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.
Because Pete unquestionably adheres to, and ideologically supports, the proposed political “solutions” to the AGW fraud.
Doing otherwise would violate his political worldview.
No, Brute, I would guess that MI5 has already passed your details to the FBI. (I suggest you warn Mrs Brute – although she probably won’t be particularly surprised.)
Robin:
I’ve taken the liberty of adding this link to your Science Museum comment #7868
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6886363.ece
It provides some very interesting context to what this museum is doing, and a parallel with the TV adverts seems inescapable.
I’m particularly angry about this as, when I was a child, the greatest treat that I could imagine (other than seeing Brian Rix at the Whithall Theatre) was a trip to the Science Museum. I don’t suppose that it is very different for many children now. Just how cynical and unprincipled can people like the Milibands and Chris Rapley get? And how long will the general public put up with such manipulation before there is a terrible backlash?
More anecdotal “evidence”……however, adding up all of this ‘anecdotal” evidence paints a larger picture……a “trend” if you will.
Would you agree Pete?
Cold start to fall continues, 252 more low temperature records set in the USA this week
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/23/252_new_usa_lows/#more-12064
Where are the Hurricanes, Mr. Gore?
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2009/10/where-are-hurricanes-mr-gore_23.html
Robin,
I wouldn’t worry too much about Mrs. Brute. Although she is a petite woman and weighs probably 110 pounds soaking wet, she is fully capable of handling any situation. Thank God for the second amendment and woe to anyone that seeks to do her harm as she has been fully trained with her Glock 23………capable to handle any scenario.
Another example of the complete lunacy affecting the hierarchy in the UK
http://www.earth-stream.com/outpage.php?s=18&id=208146
To highlight climate change at the 2012 London Olympics an island will be dragged from the arctic and taken to the South West (where the Met office is ) and passports will be issued and climate awareness wil be…. Well I can’t bear to say any more. Complete lunacy coming to a country near you soon.
Tonyb
According to The Times, Obama isn’t going to Copenhagen.
TonyN #7878
The Times article to which you link contain the following quote:
“Chris Rapley, the director of the Science Museum, said that a last minute decision had been made to create the exhibition in August after a briefing at the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
‘We realised that public interest had flattened out and yet here we were approaching the most historic negotiations in human history,’ he said. The museum had not been planning to run a climate change exhibition until 2011”.
So the Director of a major museum takes his orders directly from the Ministry, and apparently sees nothing wrong with this. Do the editors of schoolbooks get called in to the Ministry for a little talk about the content of science textbooks? Does the DECC have a word in the ear of BBC programme planners? Presumably the Science Museum has an independent board of governors or something. Is there a complaints procedure? I’ll look into it and report back. Does anyone else agree that political meddling with the Science Museum is a milllion times more serious than a dodgy TV ad?
The link I gave at 7882 seems to be incorrect. Here it is again.
Geoff: yes, I suppose it’s more serious (political control of the “Science” Museum than the ad). But not “a million times”. Scaring people (and especially children) with false information on prime time TV is pretty bad also. What has our country come to?
Robin asks, what has our country come to? Here’s what.
Following my #7883: The Science Museum is part of the National Museums of Science and Industry. Their trustees are listed at
http://www.nmsi.ac.uk/nmsipages/boardoftrustees.asp
Any thought that these people might be interested in intelligent discussion of the role of a museum in the cultural life of the country will be speedily dissipated by a visit to this site
http://www.nmsi.ac.uk/nmsipages/documents/Corporate_plan/NMSI_Corporate_Plan_2009_-_Final_Version.pdf
Yes, the Science Museum has a Corporate Plan, full of discussion of strong brands, operating in a competitive market, key stakeholders and Gaia knows what.
They are clearly beyond reach of rational discourse.
Tonyb,
Just curious……How much Carbon Dioxide will be emitted into the atmosphere in order to charter a ship and barge to the Arctic, load an island onto the barge and then parade the ship, island and barge around the UK?
Come to think of it, how much carbon dioxide can be attributed to the 2012 Olympics?
Seems to me a frivolous waste of energy…….emitting all of that excess carbon dioxide to watch and participate in “games”.
I’ll bet that the emission will be “offset” by donating money to Al Gore’s bank account in the name of “awareness”.
Geoff, #7883
I’m beginning to wonder if something really spooked the DECC in August.
Ipsos-Mori were talking about the results of their annual poll of attitudes to climate change in July, (R4 Today) but unlike previous years, they didn’t post these on their website. I emailed them several times to ask when they would do so and got no reply. From what they said on the radio there was significant rise in scepticism. Might the TV advertising campaign have been planned in August too?
There is obviously going to be massive coverage of the Copenhagen summit in December. Where will that leave Ed Miliband and others who have really been pushing its importance if polling shows that the voters are either sceptical or indifferent? Looking a little bit silly?
It is fatuous to suggest that the attitude of the UK public is in any way going to influence the outcome at Copenhagen. But if the UK signs up to a massive transfer of funds — to persuade the developing countries to agree to some kind of face saving pale shadow of Kyoto — and the electorate don’t believe that the planet really is about to burn, then that is a major domestic political problem. And Ed has been tipped as a successor to Gordon after the election.
Just thinking aloud, but it seems possible that the folk who are prepared to drag the Science Museum into the political mire and spend £6m on scary TV adverts may be playing for very high political stakes indeed, and that we are looking at a desperate damage limitation exercise. They could have good reason to be very scared, and not just about climate change.
Robin:
I think that this thumb-nail sketch of Chris Rapley makes what his is doing easier to understand, but even less easy to excuse.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=209274
It may also explain how he slithered into his present appointment?
MY #7881 on the Climate island project.
It is the Arts Council-funded by British Tax payers- who are funding this lunacy- of which much more here.
http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpress.artscouncil.org.uk%2Fcontent%2Fdetail.aspx%3FReleaseID%3D881%26NewsAreaID%3D2
I suspect it was earmarked for the West country as sailing events will take place here and the Met Office Hadley centre can no doubt help to cheer on the antics from their Exeter HQ
Incidentally the email address of the press officer is at the foot of the link above, so if you want to tell her what you think please do so.
Tonyb
Tonyb,
Really…..is this a joke?
Brute (7886)
how much carbon dioxide can be attributed to the 2012 Olympics
I gather that cement production “generates more carbon emissions than any other industrial process [and] contributes about 4% of global total CO2 emissions” according to the ‘International Energy Agency’ (quoted on an excitable AGW site), so any big building project will contribute rather a lot.
For that reason alone, I remain baffled by the concept of ‘carbon neutral’ housing, as applied to conventional dwellings in the UK. A Scandinavian log cabin built on wooden piles might just qualify, but I fail to see how else it could be done.
The Foreign Secretary’s attitude and choice of words speak volumes (Times Online article, linked to in #7868.) Accusing the public of lacking a sense of urgency, he is basically saying that the public are dangerously out of touch with the government. Does he not realise how that comes across? It reminds me a little of the old newspaper headline: “Fog in Channel; Continent Cut Off”. Truly these people are getting desperate.
David Miliband is castigating the British public for being off-message, when even Labour MPs mostly voted against against joining the pathetic 10:10 campaign, recently; see this entry on LabourList for some spin (and interesting comments) on that subject.
The “nowhereisland” stupidity makes me very angry. “Huge numbers of people will be able to get involved with the island and the ideas behind it. nowhereisland will provoke thought, create excitement and will help us to fulfil our ambition to make great art available for everyone.” And from the Arts Council England: “Between 2008 and 2011, we will invest £1.3 billion of public money from government and a further £0.3 billion from the National Lottery to create these experiences for as many people as possible across the country. http://www.artscouncil.org.uk“.
I’m generally a mild-mannered person, but when I read things like that, I start to have some less than peaceful impulses. Brute, I’m almost tempted to ask to borrow your wife’s very efficient-looking handgun (perhaps it could be FedExed over?) so I could venture forth to create some impromptu “art” of my own at the Arts Council. Well, on second thoughts maybe not; I suppose a stern e-mail will have to do.
As I think Max has pointed out in earlier posts, there is a strange and horrible circularity to the way government-sanctioned climate change protest works. We work hard, we pay taxes, the government uses our taxes to encourage Greenpeace lobbyists and fund expensive idiocies such as Bedtime Stories and “nowhereisland” in order to mould our way of thinking – the aim being that we then encourage the government to pour even more of our dwindling tax money down the “tackling climate change” drain, and keep the cycle rolling.
The only flaw is that the wider public – and the climate itself – appear to be no longer co-operating.
Or you could just purchase your own…..I recommend Glock.
Remember: An armed society is a polite society.
Brute,
It always worth going back to the original text. This is the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
So its good to know that your wife is part of a “well regulated Militia”.
It also worth remembering that this was drafted in 1791 , just two years after the outbreak of the French revolution. The concept of an armed ‘well regulated militia’ outside the control of the ruling classes was certainly both radical and revolutionary. The UK at the time was ruled by the Tory aristocracy who would certainly have ruthlessly suppressed any attempt to set up similar militias there.
I thought you might have accused me of anti Americanism when I suggested that your democratic system was corrupted by, and in the pockets of, big business. Instead you agreed with me. Even on climate questions too? So maybe there is some common ground after all.
That’s right Pete! The right of a free people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I’ll let you know if I decide to join a militia. Right now, I’m a militia of one.
And yes, I’m certain that we agree on many things……it’s just that you’re simply wrong about the global warming thing……
Regarding the politics and big business corruption, you’re correct again…….Big global warming “green” industrialists are paying off American politicians. That’s why a failed politician like Al Gore is now worth 100 million dollars.
Check out General Electric stock (I’m a shareholder)……they build wind turbines and the CEO, Jeff Immelt, has Obama in his hip pocket. General Electric also owns NBC News……another cheerleader of Obama, (the propaganda arm of the Obama administration), and his agenda.
They’re also heavy in the healthcare thing http://www.gehealthcare.com/worldwide.html………another big payday for those that own GE stock.
You’re a lunatic, but not a complete lunatic.
Brute,
You don’t seem to like the second amendment as it was actually written. You’ve ceated your own sub-amendment with the word “free” added and left out the part about “regulated militia”. You don’t seem quite so keen on that bit. I guess square bashing at 5am and 10km runs aren’t quite your thing?
Peter M
You opined:
Whom would you identify as “the mighty”, Peter? (Please try to be specific.)
The danger I see from the AGW craze is that the fat cats (see above) are lining up to cash in from it. Al Gore has already done so, but he will really hit the jackpot if cap ‘n trade becomes the general standard. As Brute has pointed out, GE and many other large corporations are also hoping to cash in. Enron would have had a bonanza if they hadn’t imploded on their own greed before the AGW gravy train really took off. The smart oil companies as well as electrical power suppliers will also get a piece of the action. AGW is a multi-billion dollar big business, Peter, and the “mighty” will benefit from it (at the expense of everyone else).
This new gold rush is very much like the “military-industrial complex” that Eisenhower warned us about over 50 years ago with these words:
Bjorn Lomborg’s WSJ article compares the current “climate-industrial complex” with the “military-industrial complex” Eisenhower warned us of. His point is well taken.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286145192740987.html
Back then the justification was “saving the free world”. Today it is even more grandiose, i.e. “saving the planet”.
But the real name of the game then as now is gaining profits and political power.
To your second point, you wrote:
Peter, I don’t know what you were smoking when you wrote this silly sentence, but let me point out to you that I like democratic systems. Switzerland is the oldest living democracy, with its nucleus founded in 1291 and several new cantons joining it over the centuries. It is not a perfect democracy (this does not exist in practice at any scale more than a few hundred individuals).
I have drawn from your posts that it is really you who despises democracy and, in particular its essential companion, freedom.
The “little man” in the USA and the UK must be “brainwashed” by the government in order to convince him to submit to a draconian tax, with the motto of giving up a bit of his freedom for the “common good” (as defined by the government). The UK “fairy tale” ad (other thread) is just a particularly odoriferous approach at this, but we see similar ads (a bit less tasteless and more subtle) in other countries as well.
This is “big brother” at work, Peter, not democracy.
Max
TonyN: the thumbnail note on Chris Rapley at 7888 goes some way to explain the sad failure of the once excellent Science Museum to deal properly with “climate change” – turning itself instead into a propaganda tool of Government. Thanks.
BTW the “in”/”out”count now stands at 468/3133. Most unfortunately, it turns out to be worthless. All simple online yes/no online polls are fairly useless but it’s been pointed out on the WUWT thread that this one is especially so as it’s easy to post multiple votes – i.e. to cheat. That’s great pity as it gives the Government a good excuse to ignore it. Either the Science Museum was absurdly careless in setting it up (which doesn’t say much for its competence) or it’s all a cunning plan: we know the vote will go against us, so let’s design it so that we can discredit it.
Has anyone noticed that there is a guest post from David Whitehouse, the instigator of this thread, here:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=229
The Sunday Telegraph has an article on that Science Museum poll. Its sub-headline describes it as having “backfired after being hijacked by sceptics”. Pity about the “hijacked” – but I suppose it may be (partly) true: see my 7898. The ST reports that the results are due to be published in December.
More important (given the inadequacy of the poll): I wonder if they will also publish the comments?