Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

noggin

Politics And AGW/GW

Recommended Posts

I don't see anything tongue-in-cheek about it at all, surely it was a genuine question that warranted (and got) a genuine answer?

Note that I didn't actually know who Hansen was until I did a lot of research on him a few days ago in reponse to Noggin's question. The main name that I associate with the hockey stick is Mann. So one or both of two things follow: I'm not a "warmist", or not all "warmists" see him as their messiah.

As for the hockey stick itself, it clearly does not take into account the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age, but considering how much argument there is over the MWP and LIA, it is possible to argue either way on whether the hockey stick is a good approximation or not.

Your right it was Mann, to much sun and alcholol yesterday! As for the hockey stick itself, well that was pulled to pieces over on Climate audit, and to this day remains a contentious issue regarding it's authenticity! As for Hansen himself, I have little time for him, he is willing to defend acts of vandalism in the name of science. How will historians view these two so called Mavericks! Only time will tell of course, but I hardly think they will go down as pioneers of climate research!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly, AGW is an issue that the developers of alternative energy sources and of more efficient energy can use to their advantage. But as with most conspiracy theories, the climate science movement, AGW etc. is not part of some kind of conspiracy. The scientific arguments came first and the people who abused it to their advantage followed.

The latter part of that article is somewhat suspect. There may well be some suppression of science that disagrees with AGW through the peer review system- though I've read quite a few peer-reviewed papers recently that questioned climate models' ability to simulate natural forcings properly. But there are a number of eminent scientists, including some who go along with AGW, who do not necessarily agree with the Kyoto Protocol.

I think Gore and Hansen are symptomatic of the way a lot of successful people and organisations go- starting out with good intentions and reasonably open minds, but then letting their fame get to them, getting too big for their boots and indulging in extremism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Certainly, AGW is an issue that the developers of alternative energy sources and of more efficient energy can use to their advantage. But as with most conspiracy theories, the climate science movement, AGW etc. is not part of some kind of conspiracy. The scientific arguments came first and the people who abused it to their advantage followed.

The latter part of that article is somewhat suspect. There may well be some suppression of science that disagrees with AGW through the peer review system- though I've read quite a few peer-reviewed papers recently that questioned climate models' ability to simulate natural forcings properly. But there are a number of eminent scientists, including some who go along with AGW, who do not necessarily agree with the Kyoto Protocol.

I think Gore and Hansen are symptomatic of the way a lot of successful people and organisations go- starting out with good intentions and reasonably open minds, but then letting their fame get to them, getting too big for their boots and indulging in extremism.

I'll go along with all of that TWS, it's a shame that the whole of climate science is tarnished because of a few. Maybe with more people like yourself, who are more open to natural factors having more of an influence than C02, and are brave enough to state that the science isn't settled just yet, will one day be the ones who are at the forefront of climate science!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Gore and Hansen are symptomatic of the way a lot of successful people and organisations go- starting out with good intentions and reasonably open minds, but then letting their fame get to them, getting too big for their boots and indulging in extremism.

I wholeheartedly agree with that assessment. :rolleyes:

A bit like MPs and their expenses!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest North Sea Snow Convection
I wholeheartedly agree with that assessment. :)

A bit like MPs and their expenses!

Amen to that! :good:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.iceagenow.com/At_what_point_do_...ing_deniers.htm

In case anyone pooh-poohs this based on the source..........the links to the appropriate articles are contained within the link, but there are so many that it would take me all day and my left index finger would drop off!

Anyway.....the basis of the article is that GW deniers/sceptics MUST DIE for their beliefs. :angry::cold:

Seems a tad extreme to me, but hey ho..... :rolleyes:

:)

WARNING Rather startling language used/quoted in the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway.....the basis of the article is that GW deniers/sceptics MUST DIE for their beliefs. :rolleyes::angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway.....the basis of the article is that GW deniers/sceptics MUST DIE for their beliefs. :o :)

There's something very,ah,erm... religious sounding about that,heretics must perish etc. Me,insinuating that AGW is amonst other things,a religion to some? Nah,wouldn't do that...

Look, I can go through the seedier parts of the net where people like me have all manner of insult hurled at us up to and including the kind of thing you and Noggin quote.

So, lets do some algebra on it and remove it from both sides of the debate equation here - OK?...Or, we can play 'My quote is more insulting to us than yours.' tomorrow when I've more time :cold:

...

I think Gore and Hansen are symptomatic of the way a lot of successful people and organisations go- starting out with good intentions and reasonably open minds, but then letting their fame get to them, getting too big for their boots and indulging in extremism.

I don't think either Al Gore or Dr Hansen are extremists. They might be (in a decade or two) seen to be wrong, but they might by that time be seen to be right. Call them then, calling them now makes no sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look, I can go through the seedier parts of the net where people like me have all manner of insult hurled at us up to and including the kind of thing you and Noggin quote.

So, lets do some algebra on it and remove it from both sides of the debate equation here - OK?...Or, we can play 'My quote is more insulting to us than yours.' tomorrow when I've more time :cold:

I don't think either Al Gore or Dr Hansen are extremists. They might be (in a decade or two) seen to be wrong, but they might by that time be seen to be right. Call them then, calling them now makes no sense to me.

Dev have to take issue on your last point, both Hansen and Gore have been guilty of extremisim. Gore for blatanly misleading the public with is inconvient truth, and Hansen with is bizzare comments, and condoning acts of vandalism in the name of science! To the average person in the street, things like this do more harm than good!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look, I can go through the seedier parts of the net where people like me have all manner of insult hurled at us up to and including the kind of thing you and Noggin quote.

So, lets do some algebra on it and remove it from both sides of the debate equation here - OK?...Or, we can play 'My quote is more insulting to us than yours.' tomorrow when I've more time :(

See.. this is where we are at on politics no-matter what the subject. It has no real purpose on this forum. It does nothing to with climate change, only a person's own view and that usually is all it is at the extremes.

Totally agree Dev re the remove it from the equation. There is no need for the extreme quotes. That can be done elsewhere on the internet. I shall be removing extreme quotes in the future unless it actually has a very valid point.

I don't think either Al Gore or Dr Hansen are extremists. They might be (in a decade or two) seen to be wrong, but they might by that time be seen to be right. Call them then, calling them now makes no sense to me.

And I agree again. Nobody knows what the future holds or what it is that's causing it.. Not 100% anyway..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.iceagenow.com/At_what_point_do_...ing_deniers.htm

In case anyone pooh-poohs this based on the source..........the links to the appropriate articles are contained within the link, but there are so many that it would take me all day and my left index finger would drop off!

Anyway.....the basis of the article is that GW deniers/sceptics MUST DIE for their beliefs. :(:(

No, Noggin, the basis of the piece - a copy of the original one by Marc Morano on Climate Depot here http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1096/Execute...ishing-them-now - is that one anonymous blogger/reader (declaring his controvertial & belligerent nature by calling himself "The Insolent Braggart") in the Talking Points Memo Cafe Forum ("Politics, ideas & lots of caffeine") posted a piece asking a daft question (though even he didn't answer 'yes' to it!). It was not a piece by a staff journalist, something Morano failed to point out (?notice), just a blog piece by a reader. TPM pulled it almost immediately, and it's also now very difficult to identify other stuff by the author - he may well have been banned.

I did find a couple of things still there written by him in his bio: a favourite quote of his is "If life deals you lemons, why not go kill someone with the lemons (maybe by shoving them down his throat)." And this about his politics "Progressive. I'd say liberal - but I just hate the god damned lazy hippies so much. Do you need to stink on top of being a drain on society? Jesus. But I'd literally take hanging out with a bunch of hippies every day - drenched in petrulie oil (we know it's to cover up the fact you don't use deoderant) than have to listen to the bile being spewed out of the mouths of the idiot neo-cons. And I'd listen to a neo-con talk about how we need to go to war with canada to protect ourselves from their metric system all day than have to watch a conservative Christian raise his arms during church and start pretending to talk to god by speaking in tongues, then having a f**king fake seizure and falling to the ground."

The Morano piece continues with a 'Climate Depot Editor's Note' that "The Talking Points Memo appeal to execute skeptics is not unique", but fails to provide a single instance of this. There then follows a list of links illustrating the desperate warmist attempts to gag and condemn sceptics, many of which, I fully agree, are extreme and ludicrous - not to mention counter-productive.

One caveat, though: the list of gaggings and job-losses includes poor old David Bellamy's interview with the Daily Express, in which he asserts that his dead TV career is entirely down to his AGW-sceptic position. This has already been dealt with on Netweather, but I will add this further link that dismisses the assertion convincingly: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/12/09...rdful-of-bunkum . A partial quote from it: "Bellamy last presented a programme on the BBC in 1994. The first time he publicly challenged the theory of manmade climate change was ten years later, in 2004, when he claimed in the Daily Mail that it was poppycock. Until at least the year 2000 he supported the theory." The link gives several instance of his former full support for AGW, long after the point when he stopped getting TV work.

I don't have the time to investigate the other instances listed by Climate Depot, but I hope they are more reliable than the Bellamy one.

But back to the central subject of your post, Noggin. What we have is - at worst - a single, silly blogpost that was almost immediately removed....in the cafe-style forum of a single, political ideas website....by a single, immoderate and foul-mouthed reader who seems to enjoy taking deliberately provocative positions. In the old days he might have bothered to write an angry letter to a newspaper, which would have been binned within 5 seconds.

But now, courtesy of the glorious internet, we apparently have prima facie evidence that some AGW believers think sceptics should be executed. This isn't 'Politics and AGW/GW', it's giving spurious importance to the rantings of madmen!

Ossie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ci...change-children

Wasn't sure where to post this, so I have put it here. I know it's an opinion piece but it makes a point very well..........an aspect of AGW/GW that has not been mentioned in our NW Climate Change Department, as far as I can recall.

Yes, I am a sensitive and soppy old fool, but it made me feel sad and a little bit angry at the effect that media hype and AGW extremists ( caveat...there are also extremists at the other end of the spectrum, of course I know that, but I am desperately trying not to give any offence/tread on any toes) are having on children.

Children are very vulnerable in that they are, generally, not able to investigate all evidence and draw reasonable conclusions on such heavyweight matters as GW/AGW and when "doom and gloom" is all around, then of course many of them will be frightened.

I even find myself having to temper what is reported in the media to my daughters when they see it and they are 21 and 17. :D:D

There, I hope I have said what I wanted to say, without giving offence! :)

Off to do my wrist rehabilitation exercises now............you wouldn't kick an old bird when she's down, would ya? ;):D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see 'owt particularly offensive in that- in fact, although I think the article exaggerates to try and make it more of a story, there are some very good points in there. When I was younger I was exposed to the arguments for AGW, both through news outlets and the education system. Much of it was exaggerated in journalistic fashion, or simplified through ignoring the uncertainties so as to "remove doubt". And much of it made out that cars were primarily to blame for global warming and that we needed to clamp down on those evil motorists.

Like most 10-year old children, I was easily led, and just accepted what I was spoon-fed with. I used to be afraid of those days when the winds blew from the continent bringing polluted air in- and I went through a phase when I was strongly in favour of banning cars. Ironically, a key factor in me moving away from this stance, and being more questioning of what I heard and saw about AGW, was probably those Labour "go to war with the motorists" manifestos back in 1998- they got far too extreme for my liking and it turned me strongly against that way of thinking.

There are indeed extremists on both ends of the spectrum but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that young kids tend to get more exposure to the "pro" extreme than the "anti" extreme. At least that was the case when I was a young child. The authorities don't like expressing doubt and uncertainty partly because people who have little intelligence might not be able to understand what it means and think "oh so those of you who think AGW is 'likely' to happen don't have a clue", but the question is, is that any worse than the problems we're currently getting because of them trying to make out that it's more certain than it is and emphasising worst-case scenarios? Personally I very much doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too can see whence you come, Noggin! Do you recall that 'wonderful' TV series, Timeslip? :D

In particular, I recall how disappointed I was by the 'Hothouse Future' story...Not least because it was - so obviously - all filmed in a Botanical Garden: Spencer Banks and the bint were sweating! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the latest from Lord Monckton. It's full of scattergun insults, scaremongering about marxists , commmies and the UN, weird ideas about DDT ( you can, apparently 'eat it by the spoonful' according to the good Lord!), and paranoia.

Going by the article the man is, frankly, a fruit cake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest North Sea Snow Convection

Putting aside the journo rhetoric he has a point I'm afraid when he distinguishes in that text beween true environmentalists and climate extremists. I'm afraid it is true that such 'marxist' elements exist in the political eschellons of the climate debate. In the same way that extremists exist in any global movement or 'large pressure group'. C'est la vie.

I too have a couple of lovely friends who support Greenpeace etc and they have indicated their regret that true environmentalism has been tarnished with extremist elements. So they would agree with Monckton in the same respect that you are getting ruffled about - even if they would not agree with all his background beliefs about climate change causation. Most of us support being responsible towards our environment - even if some of us are dubious about where the truth of climate science lies. But that doesn't mean that everyone who claims to be behind such a cause is whiter than white as you would wish to pretend was true.

It is therefore not surprising IMO that true envionmentalists have moved to separate themselves from the sort of stuff that Monckton alludes to. Irrespective of, and reading between the lines of the floury rhetoric used in that link which you refer to.

I'm not sure therefore that you should be getting upset about what, unfortunately, is the truth. S'cuse the rather unceremonious paraphrase - but sh8t happens unfortunately :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that both Monckton and his adversaries (real or imagined) are merely using the environment as a 'political football', Tamara - if anything it is that that upsets me. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest North Sea Snow Convection
I think that both Monckton and his adversaries (real or imagined) are merely using the environment as a 'political football', Tamara - if anything it is that that upsets me. :)

There is that side of it Pete. There is truth there as well *agreement nodding head smilie*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Putting aside the journo rhetoric he has a point I'm afraid when he distinguishes in that text beween true environmentalists and climate extremists. I'm afraid it is true that such 'marxist' elements exist in the political eschellons of the climate debate. In the same way that extremists exist in any global movement or 'large pressure group'. C'est la vie.

I too have a couple of lovely friends who support Greenpeace etc and they have indicated their regret that true environmentalism has been tarnished with extremist elements. So they would agree with Monckton in the same respect that you are getting ruffled about - even if they would not agree with all his background beliefs about climate change causation. Most of us support being responsible towards our environment - even if some of us are dubious about where the truth of climate science lies. But that doesn't mean that everyone who claims to be behind such a cause is whiter than white as you would wish to pretend was true.

It is therefore not surprising IMO that true envionmentalists have moved to separate themselves from the sort of stuff that Monckton alludes to. Irrespective of, and reading between the lines of the floury rhetoric used in that link which you refer to.

I'm not sure therefore that you should be getting upset about what, unfortunately, is the truth. S'cuse the rather unceremonious paraphrase - but sh8t happens unfortunately :)

I'm not a Marxist. It seems (In Lord Monckton world anyway) no one can be a true environmentalist and be a Marxist (well, that or Lord Monckton is trying to damningly associate environmentalism with Marxism - surely not......).

So, what else can't any one be and also be a true environmentalist? A socialist? A liberal? A capitalist? And what is a 'true' environmentalist? Someone who thinks you can eat DDT by 'the spoonful' :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest North Sea Snow Convection
I'm not a Marxist. It seems (In Lord Monckton world anyway) no one can be a true environmentalist and be a Marxist (well, that or Lord Monckton is trying to damningly associate environmentalism with Marxism - surely not......).

So, what else can't any one be and also be a true environmentalist? A socialist? A liberal? A capitalist? And what is a 'true' environmentalist? Someone who thinks you can eat DDT by 'the spoonful' :)

If you know that you are not a marxist or an 'anything else' for that matter and have beliefs based around something that is devoid of anything corruptive then I'm not sure it is worth being uptight about anyone else's implications or suggestions - even if they appear to 'tarnish' your own belief.

I used to participate in a cross stitch club and there was one woman in that who had all sorts of ideas about things that one could deem offensive but at the end of the day it was her problem and no-one else's. Point being, you can look for all kinds of imflammatory things if you want to ie trawling through the net, but whilst it is reasonable to comment on some of the stuff that is clearly a bit off beam, there is no point taking it personally!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is the latest from Lord Monckton. It's full of scattergun insults, scaremongering about marxists , commmies and the UN, weird ideas about DDT ( you can, apparently 'eat it by the spoonful' according to the good Lord!), and paranoia.

Going by the article the man is, frankly, a fruit cake.

OK, the guys a little OTT but that doesn't make him a fruit cake..

However,  it occurred  to  them, after I  testifed  in 

front of them and told them so, that if they were to put 

up the cost of energy, then that cost would fall dispro-

portionately on the very poorest taxpayers. Or even if 

they weren’t taxpayers, it would fall disproportionately 

on them, because energy costs form a far larger propor-

tion  of  the  household  budget  of  poor  people  than  of 

wealthier people.

This is the sort of situation I'm in...

It doesn't take a genius to work out that a family with a total income of £300 per week, paying £50 a week in energy costs, is worse off than a family with an income of £600 a week, paying the same in energy costs.

On the whole, I don't think its a bad piece if you read between the BS.. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is the latest from Lord Monckton. It's full of scattergun insults, scaremongering about marxists , commmies and the UN, weird ideas about DDT ( you can, apparently 'eat it by the spoonful' according to the good Lord!), and paranoia.

Going by the article the man is, frankly, a fruit cake.

But their are fruitcakes on both sides of the argument. Hansen being one of these for sure, but that doesn't stop some on here from putting him on a pedestal!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what many of us get uptight about is mis-representation of our beliefs and the sense that the debunking of exaggerated views that vaguely relate to our beliefs somehow debunks the original beliefs themselves. Some of the BS from Monkton is guilty of that kind of thing.

However the point above about "taxes on energy hit the poorest hard" is entirely correct. It is one of the main reasons why I personally favour carrots first and sticks second in the environmental "carrot and stick" approach- if there is no viable alternative, taxing certain forms of energy consumption will mean the rich simply pay a bit extra, whereas the poor have to make do without. Conversely if there is a viable alternative people can make use of it and so the poor are at less of a disadvantage.

The problem when someone has a lot of crackpot ideas is that it is often psychologically difficult to take notice of the other ideas- even if some of them are good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...