THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Max:
I see that Dr John Etherington, author of ‘The Case Against Wind Farms’, has left a comment on the Glyndebourne turbine thread. So if you want to ask an acknowledged expert on wind generation some questions ….
Hi Peter,
You recently posted a more philosophical blog on the current debate around AGW.
What I am posting here is not “politically correct”. It is one rational skeptic’s view on the current anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hysteria, which is being driven by the pseudoscience I will call “AGW climatology” (which, itself, is being driven by big politics, big media and big money).
First let’s look at the definition of “pseudoscience” from the on-line dictionaries:
· “a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific”
· “a theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation”
A more in-depth description is given in
http://www.skepdic.com/pseudosc.html
“A pseudoscience is set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific.”
In differentiating “pseudoscience” from true science the article goes on:
“Scientific theories are characterized by such things as (a) being based on empirical observation rather than the authority of some sacred text; (b) explaining a range of empirical phenomena; (c) being empirically tested in some meaningful way, usually involving testing specific predictions deduced from the theory; (d) being confirmed rather than falsified by empirical tests or with the discovery of new facts; (e) being impersonal and therefore testable by anyone regardless of personal religious or metaphysical beliefs; (f) being dynamic and fecund, leading investigators to new knowledge and understanding of the interrelatedness of the natural world rather than being static and stagnant leading to no research or development of a better understanding of anything in the natural world; (g) being approached with skepticism rather than gullibility, especially regarding paranormal forces or supernatural powers, and (h) being fallible and put forth tentatively rather than being put forth as infallible or inerrant.”
“Some pseudoscientific theories are based on an authoritative text rather than observation or empirical investigation. Creation science devotees, for example, make observations only to confirm dogmas, not to discover the truth about the natural world. Such theories are static and lead to no new scientific discoveries or enhancement of our understanding of the natural world. The main purpose of creationism and intelligent design is to defend a set of religious beliefs.”
[The same can be said with minor modification by paraphrasing the above statement on “creation science” for the new pseudoscience called “AGW climatology” (the pseudoscience that predicts alarming anthropogenic greenhouse warming based on projected human emissions of carbon dioxide through distortions and exaggerations of the greenhouse gas hypothesis and the creation of a series of hypothetical computer-modeled “feedbacks” to greatly enhance theoretical greenhouse warming): “Some pseudoscientific theories are based on computer model predictions rather than observation or empirical investigation. Anthropogenic greenhouse warming devotees, for example, make observations only to confirm their model predictions, not to discover the truth about the natural world.”]
After a discussion of the theory of evolution, the article goes on: “Scientific theories not only explain empirical phenomena, they also predict empirical phenomena. One way we know a scientific theory is no good is that its predictions keep failing.”
[This is one of the key weak points of climate model predictions. “Forecasts” are notoriously poor, while “hindcasts” are manipulated to rationalize and cover up errors in the forecast after the fact.]
[An example is the “aerosol” rationalization (or “hindcast”) for the cooling period 1944-1976, which occurred despite rapidly growing human CO2 emissions, where the pseudoscientific prediction would have called for global warming.]
“Predictions can’t fail unless a theory is falsifiable. Some pseudoscientific predictions can’t be falsified because they are consistent with every imaginable empirical state of affairs. Karl Popper noted that psychoanalytic theory, including Freud’s theory of the Oedipus complex, is pseudoscientific because they [sic] seem to explain everything and do not leave open the possibility of error. Even contradictory behaviors are appealed to in support of the theory.”
[The explanation by the AGW pseudoscience of the recent extremely cold winter weather all over the globe as “extreme weather events caused by global warming” is a good example of such a pseudoscientific prediction, which is “consistent with every imaginable empirical state of affairs (i.e. hot, cold, wet or dry, no matter what happens it is caused by AGW).”]
In discussing the pseudoscience of “creationism” the article continues: “Creationists… are apologists for the faith, not scientists interested in discovering the truth about the world. They already ‘know’ the truth: it’s in their sacred text. So, their whole function is to deny and try to find fault with any scientific claim that is inconsistent with their interpretation of the Bible.”
[Again, there is a good corollary with the pseudoscience of “AGW climatology”, whose prophesies come from the AGW “Bible”, the computer models (GCMs): “AGW climatologists” are apologists for their AGW ideology, not scientists interested in discovering the truth about the world. They already “know” the truth: AGW is real and it is a serious threat as prophesied by their computer models. So, their whole function is to deny and try to find fault with any scientific claim that is inconsistent with their computer model predictions and hence their ideology.]
.
“Creationists often mistake the fact that discoveries in various sciences keep confirming evolutionary hypotheses as evidence that evolutionists won’t give up their theory no matter what. “
[Don’t we have exactly the same corollary with “AGW climatologists” and their blogsites (Realclimate, etc) in response to studies by physicists on the impact of the sun on Earth’s climate?”]
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=171
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/
The use of pseudoscientific blog sites to put their “spin” on the facts and provide supporting arguments for their public is common to the “AGW climatologists” and many other pseudoscientific groups or movements.
Now I do not claim that there are not a lot of true scientists out there studying the climate today, conducting honest paleoclimate proxy studies, etc., all in the interest of finding the truth about what drives our climate today as in the past. (Here I am not referring to a handful of “not so true” scientists who already know what they want to prove and set about to do so, obtaining the “peer review” rubber stamp from like-minded individuals along the way: Mann “hockeystick” as a notorious example).
Many of these true scientists are realistic enough to know that what they do not know today about Earth’s climate greatly exceeds what they do know. Few would use the arrogantly confident wording used in the more political IPCC reports (“unequivocal”, “very high confidence”, “most of the observed increase in global average temperature is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”, “it is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years”, etc.)
Many of them embrace the scientific approach of “skepticism rather than gullibility” in seeking empirical observations in order to critically test specific predictions deduced from the theory rather than gullibly “believing” the model projections of the “AGW climatologists” (although most are cautious not to challenge the AGW hypothesis itself, realizing that this could endanger future public research funding).
These scientists, whether they believe that there is a significant human impact on climate or not, are the ones who are seeking truth by physical observation of facts.
They are not the “climate modelers”, who bring us no real new knowledge about the Earth’s climate, but only pseudoscientific predictions for the future to support the AGW ideology.
Just curious what your thought are on this, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Tony: I hope you’ll allow me a rejoinder to Peter’s recent post (632).
Peter: it seems to me that your simplistic goodie v baddie way of seeing the world may be why I and others have difficulty communicating with you – I fear it’s you, Peter, with whom it’s hard to discuss “the science in a rational manner”. But, sadly, you can’t see it.
I’ll explain. You provided an interesting list: free market economics, a globalist, interventionist approach to international affairs, support for minimal government, espousal of Christianity, strong support for Israel and hostility to Islamic and socialist ideologies and to environmentalism. You suggested that, “the anti-AGW bloggers on this forum would subscribe to the ideas on the above list”. And you wondered why it was “unusual to have one without the other” – you spoke of “group mentality” and “packages of thought”. The correct answer, however, is that its far from unusual but very common: in my experience, mature, thinking people (I would include all sceptical contributors to this blog) always have complex and differing views on the big issues.
I cannot speak for the others (although Max and Bob have made it clear that they neither subscribe to your list nor seemingly agree with each other), but I will give you a simplified (these are all exceptionally complex issues) view of my position on your items:
Free market economics and a globalist approach to international affairs. Well, I do believe that the world (especially its disadvantaged) has benefited from free trade – although I’m saddened that the West (the US and Europe) persists in protecting some indigenous industries.
Interventionism. Very difficult – Sierra Leone and Bosnia suggest it may have a place but, although I may yet be proved wrong (I hope so), Iraq’s misery suggests not.
Minimal government. Within limits, I support it.
Christianity. (As I’ve already told you) I have no religious faith. But (like Max) I respect some Christian teachings. But fundamentalist Christianity dismays me – and see Islam (below).
Israel. Although pained by the plight of the Palestinian people, I cannot support those who would destroy Israel – I wish I had a clearer understanding of this tragic subject.
Islam. I am fully aware of the West’s debt to Islam for much of its cultural, philosophical and scientific legacy. I have respect for many of the teachings of the Quran – but not, for example, for fundamentalist demeaning of women and harsh treatment for homosexuals and adulterers. And I am utterly opposed to those Muslims who wish to further their cause by acts of violence – commonly against fellow Muslims.
Socialism. For much of my life I saw myself as a socialist and today, for example, I support state-funded healthcare (which doesn’t prevent me from criticising aspects of its delivery – for example, see this). But I am certainly hostile to the socialism that brought so much cruelty and misery to the populations of the USSR and Eastern Europe.
The environment. I am a strong environmentalist and conservationist: for example, I am actively opposed to industrial pollution and the disturbance of precious countryside. I have planted hundreds of trees in recent years and I have contributed to Greenpeace. Although initially I was inclined to support the AGW hypothesis, I have come to think that such support is probably seriously and dangerously misguided.
Peter: when I was at Oxford, I had a lecturer who advised us “not to be hidebound by our pigeonholes”. A wonderful mixed metaphor: I suggest you take note of it. Now perhaps you will reply to my post 528; you may find it useful first to read post 625.
Hi TonyN,
Thanks for Etherington tip on wind farms (651).
I’m not really sold on wind generation (even in windy West Texas).
Did a quickie “back of the envelope” investment cost comparison (629), giving wind all the benefit of the doubt on improved lower cost large scale turbines and using a “high end” estimate for nuclear.
This tells me that wind is over 50% more costly to install (per MW generated) than nuclear. On top of this, it is less reliable, meaning new backup capacity would have to be installed (except in the USA, where gas-fired plants already exist and just have to be converted to standby service). And it uses a lot of real estate, even in West Texas (the cost of which I did not even factor in).
Home solar panels are even more costly to install, even if unit costs could be cut in half from today’s costs.
BTW today’s cost for a large-scale solar plant in Seville, Spain:
http://petrochemical.ihs.com/news-07Q2/eu-en-solar-plant-spain-4-07.jsp
Nameplate capacity = 11 mw
Power generated = 23,000 mwh/year
On-line factor = 23.9%
Investment = 35 million Euro = 56 million $
Investment cost per mw generated = $ 21 million
(Roughly 4x the investment cost for “optimum large scale” wind and 7x the cost for nuclear)
Looks like the most economical way for the USA to free up all that natural gas for motor fuel is to mandate (and build ASAP) a bunch of strategically located nuclear stations.
Coal-fired stations would be even less expensive to install, but it looks like these would be blocked politically (if you can believe Lester Brown):
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2008/Update70.htm
What do you think?
Regards,
Max
Bob/Brute: Your correspondence about “Randy” reminds me of a time (many years ago) when I was CEO of the European HQ of a US electronics company. One day we received an email (probably a fax then) from a lady at our LA head office. Her first name was “Wanda”, but she typed a “k” instead of the “n”. I seem to recall that our American colleagues didn’t understand why we found it so funny.
Maybe Tony would consider starting up a new thread, which could be more political. I may be astounded to find that you all have a strange mixture of political beliefs, but I’m more convinced than ever that it’s politics rather than science which is driving the disagrements on the AGW issue.
It may be more interesting that arguing about the UK or US spelling of particular words:-)
Here’s the rub……..
I’ve seen the word Atheist thrown around here lately, which is fine with me as long as a persons practicing of their Atheistic views do not interfere with my practicing my Christian views. Whether anyone wants to admit it, Atheism is a religion. It is the adherence to a belief that a supernatural being/deity does not exist…….. It is a system of belief relating to the existence of God.
Re?li?gion (noun)
1. Beliefs and Worship: People’s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life.
2. System: An institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine.
3. Personal Beliefs or Values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by.
This belief system, (Atheism) cannot be proven, (you cannot prove that God does not exist; conversely, I cannot prove that God does exist).
I believe that mankind instinctively requires a moral guide. Many people turn to the Bible, the Torah or the Koran, (to name a few), as their basis for morality and a code to live by. The laws of civilization are based on religious law(s). Environmentalists have chosen to worship the Earth or nature, (Gaiaism).
http://www.templegaia.org/
For whatever reason, they have shunned conventional/institutional religion and replaced them with their own set of beliefs. In Marxism, conventional religion has been replaced by the State.
I don’t have a problem with anyone believing whatever they’d like to believe in, (including global warming). What I do have a problem with is when Environmentalists views encroach upon my personal liberties and freedoms. Make no doubt about it, Environmentalism is a religion and in practicing their religious views they have crossed the line between the separation of church and state. When my government passes laws that affect what and how much I can drive and how much/what type of energy I am “permitted” to use……I consider it government repression/tyranny, especially if it’s based on someone else’s religious beliefs.
Gaiaism, (Earth Worship/Environmentalism), has all the trappings of conventional religion, (think about it). Sacrifice, an all powerful being, (Mother Earth)….. Saints, (Jane Goodall, Racheal Carlson, Al Gore), Sins (failing to recycle/leaving the light on after you leave a room) and a belief in the Apocalypse.
Evangelizing: Environmentalists must “spread the word” and “convert” everyone to adhere to their belief system or they have failed to fulfill their “religious” duties. Everyone who fails to comply with their beliefs is labeled a “denier”, (a heretic) and censored, (try to post anything rational on Joe Romm’s site). Scientists and “non-believers” are ostracized and ridiculed……………
There are a myriad of reasons that people embrace the ideology; personal financial gain, (Al Gore/T-Bone Pickens), State control of industry, (Marxism), and Earth worship, (Gaiaism).
Collectivism/Socialism/Marxism/Environmentalismgo hand in hand; they share common interests and goals. The common denominator is the eradication of Capitalism and individual freedoms.
The environmentalist requires control of the populous by the State to subsidize and manipulate industry, (Cap and Trade). The State requires the Environmentalist to provide the “cause”, (Global Warming) to rationalize the eradication of individual rights, liberty and freedoms, personal property and personal choices…..to remove control of the government and the resources from the hands of the people and replace it with an Oligarchy, (the State).
The “prophecies” of the “priests of environmentalism” (Al Gore/James Hanson), have not, and are not occurring; so they have attempted to change the facts, (in some cases manipulating data 50 years old), to fulfill their prophecies. They parse words and attempt to re-write history to fit their doctrine.
So, when an Environmentalists states that he or she is an Atheists or “non-religious” they are mistaken or in denial. They do believe in a religious system; they worship themselves, (power), money, or (in rare cases) the Earth itself.
Imagine the conceit and arrogance of anyone who claims the ability to control the weather. The frightening thing is that many people believe that if they adhere to the policies proposed by the Environmentalists/politicians, they will have “permitted” the government to control the weather……err……climate.
Have to go inside now….seems like we have some climate change, (A thunderstorm).
I forgot about Al Gore’s Carbon Credits, (Indulgences).
Brute,
My favourite Gaia sect is “the save Australia’s forest” schism.
I was going to a concert in Melbourne a while ago, and we passed under a large tree, and up there adorned in typical coiffure etc was what appeared to be a tree-hugger, a young male of the species. (probably)
It was part of a demo causing minor damage to the tree and to pedestrian access, I just slowly shook my head as I normally do in such situations, but was shocked when my normally introverted companion exploded with stuff like:
What do you hope to achieve up there, causing such a nuisance!
Have you ever done anything to actually HELP the environment?
I personally have reared from seeds, thousands of native trees for donation to farmers and parks and reserves!
I have personally planted hundreds of trees!
(then, looking around the group) What have you people done that is useful?
It went-on for quite a while, with me meekly looking-on, stunned!
Just shows what religious feelings can unfurl.
It gathered spectators.
Peter 656, you wrote in part:
I may be astounded to find that you all have a strange mixture of political beliefs, but I’m more convinced than ever that it’s politics rather than science which is driving the disagrements on the AGW issue.
What you mean like the way institutions carefully word official position statements on
AGW in such a way as not to offend the purse strings?
Hi Peter,
You wrote: “I’m more convinced than ever that it’s politics rather than science which is driving the disagrements on the AGW issue.”
Not really, Peter.
For many who do not embrace the so-called “consensus” view it is “rational skepticism” of the pseudoscientific arguments (backed by GCM outputs), which are being used to support the dogma of alarming AGW, in particular when these pseudoscientific arguments have no solid scientific validation from physically observed data or are even directly contradicted by physical observations.
True, there is also the “political” side, but I believe this is secondary. After all, the IPCC is a political body, set up by a larger political body with the specific charter to provide support (presented as “science”) for a political agenda. The intent of IPCC SPM 2007 is to convey a political message designed to instill alarm or even fear in support of a far-reaching political agenda (carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes), so the scientific debate cannot really be totally separated from the underlying politics, since we are talking about agenda-driven “science” (or “pseudoscience”) here.
But the key disagreements, which most rational skeptics have with IPCC, are with its reliance on sloppy science and the pseudoscience of GIGO computer outputs rather than on sound physically observed data.
At least, this is my primary problem with AGW. Maybe TonyN, Brute, Bob_FJ, Robin, JZSmith and the other AGW skeptics have a different view on this and they can speak for themselves.
Regards,
Max
Hi Bob,
You wrote: “My favourite Gaia sect is “the save Australia’s forest” schism.”
I remember a few years ago taking a tour through northern Queensland. Our guide told us of problems with “tree huggers” a few years earlier when the road was put in. One young lady had apparently chained herself to a tree to stop the clearing operation and the crew just changed their course slightly to avoid the tree.
Are her bones still chained to the tree? Who knows? (At any rate, we didn’t see her.)
Maybe a croc had her for lunch.
Regards,
Max
Max 662,
“…the crew just changed their course slightly to avoid the tree…”
Chuckle,
They changed course to save the tree, not her?
Down in Victoria and Tasmania, things can be quite nasty, with sabotage of very expensive machinary and driving of steel spikes into trees where chain saws might go.
Personally, I would wonder if such activists live in domiciles that contain in their structures, Australian sourced timbers. If they do, should they not move-out into structures that do not contain such sacred materials?
What is the best energy choice?
Corrugated iron, plastic film, large cardboard boxes….. gee there are a host of “environmental” choices
Further my 663:
RE: Domiciles adaptive for loony greenies:
In my late teens, I went on a gruesome one-month “character-training” torture for allegedly potential future company executives in JANUARY, in the mountains of the English Lake District.
We were provided in our survival gear (in the old units) an 8 x 9 heavy PVC top sheet, and a smaller ground-sheet, and a large ball of string. No base-bedding or any other luxuries, other than a heavy sleeping bag.
However, we were provided with an ice-axe, which was quite handy at times. The rule was that when retiring at night, one stripped-off perspiration-wet clothing and changed into the dry for sleep. Then, in the morning, change from the dry sleep clothing into that of the previous day, frozen solid overnight, after pummelling it into some kind of flexibility.
Based on this experience, I believe that greenie loonies, should be capable of satisfying their wishes of conserving the environment, by purchasing or stealing a large ball of string, and a plastic spread-sheet from any hardware or paint store! String can be cut with ones teeth!
RELIGION AND POLITICS
If you look at the top of this page you will see the title of this blog, and a strap-line that defines the subject matter that it was set up to deal with. My blogname also appears.
I do not want either world politics or comparative religions discussed here, except in the very narrow context where these topics have a direct bearing on climate, the countryside and landscapes. There are plenty of other forums that deal with such things. What happened yesterday was nobody’s fault. A stray remark got blown up into a major issue. It is in the nature of an electronic forum that this should happen; one of the unique advantages of blogging is that ideas are developed by the participation of a group of – more or less – like-minded people.
The blog rules were drafted in a considerable hurry at a time when I had no experience of running a blog and little expectation that anyone would read them. It may be time to have another look at these. But I must make it clear that, although I am very happy to discuss them (and genuinely grateful for spelling corrections), what is said on this thread has an impact on Harmless Sky as a whole, and that is obviously a matter that concerns me. At present we are averaging over 1000 hits a week and the trend is strongly upwards.
I am delighted that the NS threads have successfully transferred to Harmless Sky and astonished to see that, in the four months since this happened, over 650 comments have been submitted, amounting to over 100,000 words; the length of a 250 page paperback.
At this point I think that we need to consider a few administrative matters. Later today I will post a special page with some suggestions and a request for feedback. Please do not respond to what I have said in this comment here, but do so on the special page when it appears.
Perhaps I should add that I am very conscious of the fact that I am the host of the NS thread and not its proprietor.
Re: # 654, Max:
The conclusions that you reached on the back of your envelope are, I think, very much in line with Etherington and Ruth Lee. But the BWEA has firm control of the media agenda on wind, so such useful information seldom reaches the public here.
Re my #665, I have posted some suggestions for the future organisation of this thread here. Nothing too radical, but I would be grateful for some feedback before I go any further.
Bob: I have moved one of your comments to the new thread for obvious reasons. Hope that’s OK.
There’s an interesting story in the Guardian today about the Channel 4 film, “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. Ofcom (the UK’s media regulatory body) has ruled that Channel 4 broke its obligations by failing “to be impartial and to reflect a range of views on controversial issues”. The key result, however, was that Ofcom cleared Channel 4 of the allegation that the audience watching the programme was “materially mislead” – critics of the film (including it seems the Guardian’s reporter) were plainly disappointed at this. Nonetheless, the Guardian‘s subeditor felt free to give its story the headline, “The public has been swindled”. But how about this – an extraordinary BBC take on the story using the discredited hockey-stick graph as its main illustration?
Robin:
I’ve been trying to find the full text of the inquiry report, have you seen it? The version in Ofcom’s Broadcast Bulletin No. 114 is heavily abridged. I am interested in what the wording of the misquotation from King was.
Hi Bob,
You wrote of environmental alternates for home construction: “What is the best energy choice? Corrugated iron, plastic film, large cardboard boxes….. gee there are a host of “environmental” choices”.
We have limited resources in Switzerland and thus have to rely on the gnomes in Zurich to eke out a miserable trade balance through banking services, etc. in order that we can afford to import most everything (except bricks, which we do produce locally).
But, taking a cue from Native American cultures, I would think you guys in Oz would have enough large red kangaroos to replace the American bison hides for tepee construction. A fully renewable source!
Regards,
Max
PS Not to digress, but speaking of Zurich banks there was a recent robbery attempt by an environmentally aware bank robber. When he asked the teller to empty out the cash drawer into a bag the reply was “paper or plastic?” As he was agonizing over the environmental impact of this decision, the Stadtspolizei came in and “busted” him.
Tony: all I can locate is the Bulletin you mention. For those who might be interested, it’s here.
Here’s a small extract from the main finding:
Hi Tony,
Re your 666.
Too bad that you have BWEA media control of the “hot air” being blown around on “windmills”.
But back to the “Lester Brown” link (654) I cited, which concludes:
“The next steps are to quickly exploit the vast worldwide potential to raise energy efficiency and to massively develop renewable sources of energy, such as wind, solar, and geothermal, in order to phase out existing coal-fired power plants.”
“Phasing out existing coal-fired power plants” (Gore’s recent proposal) is an order of magnitude more “goofy” than putting a ban on the construction of new coal-fired power plants (the topic of Brown’s article).
Strangely, the most cost-effective (and logical) solution for future power generation capacity is missing from his “pie in the sky” list: nuclear fission.
You sort of wonder what these guys are smoking.
Regards,
Max
Re: #671,Robin
I wonder how anyone could reconcile your Ofcom version of events with Roger Harabin’s report for the BBC 10pm News this eventing?
Have you noticed this intriguing comment?
Robin,
Being unfamiliar with British culture…..has a lawsuit been filed againest Channel 4? What is the definition of freedom of the press and freedom of speech in the UK?
If Tony is going to ban political discussion then I’ll probably have to have much less to say in future, which no doubt mamy of you would agree was a good thing :-) There is only so many times we can have a “yes it is ” or ” no it isn’t” argument about AGW itself. As I’ve said the opposition to the science largely comes from those with a political motivation, so it’s just not possible to separate the one from another.
The program “The Great Global Warming Swindle” is a case in point. The producer, Martin Durkin does not seem to possess any specialised scientific knowledge but he does have a political background and previously was closely connected, although he has denied actual memebership, with a fringe group known as the Revolutionary Communist Party. Basically Trotskyist in political orientation.
The RCP has metamorphised over the years into firstly Living Marxism magazine, later LM magazine, and most recently Spiked on-line magazine. These days you’d never guess that they have had a Marxist past, and seem very right wing in their political orientation. For them free wheeling capitalism is the new revolutionary force. They are very anti-green and if they had their way would allow the whole of the UK to be built over. Needless to say they are very anti the science of AGW and supportive of Martin Durkin.
see: http://www.spiked-online.com/