Lord God Almighty.Even the BBC, the fracking BBC, is beginning to ask about global warming, following the revelations of Climategate.
When you read the piece, you'll see that the BBC is still trying to defend the unfalsifiable hypotheses of its 'One World Government' friends, but even so; will wonders never cease?
42 comments:
Check the date, my dear, and I think you will find that the BBC posted this article *before* so-called Climategate. And I think it would fair to say that the question in the title is something of a journalistic device. Paul Hudson is not suggesting that global warming is not happening – he quotes the British Met Office as saying that "the long-term trend in global temperatures ... is clearly up." The only perplexity is over the short-term situation.
Look at it this way. If you have a normal pair of dice and you keep throwing them, you will obtain scores ranging from 2 to 12. Over the long term, your average score will be 7. If I change the 1 on one of the dice to a 7, your average score over the long term will rise to 8 – a 14% or so increase. Nonetheless, you could keep throwing the doctored dice for ages and still never get a score about 12 – indeed, it's quite possible that, as chance will have it, you get a run of low scores for a while. That's perfectly possible and easily explained – and yet it doesn't alter the fact that the underlying trend in the long term will see a 14% increase in your average score.
What concerns the Met Office and others is not that a decade of "cooler" temperatures (cooler, that is, than the record high of 1998, but still remarkably warm) proves that global warming is not taking place, but that it makes it easier for (often mischievous) "sceptics" to confuse and mislead less-well-informed members of the public and persuade them of what, actually, EVERYONE would much prefer to be the case: that global warming is not happening.
Check the date, my dear, and I think you will find that the BBC posted this article *before* so-called Climategate.
Well, my dear, in my shock at seeing the BBC dare to be even-handed on the AGW debate, I should have realised that it was too good to be true that the BBC would actually cover something in depth that the entire rest of the media was covering, including George Monbiot at the Grauniad, just because other people were talking about it. However, if you need another BBC link, how about the following pair:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8371597.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8377465.stm
Yes, it's pretty weak stuff, and much more in line with what I would have expected from these socialist bed-wetters, but at least a slight chip has been made in the Stalinist façade. Once we cut the BBC off from their licence fee, and make payments towards them voluntary rather than via compulsion, then we should really begin to see some even-handed coverage of stories, rather than simply being the broadcasting wing of the Grauniad.
And I think it would fair to say that the question in the title is something of a journalistic device. Paul Hudson is not suggesting that global warming is not happening – he quotes the British Met Office as saying that "the long-term trend in global temperatures ... is clearly up." The only perplexity is over the short-term situation.
Why perplexed? We're in an interglacial. There is going to be an ice age. The only question is whether we are on the upswing of the interglacial, the downswing, or the cusp. In all three phases there is going to be considerable volatility, based mainly on the volatility of power output from the Sun. But why 'perplexed'? The Earth's temperatures on based on the Sun's power outputs, and the Sun's power outputs are volatile, with many overlapping waves through time of increases and decreases in power output.
The hockey stick, as well as completely missing out the medieval warm period, predicts that once global warming gets going, then it really starts ramping up. And yet it isn't ramping up. It's going down, and has been now for 11 years. The hockey stick is thus dead in the water. How many more years will it take for the British Met Office, another bunch of tax-eating bearded bedwetters, to accept the outside possibility that they are completely wrong about AGW? Ten more years? Twenty years? Fifty years? How 'perplexed' will they be in 100 years, if the next ice age hits, and they're still predicting AGW?
"Hey guys, the theory says it should be getting really hot by now, but people are freezing to death out there. What's wrong with nature? Doesn't it realise that it should be baking hot by now? How dare it not follow our theory. After all, we're the British Met Office, the centre of all reason."
Hopefully by then we'll have cut these tax-eaters off from compulsory funding too, and made them earn a living in the voluntary market.
What they really need to be working out is when the next ice age is coming, and whether it's coming soon. That will be the real test of mankind's ability to survive environmental change.
And as I said in the blog piece, the BBC is still trying to defend the unfalsifiable hypotheses of its friends in the global warming lobby. After all, as a tax-eating entity, the BBC feels a patriotic socialist duty to defend its tax-eating friends in the global warming lobby, to help them increase taxes on the rest of us for the rest of time. The only problem is that all of their theorising has been based on four sets of data, the most 'reliable' of which was allegedly the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, now shown quite conclusively to have been rigged, manipulated, and massaged to produce figures in line with what the so-called scientists wanted to see, rather than with the annoying perplexity of actual reality.
Look at it this way. If you have a normal pair of dice and you keep throwing them, you will obtain scores ranging from 2 to 12. Over the long term, your average score will be 7. If I change the 1 on one of the dice to a 7, your average score over the long term will rise to 8 – a 14% or so increase. Nonetheless, you could keep throwing the doctored dice for ages and still never get a score about 12 – indeed, it's quite possible that, as chance will have it, you get a run of low scores for a while. That's perfectly possible and easily explained – and yet it doesn't alter the fact that the underlying trend in the long term will see a 14% increase in your average score.
So how long, John, does your Monte Carlo scenario have to keep going, before you'll acknowledge that your underlying premise is wrong? How can your ideas ever be falsified? One, could, of course, completely reverse your Monte Carlo theorising and say that the Earth's temperature could rise every year for 200 years, and for this still to just be the operation of chance, with each year having a chance of being warmer than the previous year, purely on random probability. If, and I say if advisedly, it has been getting warmer "in the long-term", could this not just be mere chance? Or simply the upswing of the interglacial? And how do you know that we are not now on the downswing of the interglacial? How do you know, 'for a fact'? Are you basing these facts on CRU-interpreted data? And on heat measuring station data from concrete urban sites which used to be rural? And from 'factual data' that has just been plain made up by CRU 'scientists'?
Imagine, a situation for a moment. Imagine that AGW really didn't exist. That might be hard to do, but give it a go. But imagine that there had been a long-term warming trend, say from 1950 onwards, building up to a warm year in 1998, at which point we all noticed it, but that this trend was entirely due to chance. Imagine then if the temperature had increased every year since then, purely through chance. Do you think for a moment that the environmentalist movement wouldn't be jumping up and down in the streets absolutely demanding that 'something' be done because of this 'proof'? And yet, when the temperatures decline for 11 straight years, despite what the hockey stick said should happen, then this is to be dismissed as mere volatility? But if it goes up, then it's 'proof'? I think Marie Antoinette called that having your cake and eating it.
What concerns the Met Office and others is not that a decade of "cooler" temperatures (cooler, that is, than the record high of 1998, but still remarkably warm) proves that global warming is not taking place, but that it makes it easier for (often mischievous) "sceptics" to confuse and mislead less-well-informed members of the public and persuade them of what, actually, EVERYONE would much prefer to be the case: that global warming is not happening.
Record high of 1998? A record against what? Against the maximum temperature the Earth has ever been? Or just a record against the last 100 years? Hotter than the Medieval warm period? Hotter than when the dinosaurs were alive?
Take a look at this post:
http://angloaustria.blogspot.com/2009/11/climategate-scandal-spreads-plot.html
Take at look at around 1912. From the raw data on that NZ chart, it looks like this was a warmer year than 1998. Or I am, poor uneducated prole that I am, misreading the data?
Mischevious? Moi? That's probably because I'm in the pay of an evil multinational oil company. It's certainly not because I think the entire AGW movement is populated by misled fanatics, based upon faked evidence, and going to drive humanity into the stone age, if allowed to get everything it wants.
Oh, and those poor misled less-well-informed members of the public. I do wish these poor tax-paying proles would just shut up and listen to what their betters are telling them, rather than daring to refute it.
The environmentalists would actually do well to stop being so arrogant, especially when they are so plainly wrong. They are nothing more than a religious group, following an unfalsifiable set of beliefs, and who will accept no proof of anything, unless that proof aligns with their pre-designated world view.
And please don't try to insult me by saying that EVERYONE would wish this was not happening. Are you really naïve enough to believe that politicians don't like getting great excuses to raise taxes and powers for themselves, and that scientists don't like getting great big research grants and lovely fat tenured salaries, and that eco-companies don't like getting privileged subsidies to build their wind farms, and all the eco-mentalists don't like getting their views aired on the BBC, and the chance to pompously pontificate to the rest of us about how right they are, and about how wrong we are? No wonder they're all perplexed by reality. Reality is showing that AGW is hogwash. And the gravy train is about to be pulled, and that another driver towards world government is about to get trashed.
Anyhow John, I think you need to read someone a bit more thorough than me in my trashing of the Eco-Nazi movement. Try these George Reisman articles on for size, and see how you feel:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reisman/reisman42.html
http://mises.org/story/661
http://mises.org/daily/2591
http://www.capitalism.net/Environmentalism's%20Toxicity.htm
http://blog.mises.org/archives/006389.asp
And while you're at it, John, try this article too, by Dr. Tim Ball:
=> http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17102#
Ah, now I understand. So much right-wing spleen is vented in your replies - the BBC is Stalinist, environmentalists are Nazis, everyone is hell-bent on world government - I get the impression that this is much more to do with a libertarian political ideology than common sense.
I love the idea that all around the world politicians are revelling in the thought of asking their electorates to go easy on the consumerism. Obviously your information about the world is very different from mine, because I simply cannot see Britain's politicians taking advantage of a "great excuse to raise taxes and powers for themselves".
One thing reassures me, though. No one else has posted any comments on your blog, which rather suggests that very few people are reading it.
Ah, now I understand. So much right-wing spleen is vented in your replies - the BBC is Stalinist, environmentalists are Nazis, everyone is hell-bent on world government - I get the impression that this is much more to do with a libertarian political ideology than common sense.
Oh dear, John, you sad little man. It must be awful living in your tiny little head. I tell you what, as you ignored everything I said and didn't bother replying to it, as it's obviously too much for you to understand, why not try a different tack? Instead of bothering to reply to me, just read the following two very sober articles, by sensible Climatologist Professors, and then let me know what you think? That would be really interesting. Obviously, you can just keep going with the ad hominem stuff, as I can, but does that really get either of us anywhere? Read these articles. Maybe they might help you get that rod from out of your derriere:
1. http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl/death-blow-to-climate-science.html
2. http://www.stephankinsella.com/wp-content/uploads/texts/lindzen-rockhurst-2009.pdf
It would actually be really interesting to know what you think. If you do think, that is, rather than just devouring the Guardian each day.
I love the idea that all around the world politicians are revelling in the thought of asking their electorates to go easy on the consumerism.
Sorry, lost me there on that. What on Earth are you talking about? You've either been asleep for the last ten years, or spending all your time finishing off your PhD in environmental science. Either way, you're not making much sense. And John, I know lots of people have said that to you before, so please don't bother trying to deny it.
Obviously your information about the world is very different from mine
Yes, that's because I don't just accept everything I read in the licensed media, believe everything I hear on the BBC, or accept that the government is my friend.
You want to try getting out a bit more, John, from whichever part of the tax-eating nexus that you're currently living in.
(Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that you're either a Phd student, or an untenured Doctor, in something like either environmental science or political economy - Let me know. I'm pretty certain you're a tax eater, of some stripe. I would be delighted to find out that I've guessed wrongly, to help me become more accurate in the future.)
because I simply cannot see Britain's politicians taking advantage of a "great excuse to raise taxes and powers for themselves".
Oh dear, you really have been duped, haven't you. It's a terrible shame. But you'll figure it out eventually, if you ever want to take the fingers out of your ears or remove the mask from over your eyes.
One thing reassures me, though. No one else has posted any comments on your blog, which rather suggests that very few people are reading it.
Oh there we go with the ad hominem stuff again because you have run out of arguments. It really is a sign of weakness, John. You really ought to stop doing it.
Let's get down to basics.
The entire AGW movement is based on the HadCRUT data. The HadCRUT data has just been shown to be a pack of lies. Therefore the AGW movement is intellectually finished. Yes, politically there's still some zombiefied steam left in it, because ideas often take years, sometimes decades, for the general population to take up, but John, your movement is finished.
It is dead. It is an ex-movement. It has ceased to be. It is only now a question of time before it folds up and disappears, thank the Lord.
No wonder George Monbiot is feeling so alone.
(Actually, BTW, if you read this or any other anarcho-capitalist site, you would realise that we actually revel in being a tiny minority, in the same way that Marx and Engels revelled in being a tiny minority when there were only two such communists in the world. Didn't stop their ideas from taking over the world now, though, did it? However, it is not numbers of people behind an idea that matters, John. It is whether the ideas are right or not.
The whole world, including me, could believe in the AGW myth. But if it WAS a myth, then it would not matter at all that everyone believed in it. It would still be wrong. As indeed, it is. If it was a plausible hypothesis, then why did the HadCRUT claque have to doctor the data? Why did they have to remove the medieval warm period? Why did they refuse to release their doctored data? Why did they 'accidentally' lose their data, when pressed by the Freedom of Information Act to release it? These people are all paid by taxpayers. They are therefore servants of these taxpayers. Therefore they should do what these taxpayers want. How dare they refuse to release this information. Let us hope that all of their careers in climatology are now finished, and that people like Professor Tim Ball can take it over again.
As you obviously have no ideas left, and are having to resort to insulting me, I feel very sad for you.
BTW, you haven't accused me of being a racist yet. D'you not think that you should rectify this before you go back to eating some more tax?
And while you're doing that, read the articles above by Professors Lindzen and Ball.
If you read carefully over what I wrote,I think you will find that I didn't make any ad hominem remarks at all, except to refer to your right-wing spleen and suggest that you are a libertarian - but "anarcho-capitalist" possibly means much the same thing, if that is the label you prefer. And your response was largely to vent a lot more spleen.
Your wild guesses about who or what I am are way off the mark. I come from a family of scientists and engineers, but I myself am a freelance writer and editor. And, as such, one of the things that strikes me over and over again is how overheated and plain nasty a lot of the comment from the sceptic side of the debate is. I don't read the Guardian, as it happens, and I take the BBC with a pinch of salt; but I do sometimes read George Monbiot on line and I find that the comments that follow his pieces are usually overflowing with bile. On the other hand, when I find pro-AGW comments posted on line they are almost invariably sober and earnest. I find that quite revealing about the two camps.
Those who claim that there is a "conspiracy" going on insist that some people's views on climatology have been dictated, or at least heavily influenced, by their politics. Of course, that argument cuts both ways, and I have to say that I find it much more plausible that the people - mostly non-scientists, as far as I can see - who deny that the global climate is changing are motivated by their fear of global government (whatever that is meant to mean) and their often extreme libertarianism than that those who believe that the global climate is, or may be, changing are motivated by a desire for global government and a wish to spoil everyone else's life.
Ah well. I realise that this "discussion" we are having is entirely futile, and to be honest I only engaged in it for amusement. Toodle-pip!
Still though John, it would have been nice if you could have responded to my questions or read the articles I suggested, so we could get your response for our amusement.
Let's just raise the central debating point again, and see if you can provide us with a response:
The entire AGW movement is based on the HadCRUT data. The HadCRUT data has been shown to be a pack of lies. The entire AGW movement should therefore shut up and disappear, or at least show us another data source that they can show us is unimpeachable.
Discuss.
I think you will find that the fear of AGW - I have no idea why you call it a "movement" - was not based merely on the HadCRUT data, and I am not sure that that data has been shown to be "a pack of lies".
Incidentally, one thing that strikes me about your side of the argument is that you seem to feel free to cite people who say climate change is not happening, people who say it is happening but is not caused by anything humankind is doing and people who say it is happening and is possibly caused by us but there's nothing we can do about it so we shouldn't bother trying. The only thing these three positions have in common is - which seems to be the "sceptics'" basic concern - that there is no point in us trying to modify the way we live, so let's not.
Most of the sceptical arguments I have read, when one examines them, turn out to be based on misinterpretations or misunderstandings - whether deliberate or not I couldn't say. Most of the high-profile sceptics - Monckton, Brooker, Lawson in this country, whoever in the States - appear to be journalists rather than scientists.
I have no idea why your posts are always so full of spleen, but maybe there is a physiological explanation for it. Anyway, while I would be interested in engaging in a serious discussion about AGW with a serious, sober person of good faith, I don't think I have found one here.
Hi John.
Apologies for the late reply, but I had an important business meeting in London this afternoon, that I couldn't miss. Also, apologies for the multiple comments. Seeing as you spent a decent time period on your latest comment, I thought you deserved a full reply, and Blogger doesn't seem capable of handling more than a certain limited number of words. Anyhow, let's get cracking...
I think you will find that the fear of AGW - I have no idea why you call it a "movement"
Well, that's possibly because it's a movement.
You're a writer, John, so perhaps we ought to use a dictionary definition:
Move·ment -> "An organized effort by supporters of a common goal"
Now a common goal of some people in the world (and you may or may not actually include yourself in this group) is to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released by human beings in order to offset its effects as an alleged 'greenhouse gas'. This is because they believe in the idea of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), or more simply, that human beings are responsible, at least partially, for an alleged rise in global temperatures in last few hundred years, particularly because of the use of high-carbon fossil fuels, such as coal and oil from the industrial revolution onwards. Some of these people are organised in groups such as Greenpeace, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Earth System Governance Project, and many more. These groups are organised. They have a common purpose. These groups support the idea of AGW. Therefore, they could, possibly, be called a "movement".
Call me mad, but here's some other blog posts that refer to the AGW movement as a "movement". I know most of these bloggers don't follow your political line, but I wasn't aware that I had to ask permission from you before I could use the word "movement" in a sentence. Perhaps you ought to contact the owners of the following blogs and also correct them for not asking your permission. (Some of the posts are actually quite interesting, once we can get over their using the word "movement", without permission):
What Does the AGW Movement Have in Common with Jihad?
Weird science: East Anglia CRU threw out their raw data
As AGW Is Exposed As A Hoax, EU President Tells Us The Real Purpose
More Real Grassroots Folks Launch Real Grassroots AGW Movement
The Global Warming Movement (AGW) has taken on the worrisome attributes of a pseudo-religious cult, which operates far more on the basis of an apocalyptic “belief” system than on objective climate science. (Yes, I know this last reference is a little tangential. But the exception proves the rule.)
Is five enough references to other people describing the AGW movement as a movement, or would you like some more?
was not based merely on the HadCRUT data, and I am not sure that that data has been shown to be "a pack of lies".
Well perhaps the use of the phrase "pack of lies", is perhaps an overly flowery rhetorical flourish, but I think we all know what I mean. In case it's unclear, and in case I'm being a little inarticulate, I think Professor Ball puts the case more authoritatively in his article below:
=> The Death Blow to Climate Science
Even George Monbiot is asking questions, and perhaps without going so far as to say that the HadCRUT data is all a pack of lies, I am happy to report him saying "There is a word for the apparent repeated attempts to prevent disclosure revealed in these emails: unscientific."
To me, it's all a pack of lies from beginning to end, over 25 years. But I'll take "unscientific", if that's all that is on offer.
Incidentally, one thing that strikes me about your side of the argument is that you seem to feel free to cite people who say climate change is not happening, people who say it is happening but is not caused by anything humankind is doing and people who say it is happening and is possibly caused by us but there's nothing we can do about it so we shouldn't bother trying. The only thing these three positions have in common is - which seems to be the "sceptics'" basic concern - that there is no point in us trying to modify the way we live, so let's not.
Of course climate change is going on. Climate change has always been going on. And until the Sun finally explodes into a red giant, which really will give us catastrophic environmental conditions, climate change will keep going on. As I said in an earlier post, we are in an interglacial. An ice age is coming. Until it comes, our climate will remain volatile, either on an interglacial upswing, downswing, or cusp.
There's very little we can do about this. If you think you can stop incipient ice ages, John, then you have my permission to try. Perhaps a more sensible approach might be, though, to just deal with the weather that is thrown at us by nature, and try our best to get along with each other as we do so, without inflicting our climatic theory views upon each other (which may or may not be wrong). This, in the view of the anarcho-capitalist movement, would be best done by assigning far more private property rights, to better manage the environment. You can see a great article on that, here:
=> Free-Market Environmentalism
The UK Weather centre can't even predict the weather from five days out with any level of certainty greater than sticking their finger in the air. How dare they then predict that they know exactly what the weather will be in 100 years time (or even further out). Their computers cannot even cope with chaos a month out. How on Earth did they suddenly develop the ability to overcome chaos measured in centuries?
But there are far more important things to worry about than "global warming", which may or may not be partially caused by carbon dioxide levels, which may or may not be significantly impacted upon by our behaviour as human beings. The central problem for the AGW movement (there I go again) is that IT IS GETTING COLDER and has been now for 11 years. This is despite the hockey stick model which said that once "global warming" got going, that it would rapidly accelerate upwards.
Yes, you may say "but the long-term trend is still upwards", but you are basing that on the HadCRUT data, which even George Monbiot is now calling unscientific (and which I'm calling a pack of lies.)
Let's hope that this global cooling that we've been having is not leading us into the next ice age, as that really will be catastrophic environmental change.
If I was an environmentalist, then I would be far more concerned with the levels of mercury being released into the atmosphere, and other heavy metal poisons, which may or may not have been responsible for the huge waves of autism, asperger's syndrome, and other behavioural problems being encountered throughout the world. Carbon dioxide is not a poison in the same terms as mercury, or radioactive waste, or other heavy/radiated metals released by worldwide industry. Carbon dioxide is a natural product of animals and FOOD to most of the vegetative species of Earth.
To quote from Professor Ball: 'CO2 never was a problem and all the machinations and deceptions exposed by these files prove that it was the greatest deception in history, but nobody is laughing. It is a very sad day for science and especially my chosen area of climate science. As I expected now it is all exposed I find there is no pleasure in “I told you so.”'
At the very least, the AGW movement should take stock and ask why the globe is cooling and re-examine its models and theoretical claims in the light of the corruption of the key HadCRUT data. That they are not doing so, and just sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "La, La, La" (with the notable exception of George Monbiot) just makes those of us on the other side of the debate laugh at these religious fanatics even more than we had been doing.
What we've been saying for all of these years, that global warming is junk science pushed out by fanatics, is becoming more obvious to everyone as time passes, EXCEPT the AGW movement, who appear to be becoming more hysterical as temperatures and time continue to move against them. Indeed, for an interesting slant on this viewpoint, you might want to read Dr Gary North's take on this, written five months before "Climategate":
=> It's Not Just That Global Warming Is Fake. What Matters Is Why This Fakery Is Being Promoted.
If the AGW movement is to continue in its quest to load the rest of us with endless taxations and regulations on our behaviour, and to provide a basal excuse for a world government, something we fought WWII and the Cold War to avoid, then it is no good for it to just label those of us who oppose it as "scumbags" (as Mr Monbiot so delicately puts it), or "deniers" (in the same way that early Christians labelled heretics before they burnt them on the fire), or "sceptics" (as used in a highly derogatory fashion), but it must demonstrate to the rest of us as to why its theories are still accurate despite its key data repository having just been shown to be riddled with unscientific falsifications and why its predictions are all failing to come true.
It should also tell us how its theories can be falsified. So that we can then attempt to falsify them (I believe this used to be known as the 'scientific' method), then we can prove them wrong (in the best Popperian tradition). I'm more of a Kuhnian myself, than a pure Popperian, but I'll take Popperian falsification if that's all that is, once again, on offer.
It would also help the AGW movements cause if they actually spent a lot more time researching the Sun and its energy output cycles, researched the causes of the ice age cycle, and also researched into the gaseous emissions of volcanoes and how they can effect climate (pumping out in just a single Krakatoan explosion more carbon dioxide than humanity can produce over decades).
To massage data, to remove things like the medieval warm period, to provide spurious models like the hockey stick, and then to heap the whole 'blame' for alleged warming on mankind's output of carbon dioxide is an attitude of absolutely monumental anthropogenic arrogance. We are ants on the surface of the Earth, and to drape ourselves in the glory of changing the climate at will is to suppose unbelievable hubris.
Oh, and by the way, the movement towards a world government does not have to be organised by an 'evil cabal'. It can come about quite easily as a self-organising system, the same way that evolution, Wikipedia, and the free market works.
Socialism and government control has always failed, therefore the ideological movement to mask this failure is always to make government bigger because "once it's big enough, then socialism/government control, will FINALLY work".
A similar self-organising system takes place in fractional reserve banking. Because without the force of government diktat, fractional reserve banking would quickly fall apart (indeed, even with the force of government diktat, it is falling apart).
If you read Jesus Huerta de Soto's magnificent book, Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles, then you will learn why banks keep getting bigger and more powerful, due to the underlying self-organising system of fractional reserve banking.
For more on Hayekian self-organising systems, try this:
=> Self-organization
Most of the sceptical arguments I have read, when one examines them, turn out to be based on misinterpretations or misunderstandings - whether deliberate or not I couldn't say. Most of the high-profile sceptics - Monckton, Brooker, Lawson in this country, whoever in the States - appear to be journalists rather than scientists.
Except of course for the 31,000 scientists here (including over 9,000 PhD scientists):
=> Global Warming Petition Project
And dare I mention David Bellamy:
=> Environmentalism, Cyber Siberia, and the destruction of the individual
Or once again, just in case you missed it earlier, Professors Lindzen and Ball, both atmospheric scientists and climatologists (though obviously, of the wrong sort):
=> Global Warming: What is it all about?
=> The Death Blow to Climate Science
I have no idea why your posts are always so full of spleen, but maybe there is a physiological explanation for it.
Well, no. It's because the AGW movement want to tax me to death, and regulate me to death, and to tell me what I can and cannot do for the rest of my life, and I consider the grounds upon which they are doing this spurious at best, and criminal at worst (though actually I'm more of a believer in Dr Gary North's theory that environmentalism is just recycled socialism, with the fall of the Berlin Wall being the marker for the start of mass environmentalist movement.)
That's what happens when people (such as the AGW movement) aggress upon everyone else. Everyone else tends to get a little 'frisky' about it.
Anyway, while I would be interested in engaging in a serious discussion about AGW with a serious, sober person of good faith, I don't think I have found one here.
Serious discussion? Oh, purrrlease John. Out of the numerous posts on environmentalism I have posted on this site in the last few days and weeks, you chose a short and reasonably light-hearted one with an obvious factual error in it (where I had, mea culpa, neglected the check the date on a web page), and then laid into it in the hilarious sporting game of "trashing a denier" (my dear).
You may have tried this to amuse yourself, or amuse some friends, but please don't call it a "serious discussion".
I mean, let's face it, you have not altered your position an iota (I don't think you're actually capable of changing your position), and I've actually become even more anti-AGW in the last few days, as the Climategate revelations have kept dripping out.
It's quite sweet, I suppose, that you chose to try to "trash a denier", on my tiny little site, which only has about 2 regular readers including me! :-)
So thank you for that.
But if you really want to enjoy a really good game of "trashing a denier", then why don't you try to go for some real sport, and go for George Reisman. Here's some of his posts below. I think you'll particularly enjoy reading them:
=> Fallout from Declaring CO2 a Pollutant (A Potential News Dispatch from a World Going Mad)
=> “Green” Jobs
=> The Nature of Environmentalism
For what it's worth, you and/or your friends, may feel you have won some small battle and have successfully "trashed a denier", but try to see it from our point of view, if you can.
You have just come across as an arrogant buffoon who is incapable of defending his position. Your posts started out with a sneering attitude, and have become more aggressive and vitriolic as you have proceeded along, usually (until your last post) proving incapable of answering any questions or responding in any significant way, except to keep accusing me of "venting my spleen", and "being right-wing". (I actually object quite strenuously to that, because being a believer in individual freedom and the totally voluntary society, I consider myself as far away from being right-wing as I consider myself from being left-wing. We anarcho-capitalists are in the extreme middle, with disdain for all forms of collectivism.)
You even walked yourself into the obvious trap of first saying "Goodbye", and then coming back for another go. This is poor.
That you haven't accused me yet of being a racist or a homophobe, I put down to mere oversight. I'm sure you'll rectify this if we keep going long enough.
Jack
I am one of those people who find it hard to resist an argument, even if it is a waste of time. In this case, I think it *is* a waste of time - you must have heard before all the points I might make (such as the elementary point that climate is not the same as weather, and that while weather is chaotic, climate is not) and, for whatever reason, you seem to ignore them. So, I am not sure why I am bothering to respond.
The first leading climatologist I was aware of, 15 or so years ago, was Sir John Houghton. Whenever people like you inform me that AGW is all a worldwide socialist conspiracy designed to bring in world government, I think of him and think: What bollocks! Houghton is cut from very much the same cloth as my father, I think, and nothing could have been less appealing to my dad than either socialism or world government. And to accuse unimpeachable men like them of "junk science" is just absurd - and I can't help noticing that the accusation is usually made by people who are not even scientists themselves. I didn't bother to read the Gary Bell article you suggested further than the opening line "Global warming is based 100% on junk science."
(So much of this kind of comment is based, quite frankly, on bollocks. I did notice that Bell refers to Time and Newsweek talking about global cooling in the Seventies. So what? I don't pay any attention to what Time and Newsweek, or the Sunday Times or the Spectator, say. We are endlessly being told in Britain at the moment that the Met Office predicted a "barbecue summer" for 2009 and therefore its predictions are worthless. But it never did predict that - that is simply what the stupid, sensationalist non-specialist media reported. (See http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090731.html.)
(I also wonder how you account for the fact that the Pentagon has identified climate change as the biggest threat facing the US. Is the Pentagon part of the grand socialist conspiracy too? The mind does boggle rather.)
I am a bit nonplussed by your statement, "If I was an environmentalist, I would be far more concerned with the levels of mercury…" Does that mean that you're not concerned about them? What is environmentalism but the opinion (as someone has put it) that it isn't wise to shit in the bath you're sitting in? And what solution do you see to the problem of mercury poisoning? So far, the world has dealt best with pollutants such as CFCs and POPs - and other threats such as Aids - through global agencies such as the UN and the WHO agreeing global regulations. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is another form of would-be global regulation. Are you opposed to all of these, too? Do you regard them all as insidious moves towards world government? And what is the WTO but a form of world government? Some of these developments I see as positive and some I see as negative, as I think most sensible people do. (The idea of seven, going on nine, 10 or 14, billion people living on this planet in any form of anarchy seems to me a recipe for disaster.)
I did read some of the articles you drew my attention to, but I didn't find much there that was very compelling. So often people attack straw men. So carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it's food for plants! So what? Water is just as fundamental to life, but that doesn't mean you can never have too much water. Vitamins are essential to life, but too much of them is life-threatening. Salt is essential to life, but ditto. This is such a basic point, I lose respect for people on your side who try to obscure it.
Ditto the hoary old line that 40 years ago "the same scientists were predicting global cooling." When I checked that, I found this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643. In fact, that whole series in New Scientist is very helpful. btw, I often read the comments that follow such pieces, both pro and con: and I generally find the pro comments more sober, more serious, more polite (by far) and more convincing.
Very often when I investigate points made by the "sceptic" movement (since your dictionary definition allows me to call it such) I find that they come to nothing - which makes me doubt the good faith of that movement. A good example is the point that malaria used to be endemic in Siberia, which is clearly meant to leave the impression that Siberia was once very warm. I looked into that and found that the truth is that malaria-carrying mosquitos can flourish even in very cold climes. (For example, there was an outbreak of malaria in Finland in 1941 - see http://www.malariajournal.com/content/7/S1/S3.)
One sleight of hand that is endlessly practised on your side of the argument leaves the public with the impression that conditions that pertained in the US, or in Europe, were global conditions. The Medieval Warm Period seems to be a case in point. For obvious reasons, nobody has figures for the global mean temperatures in the Middle Ages; but the "sceptics" try to imply that because we know that there was agriculture in Greenland then, it therefore follows that the whole planet was much warmer - which of course does not follow. (Indeed, I would have thought - off the top of my head - that if the whole world *had* been warmer then, medieval London would have been under water, since all the water currently locked up in land-borne ice would have been in the oceans and the volume of the water in the oceans would also have been swollen by simple expansion. My understanding is that the MWP can only have been a regional aberration, and common sense suggests that it must have been compensated by unusual coolness in other parts of the global system - which I think is what Michael Mann was trying to establish when he talked about "hiding" the MWP - but it is being used very effectively by the "sceptics" to confuse the public - in the classic way pioneered by the PR agencies that were "sceptical" about the harmful effects of smoking.
I put "sceptics" in inverted commas because, while I have no doubt that some people's doubts are genuine, I suspect that many of the loudest voices are not so much sceptical about AGW as fanatical believers in something else that can't co-exist with it - for example, an extreme form of libertarianism, a paranoia about world government, an addiction to consumerism - or just their own financial interests. I am not suggesting that you come into any of those categories, btw.
I can't find for you the URL of the article in New Scientist I found yesterday that said that well over 90% of the professional climatologists who responded to their survey were more or less convinced of AGW. No doubt there are a few distinguished climatologists who demur. I remember a Channel 4 documentary in the 1980s in which a Cambridge professor billed as "Britain's top virologist" *insisted* that there was no way that Aids was caused by HIV. Happily, the world community did not wait until 100% of scientists agreed that HIV was the culprit before taking action to combat Aids. The apparent threat was so urgent that no one had the luxury of waiting until the scientific community was unanimous and the science settled beyond question.
(Incidentally, imagine if the Catholic Church, objecting on ideological grounds to the promotion of "safe sex", had employed the same tactics as the tobacco industry and tried to hamstring all attempts to take action against the spread of HIV by telling the public constantly that "the science was not settled" and "the debate was not over". I am guessing that you would have regarded that as little short of criminal. For the same reason, many environmentalists regard what the "climate sceptics" are doing as little short of criminal. In some cases, I would agree.)
You may, of course, object that the AGW "movement" (and, going by your dictionary definition, I would suggest that "movements" would be more accurate) tends to exaggerate things. For example, the point that malaria is not unknown in Siberia may have been a response to the point, made by Hilary Benn among others, that climate change might make malaria endemic in Britain. No doubt many scientists wince at some of the exaggerations, but I think it is not difficult to explain them, and even justify them.
I'm sure you know that, for Britain, the first phase of the Second World War was what came to be known as the Phony War. People in London and Liverpool couldn't hear any guns across the Channel, couldn't see any bombers in the sky, couldn't see any evidence at all that hostilities were underway. And yet they were being asked - indeed, ordered - by their government to accept rationing, a blackout and much else. Poster campaigns told them to be careful what they said to each other, even in whispered conversations, because Himmler and Goering might be sitting behind them on the bus! Was the government justified in doing what it did? Yes, absolutely. The fact that the war, and the threat of Nazism, seemed totally unreal in late 1939, early 1940 did not mean that it was illusory. And we have a much bigger problem today in that there is a long time-lag between the emission of GH gases and their impact on the climate. The sense of unreality might last for 30 years - and yet, IF AGW is a fact, the time to do something about it is very short. So, the exaggerations are understandable, and may be justified. We live, I would say, in a strange culture that is not very good at assessing risk, and we tend to be very intolerant of even minor inconveniences while at the same time being generally blase about threats of really serious harm. (Take, for example, our complete indifference in London to the state of our ancient sewage system, even as millions of us obsessively wipe down all our kitchen surfaces with anti-bacterials.)
Finally - because I do really need to stop, because I know that I am not going to persuade you of anything, and nothing you have said to me so far has been at all persuasive (though some of it has been instructive) - I am so impatient with these scare tactics about taxation &c &c. I am not aware of any reputable Green who is arguing for the burden of taxation to be increased. There are projections that the unit cost of energy should rise considerably, but the corollary (and the aim) would be that people were much more energy-efficient. The "sceptics" endlessly tell the public that the Greens want everyone to go back to living in caves, and it just convinces me all the more that they are not arguing in good faith, because it is such manifest bollocks - like the Imperial Roman elite telling the proles that Christians practised cannibalism. What I find so frustrating is that there are so many possibilities for a low- or zero-carbon society that still enjoys high technology and a high standard of living; but they are being resisted by conservative vested interests - the oil industry, the car industry and others - who likes things just the way they are and don't give a fuck about the world that our children and grandchildren will inherit.
OK, I must stop. I've just worked my way through to your latest posts and find that you have abandoned civility again for spleen. Which is a shame. Re David Bellamy: I have never heard any environmentalist express a desire to dance on his grave, though I have heard people express dismay and sadness that he has taken the line that he does. He is, of course, a botanist, not a climatologist; and I don't believe he is a great botanist, he is just one with a great gift for television. Re the 32,000 scientists, including 9,000+ with PhDs: I would want to see some analysis of what constitutes a scientist. Being the son of a scientist, I am very aware that scientists who opine outside their specialism are as capable of talking bollocks as anyone else. Maybe that petition was ignored by the media because (for once) they had the sense to attach more weight to the judgements of the great majority of people engaged in the climate sciences than the opinion of 32,000 (which is still a small minority) of all those who have ever donned a white lab coat for whatever reason. Re Lindzen and Bell: their judgements need to be noted, just as the judgement of "Britain's top virologist" that Aids could not possibly be anything to do with HIV should be noted; but they need to be weighed against the judgements of other experts who are just as authoritative.
Ah well, I have got to the end of your posts and see that you have returned to your caustic sarcasm. (I admit that I was the first to say "my dear", which I now somewhat regret. I was not looking for a "denier" to "trash", I was merely responding, in a rather ad-hoc, spur-of-the-moment way, to a rather snide post that was based on an error of fact. I have just read Reisman's post, and it was a fascinating insight into a worldview very alien to mine. There are many people who could respond in kind by cataloguing all the suffering that unregulated capitalism has inflicted on the world.
Toodle-pip!
PS I've just caught up with Dr Gary North, and am rather surprised that you give credence to a man who has written: "In winning a nation to the gospel, the sword as well as the pen must be used" and "The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control." Blimey! Don't talk to me about people with sinister purposes.
I understand that he also raised the alarm about a Y2K calamity. Isn't Y2K alarmism one of the sticks that is always used to beat environmentalists with, on the spurious grounds that as that "scare" proved to be ill founded, it follows that all "scares" are ill founded?
Hi John,
Apologies for the upcoming fairly short reply. I've got to go to the West Country this afternoon, for an all day business meeting tomorrow in Devon, but I'll try to reply briefly to the substantive points.
I am one of those people who find it hard to resist an argument
D'ya think?
So, I am not sure why I am bothering to respond.
Well, I was kind of wondering myself.
...a worldwide socialist conspiracy designed to bring in world government...
Well, I had thought I had covered that with self-organizing systems. See earlier for response.
I didn't bother to read the Gary Bell article you suggested further than the opening line "Global warming is based 100% on junk science."
Well, you see, this is what we find infuriating about the AGW movement. If someone, no matter how qualified, no matter whether they themselves are a Professor of Climatology, says they are opposed to the AGW hypothesis, this immediately rules out anything they have to say about the AGW hypothesis, to the point where they are not even read.
Does the phrase 'unfalsifiable' mean anything to you at all, John? It's like medieval churchmen refusing to hear any views on religion from non-Christians. "He is an unbeliever, therefore his views are immaterial". I find it all very sad.
much of this kind of comment is based, quite frankly, on bollocks.
Ah, steady John. You can't accuse me of being uncivil if you yourself are going to adopt uncivil language. Retain the higher ground, John. You are better than us. You do not need to stoop to our level.
So what?
Starting to sound like Ed Balls now, John.
Is the Pentagon part of the grand socialist conspiracy too? The mind does boggle rather.
Part of it, John? It's the absolute centre of it. But alas I don't have time to go into details. Instead, go to LewRockwell.com and search for "Pentagon", "Military Industrial Complex", and "PATRIOT Act".
mean that you're not concerned about them?
Of course I'm concerned about them, which is why I want private property rights extended to every sphere of the world to help combat such things. But to me the term environmentalist means "brain dead Guardian-reading tax-eating watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside) eco-mentalist BBC-loving dead beat".
Let's just say that I am as concerned about the environment as anyone else. After all (and you may find this shocking), I live on this planet too.
what solution do you see to the problem of mercury poisoning?
Well, once again I had thought I had covered that earlier with the response on the extension of private property rights. Search for articles on private property environmentalism and pollution. Essentially, the polluter pays. You identify the polluter who has aggressed against your property with mercury poisoning, and get them to make you whole again and clean up their act.
insidious moves towards world government?
What's insidious about it? It's all absolutely in the open, with the new EU president even gleefully saying that he hopes to help build a new world government. If you want to live under a world government, John, well good luck to you. If you can't see that it will quickly become an unescapable hell on Earth, then there's really no helping you.
the WTO but a form of world government?
Yes, the WTO is a form of world government. Which is why the Austrian anarcho-capitalist movement is completely opposed to it. Haven't got time to write the necessary 10,000 words to explain this. Search on LewRockwell.com or Mises.org for "WTO". You may find it instructive.
I don't know where you get your ideas on libertarianism from, John. You seem to think I have a lot of views I would never in a million years tolerate. I oppose the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the soon-to-be wars in Pakistan and Iran. I oppose all forms of corporatist multi-state government. Hell, I oppose county council government, and even parish council government. So why would I support something as horrific as the WTO? Anyway, check out the web sites mentioned above for more on this.
form of anarchy seems to me a recipe for disaster
Well, it's sad for me to see that you're incapable of imagining how a totally voluntary society could work, and how you can only tolerate societies ruled by force, but that really is your problem, and nothing I could possibly say will persuade you otherwise. You'll just have to come to our view by yourself, once all the contradictions of socialism become too much to handle.
A good book to start with is "A Theory of Capitalism and Socialism" by Professor Hoppe. Then, "Human Action" by Professor Mises, then "Man, Economy, and State" by Professor Rothbard. Before all of that, if you're feeling frisky, "Democracy: The God that Failed" by Professor Hoppe.
is such a basic point, I lose respect for people on your side who try to obscure it.
Well, the thing is, John, we don't really care what you think. We only care about the opinions of those who haven't got fixed opinions about everything.
generally find the pro comments more sober, more serious, more polite (by far) and more convincing.
And this is nothing to do with you already agreeing with those comments? Non?
For obvious reasons, nobody has figures for the global mean temperatures in the Middle Ages
What? The obvious reasons being that the HadCRUT people tried to destroy all evidence of the Medieval warm period?
we know that there was agriculture in Greenland
Is there any agriculture in Greenland now?
and common sense suggests that it must have been compensated by unusual coolness in other parts of the global system
Hang on, John, I thought you were the one who was being 'scientific'? And now you're going with 'common sense'? How about we try to find out what the exact temperatures were in the medieval period under discussion, or investigating the stories that the Romans were growing wine grapes in Cheshire, to supply the fortress at Chester, and corroborating or denying these stories, rather than going on 'common sense'? I ask merely for information.
AGW as fanatical believers in something else that can't co-exist with it
I am a fanatical believer in the truth, John, which is why I never believe anything governments, and particularly supra-national government bodies, ever say. You show me a single politician, with perhaps the exception of Ron Paul, who always speaks the truth, and I will then think about believing what governments say. Good luck.
going by your dictionary definition, I would suggest that "movements"
Sounds faintly gastrological to me, but let's move on...
So, the exaggerations are understandable, and may be justified.
So lying is Ok? It's only the proles, after all. What do they know? They should leave everything to their technocratic masters, and just do what they're told.
I must say, for a self-employed writer and editor, John, you do seem to take a very corporatist view about everything. Please tell me you freelance for more than the Independent, the New Statesman, the BBC, the Guardian, and Rupert Murdoch?
Finally - because I do really need to stop, because I know that I am not going to persuade you of anything, and nothing you have said to me so far has been at all persuasive (though some of it has been instructive)
Well, good. Everything you have said has been very instructive. Very instructive indeed.
Toodle-pip!
Has he gone yet?
just caught up with Dr Gary North
No, he's still there.
Well, I can't fault you on your researches. Yes, Uncle Gary lost some credibility on the old Y2K front, but no-one can be right 100% of the time, especially when predicting the future. I wish the AGW movement would realise this.
As for defending Uncle Gary, I think he's capable enough of defending himself and I'm sure that if you send your criticisms of him to his email address, via LewRockwell.com, he will be only too happy to reply to you.
Right, gotta go and pack.
Yes, I do find an argument hard to resist - even with someone who is persistently insulting, like you.
I am happy to read any anti-AGW article, but one that begins by saying it is all based on junk science I take to be crap. Just as an article that said that string theory, or the theory of evolution, or the Big Bang theory, or any other theory propounded by serious scientists, was 100% junk. That's just schoolboy abuse, and I take it as read that anyone who opens their article with it is not worth reading.
I am well aware of the principle of falsifiability, but you fail to explain how the theory of AGW fails to meet it. How exactly would one prove the theory of evolution false? I'm not sure - I'm not a scientist, of course. Of course, while it is a fundamental principle of the discipline of science that a theory must be falsifiable to have any merit, it is not a principle of reality that nothing is true unless it can be incontrovertibly proved to be true (or indeed unless it could be incontrovertibly proved not to be true).
With regard to bollocks, if you troubled to read my posts carefully you would see that I have never referred to anything you have said as bollocks. Although as this discussion has proceeded, I find you have revealed yourself more and more to be - well, I won't stoop to the kind of abuse you have. Not a good advertisement for your cause, let's put it like that. But, as you will no doubt tell me, you don't care.
If you are one of those who believe that every last scrap of Earth should be privately owned, I now perceive that I am dealing with one of a very tiny minority - thank God. Presumably in your system one would be able to get restitution from the polluter just as the people of Bhopal have got restitution from Union Carbide?
I've wasted enough time talking to you. Must go.
Well, here we are, nicely settled into my hotel room, with the Wi-Fi running, with the restaurant opening at 7:30pm. Excellent. I love coming to the West Country.
Yes, I do find an argument hard to resist - even with someone who is persistently insulting, like you.
If it's any consolation John, I've found you equally insulting. Though fortunately it's water off a duck's back.
I am happy to read any anti-AGW article, but one that begins by saying it is all based on junk science I take to be crap.
Even though the AGW hypothesis IS junk science? Even George Monbiot calls it unscientific. Or at least, that's what he calls its previously unimpeachable number one data store.
Just as an article that said that string theory, or the theory of evolution, or the Big Bang theory, or any other theory propounded by serious scientists, was 100% junk.
But that's just the point, John. The HadCRUT crew AREN'T serious scientists, which is why their Lie-Master-In-Chief has just stepped down from the UEA, and why even Jon Stewart in America is laughing at the UEA for employing him.
That's just schoolboy abuse
Listen John, I'm not Professor Lindzen, I'm not Professor Bell, I'm not Professor Plimer, and I'm not Professor Deming (an atmospheric scientist, a climatologist, a geologist, and a geophysicist, respectively), as I gave up professional science many years ago, but THEY all think it's junk science. And I'll take their opinions over yours, every day out of a century.
Yes I know you're "from a family of scientists", but John, that's not really impressing me. It's certainly not impressing me as much as the four gentlemen above. Sorry.
and I take it as read that anyone who opens their article with it is not worth reading.
But you read George Monbiot, and it's usually within a few sentences that he starts labelling "opposing" scientists as scumbags? So that means you won't read the work of qualified scientists, because they're not serious enough, but you'll read the work of non-scientist George Monbiot, one of the most insulting men in Britain (and I suppose we should give him some credit for achieving that distinction)? You really are quite strange, John.
I am well aware of the principle of falsifiability, but you fail to explain how the theory of AGW fails to meet it.
Because it's unfalsifiable. It gets warmer. That must be AGW. It gets cooler. That must be AGW. It stays the same. That must be AGW. How can it be falsified? How many years of cooling will it take before the AGW die-hards disappear? It is now the same temperature as it was in 1979, which is THIRTY years ago. And yet the AGW movement is stronger than it has ever been.
AGW predicts the hockey stick, whose very SHAPE is one of rapidly increasing temperatures, and yet STILL we have the decline. For 11 straight years.
AGW predicts greater amounts of storms worldwide, and yet there are fewer storms worldwide, and yet the AGW movement dismisses this as volatility. AGW predicts higher sea levels, and yet sea levels perplexedly refuse to budge for three years, not even moving a micro-millimetre, and STILL the AGW movement carries on regardless.
It is unfalsifiable crap. It is a religion. It is junk science. Or as Professor Plimer puts it: "If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid."
How exactly would one prove the theory of evolution false?
Well that's an interesting question. From my work in a genetics lab, what we did was lots of horrible things with fruit flies, torturing the wee beasties, giving them all sorts of horrible mutations, and subjecting them to light, dark, spinning, lack of food, too much food, and lots of other horriblenesses. Usually we were trying to prove one genetic theory or another. Now we weren't exactly trying to prove or disprove evolution, because I'm pretty sure most of the people in our department were believers in evolution, but I'm sure if you gave me enough time, put me back in the department, and gave me enough money, I could devise some horrible things to do with fruit flies which would try to disprove evolution. I think I would fail. But I'd be willing to give it a shot if you paid me enough.
But you're just side-stepping the question, John. AGW should make some predictions. And then if they can be disproved, all the AGW crowd should just shut up and go away. Einstein was bold enough to predict that a star would move during an eclipse. If it hadn't, we would still be celebrating Newton and not Einstein.
Why don't the AGW crowd do the same thing? Give us some predictions we can nail you down to. Give us something we can try to falsify. And stop trying to shut down scientists who oppose your viewpoint, and stop trying to sack magazine editors who dare to publish scientists who oppose your viewpoint. What the HadCRUT crowd did was absolutely disgusting. They ought to be tossed immediately out of UEA, with black bin liners full of their crap thrown with them out of the gates, and never allowed back in. UEA is a laughing stock. We used to have 'The History Man' from there (though I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong). Now we have 'The Lying Men'.
I'm not sure - I'm not a scientist, of course. Of course, while it is a fundamental principle of the discipline of science that a theory must be falsifiable to have any merit, it is not a principle of reality that nothing is true unless it can be incontrovertibly proved to be true (or indeed unless it could be incontrovertibly proved not to be true).
You know, you're almost straying into the 'a priori' Austrian method there. Popperianism is more for the natural sciences where you can never ever prove anything true. You can only prove one hypothesis is less false than the alternative hypothesis. Only in 'a priori' sciences, such as mathematics, logic, and economics, can you ever prove something true (e.g. 2 + 2 = 4). This, alas, is not the case for the natural sciences, such as Physics and climatology.
With regard to bollocks, if you troubled to read my posts carefully you would see that I have never referred to anything you have said as bollocks.
Oh dear, John. You really are a pedant, aren't you? How very sad for those around you.
Although as this discussion has proceeded, I find you have revealed yourself more and more to be - well, I won't stoop to the kind of abuse you have.
Why not? Amuse us, John. As I said earlier, your opinion of me, to me, is completely irrelevant. A long long long time ago I used to write for a very popular libertarian web site where we would regularly have comment threads in the hundreds, with far worse people than you calling me far worse things than you have called me (though I must say, I think accusing me of being "right-wing" did actually sting a little).
Insults only hurt when they're from people whose opinions you care about.
So go ahead, make my day.
Not a good advertisement for your cause, let's put it like that. But, as you will no doubt tell me, you don't care.
Precisely.
If you are one of those who believe that every last scrap of Earth should be privately owned, I now perceive that I am dealing with one of a very tiny minority - thank God.
Well, this is the thing, isn't it John? Not only are you a poor writer, whose confused thoughts dribble across a page, you're also a poor student of history. In the 1850s and 1860s in London, you could probably have housed all of the communists in the world in a single living room. And yet, today their ideas completely dominate the world, driving on a US President, filling a UK Prime Minister with bile and hatred, and suffusing the entire watermelon environmentalist movement with envious hatred of most of mankind.
It is not the number of people behind an idea that matters. It is whether those ideas are powerful enough to sweep the world. You may want to go back to your Red Envious Herd, to feel security within the mass, but we're quite happy being a small movement, because we feel quite confident (though not absolutely certain) that our ideas will have their time.
Already, our ideas are what threw the British out of North America to create the original United States, as propagated by Paine and Jefferson, and our ideas are currently sweeping the United States again under the leadership of Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Jim Rogers, Lew Rockwell, Thomas Woods, Judge Napolitano, Robert Higgs, Hans Hoppe, Thomas Di Lorenzo, Ralph Raico, George Reisman, and a whole range of others.
Britain, that poor pathetic satrap of the American Empire, is mostly irrelevant and mostly harmless. Our ideas, particularly those of Rothbard and Mises, have already swept Eastern Europe, Russia, and are starting to penetrate into China.
Yes, weirdly and sadly, there are only about six of us in the UK, and we can all comfortably fit into a large broom cupboard, but what does that matter?
The difference between you and me John, as in the earlier post, is that you are prepared to justify lies, if the end is important enough. Whereas we are never prepared to defend and justify lies.
So I'll stay where I am, in the tiny truthful minority. I'll let you get back to the huge lying herd.
Presumably in your system one would be able to get restitution from the polluter just as the people of Bhopal have got restitution from Union Carbide?
You know, this really is strange. Union Carbide operated in your system, the one you choose to defend; i.e. the corporatist governmental state. So because of their failure to be brought to justice by the corporatist governmental state, based upon involuntary force, which you support, you won't consider another political arrangement which doesn't exist yet (e.g. a private property society and a totally voluntary society), and whose means to extract justice you have never examined.
By the way, if you do want to examine it, Google "Bruce Benson" and "Stephen Kinsella".
I've wasted enough time talking to you. Must go
Well, it was unpleasant talking with you. We mustn't do this again another time. I really must get to that restaurant and have a nice juicy steak, with some Pinot Noir flown in from New Zealand.
Seeya John, wouldn't wanna be yer.
I'd be interested to know how old you are, because you write like a 14-year-old. A Management Consultant, huh? It has been unpleasant to talk to you - as you clearly intended it to be - and yet instructive to find out what kind of people climate-change deniers really are.
I'd be interested to know how old you are, because you write like a 14-year-old.
Bravo John, back on form. No responses, just feeble sneering, and another pathetic insult.
I would have said it's like being savaged by a dead rodent, but that would have been insulting to rodents.
And once again you display your absolute lack of self-control in having to once again come back and insult me, despite having said:
Ah well. I realise that this "discussion" we are having is entirely futile, and to be honest I only engaged in it for amusement. Toodle-pip!
I mistakenly thought that meant you were going to disappear, but no, then later we got:
I've wasted enough time talking to you. Must go.
Did this mean the dribbling had ended, I wondered? No, because there was more:
A Management Consultant, huh? It has been unpleasant to talk to you
Which begs the question, what on Earth do you keep coming back for? I had no choice because you kept polluting my web site with sneering insults and your pompous inane garbage and I had to keep cleaning up the refuse. But you could have just chosen to disappear. However, you kept coming back for more. What's wrong with him, I thought; what is driving this nutter on? And then I realised that you must have stopped taking your anti-masochism tablets.
If I were you, John, I'd book a visit with your quack and get yourself dosed up again as soon as possible.
and yet instructive to find out what kind of people climate-change deniers really are.
You're just not listening, are you John? I would never be so monumentally stupid as to deny that the climate is changing.
The climate has always been changing and the climate will always keep changing until on some final day the Sun finally explodes, at which point the climate will disappear.
The real morons and idiots are those who are anthropogenically arrogant and stupid enough to think that climate change can be arrested by a bunch of tax-eating Guardian readers, with junk science, and then permanently fixed at some pre-ordained setting, like setting some thermostat on a wall.
Perhaps in some far distant age humanity will learn how to control the Sun's power output, to create such a thermostat, but until then, those who think that we can control Earth's climate really ought to be stopped from smoking all of that Moroccan cannabis. It really is doing their heads in.
They would have my pity, except that these same religoid morons and lying scientists keep trying to inflict their insane "Earth Mother" junk science views onto the rest of us.
Once again, let me repeat the key point. The difference between you and me is that you think it is acceptable (and possibly desirable) to push out lies, if the ends justify it (just like Goebbels and Stalin).
Whereas I will never defend the practice of lying to gain a desired end, no matter how desirable that end.
Oh, and my insults are much better than yours.
Just a small point, I read this blog, so John's insult regarding readership is factually incorrect.
Well it's good to know, cuthhyra, that at least two of us are reading! ;-)
Post a Comment