job to do).

    Anyway, apart from anything else, you kept disputing the fact that the actual data that the “summaries for policy-makers” are based on have not been released. It is therefore difficult for me to go and check whether the data are reliable. Sending me a link to the “summary” does not alter that fact.

    Having a scientific background — and knowing how science is politicised (a number of my relatives work as researchers, though mainly in the field of pathogens) — I like to study the original data and draw my conclusions from that data where possible.

    As I pointed out, that the IPCC have decided to release four summaries before they release the data would tend to suggest that they are waiting of feedback from the “policymakers”, i.e. politicians, before they release the data. In this way — and using the “lies, damned lies and statistics” motto — one might then look at the data for evidence of political skewing in the presentation of that data.

    If you have a problem, Douglas, then I suggest — as Katy did — that you debate with me at my place, and come out from “your wee friendly zone.”

    Even leaving aside that it’s a highly reputable magazine, he says nothing of the links actually refuting the global warming deniers.

    Yes, and there are plenty of documents in which the “deniers” (as you choose to call them in a rather loaded manner) refute the refutations. The point is that there is still a debate going on over a number of aspects of this issue: there is, in fact, no concensus (other than that most scientists think that warming is happening: the causes are still very much open to debate).

    As for the swearing… Well, that is my house style (I was extraordinarily angry when I started blogging in January ’95. And still am, to an extent) and a number of people very much enjoy it — indeed, feedback solicited from my readers has indicated that they like the style.

    However, I know that some people find it offensive and unnecessary and so, when I am commenting in other people’s space, I do try not to swear. It would be very rude.

    DK

  188. Devil's Kitchen — on 18th June, 2007 at 3:45 pm  

    P.S.

    Even leaving aside that [New Scientist]’s a highly reputable magazine, he says nothing of the links actually refuting the global warming deniers.

    [sigh]

    As I said, the New Scientist wholeheartedly and uncritically endorsed the Stern Review when a number of economics bloggers had debunked it on the day it was released. These reasons had to do with both economics and science and were based on the fact that it totally ignored the IPCC’s A1 series of scenarios, as well as adding in a number of extraneous factors and double-counting.

    I am surprised, Sunny, that with your economics background, you didn’t pick up on any of this, though one wouldn’t necessarily expect you too.

    However, one would expect the New Scientist to look rather more closely; as it is, they have destroyed (in the eyes of myself and a number of other commentators, anyway) a good part of their credibility.

    Yes, they are quite reputable: but also, in this case, they were utterly and uncompromisingly wrong. And, despite a number of letters written to them on the subject, their editorials continue to sing Stern’s praises long after even the BBC had started to realise just what a flawed document it was.

    DK

  189. Mr. Hughes — on 19th June, 2007 at 12:45 pm  

    “The reason why Greenpeace is right in avoiding such programmes with such participants is because it gives the false impression that there is still a debate to be had and that it could go either way. No. When 90% of the evidence supports one position then such a ‘balanced debate’ only creates a false impression”

    I do admire this sort of openmindedness. It just shows that accusations of ‘fascism’ towards the global-warming zealots are so very unfair. OK – so they refer to people who disagree with them or show on iota of scepticism as ‘global warming deniers’, ‘antichrist’, etc. – but hey, if you feel reeeally, reeeeally strongly enough about something obviously that demonstrates that you are right and everyone else is wrong, doesn’t it? I mean, animal ‘rights’ supporters feel so very, very strongly about their cause that they’re willing to maim and murder other human beings in pursuit of it – quite right, too. So why are the eco-fundamentalists being so restrained? Why stop merely at trying to trash, smear or gag your opponents?

  190. Robert — on 19th June, 2007 at 4:24 pm  

    I was extraordinarily angry when I started blogging in January ’95.

    You’ve been blogging for twelve years?! Was the internet invented back then?

  191. Devil's Kitchen — on 20th June, 2007 at 9:39 am  

    Robert, sorry: since January ’05 that should have been…

    DK

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.