One thing about British politicians, they tend to deliver fiery speeches. Here’s one just like that. He must have had some experience with an MP bench position in London.
This is from the European Parliament, Strasbourg – 20.01.2010
► Debate: Council and Commission statements – Outcome of the Copenhagen summit on climate change
Speaker: Godfrey Bloom MEP, UKIP (Yorkshire & Lincs.), EFD group. Watch the video:
Credits:
Video: European Parliament Audio Visual
I should add that I don’t agree with everything said here, and I’m unsure what he is claiming about the NZ database. I posted this purely for entertainment purposes. – Anthony
h/t to Pierre Gosselin
Glad to hear clapping at the end of his speech! He needed a bit more time to mention E.M. Smith’s discoveries.
More trouble brewing in Oz over “emissions” trading. http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26614314-953,00.html.
Perhaps the guys down there can fill in some background?
Now that’s “calling a spade, a spade”. Short and to the point, easy to dance to, I rate it about a 95.
CO2 in PERSPECTIVE
The 2 minute video below visually quantifies co2 in the atmosphere and puts the “human-produced” portion into perspective. co2 ain’t gonna do it…
Warmists must be thinking that less is more, similar to Homeopathy where the fewer molecules in solution have the more powerful influence… and the dilution with no molecules at all is the ultimate in strength.
Warmist ideas, like Homeopathy theory, would predict that methane is even more the culprit of warming than co2 and n2o accordingly even more a problem than methane…. Warmists and Homeopathy will fit in the same can… a can of nuts… allnuts.
Wow! That was a fantastic speech. It’s true, the Brits beat us Americans hands down when it comes to animated policy debates in the legislature. I especially like it when the other MPs say weird things like “Here! Here!”… LOL
Thanks for that nice bit of inspiration as I attempt to wake up with my morning coffee.
God save the Queen!
I must however make one small correction to that MP’s claim that Texas has had the first snow in 100 years. Um, as someone who was just living in Dallas for the past five years I can tell you that his claim is way wrong! At least three of the past five years that I was living there had snowy winters. Some of it was pretty heavy too.
Poor Texas, a wonderful state that is so misunderstood.
Excellent, passionate, outraged scepticism; well done that man. He refers to a new ‘scandal’ regarding the ‘massaging’ of the New Zealand climate data – but there doesn’t seem to be any mention of that anywhere on the WUWT pages; does anyone have any information into what has happened in NZ today.
“When are you all going to WAKE UP?!”
Indeed!
Can we get that guy with Monckton to do a one two punch on our congress?
Given a few more minutes he could have told us what he really thinks. I got the feeling that because of his polite English upbringing he was holding back. Perhaps, WUWT could permit him to post here – being told in advance he might get ‘snipped’ if he really lets loose.
A little background for non-UK based readers – Godfrey Bloom was elected as a member of UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) which wants Britain to leave the EU. So, for that heresy alone, he would already be viewed as an extremist/outsider/denier within the EU parliament. His pithily expressed views on the AGW ‘scam’ will reinforce that view among many other MEPs.
However, I’m pleased to see an MEP doing the good work of trying to get his colleagues to hold the Executive (in this case the Council of Ministers and the EU President) to account for their part in over-promoting the CO2 ‘alarmist’ agenda and ignoring the many other factors involved in climate change. If only there were more like him.
We need to call out the fraudsters by name and connect them with false reports.
Get this Krudd cleaned up.
@ Daniel H (above): What do you mean “God Save The Queen”??? This clip is from the EUROPEAN Parliament – this is not “British” politics. We in the UK merely bow to the orders of our unelected masters in Europe. We are nothing more than a small group of European contituants. We don’t actually have our own politics anymore. Our PM Gordon Brown has no real power (thank God, to be fair). His job is to rubber stamp the rulings of the EU (and sell those rulings to the UK as if it’s something we had a choice about). The Queen is equally pro-European, and has signed away all our sovereignty to the EU.
So please, none of this “God Save The Queen” rubbish. She, like those in our government, is a traitor.
God save Godfery Bloom, MEP.
To Daniel H: They are shouting “Hear. Hear”. Not so weird once you know that. (Sorry to make the world a little more ordinary for you.)
“Scam! Scam! Scam!”
Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!
/Mr Lynn
@Stephen, actually the executive is the European Commission, which also serves as part of the legislative body, whilst the council of ministers serves as anothe rpart of the legislature, and the so-called EU president simply presides over Council of Ministers meetings and is largely a figurehead office. The thing that needs to be remembered about the EU is that it hides its true function by slicing it up and spreading it around, so you have no one body or person you can point to and say “these people are responsible”. It is the bureaucrat’s wet dream.
It sounds like Godfrey Bloom has been taking advice from the great Lord Monckton, in calling these fraudsters what they are. Essentially he is saying “You’re a conman, you’re a crook. Now SUE me if you dare!”
Of course none of them will ever sue, because then it would all come out in court. These people belong in prison. The problem is, this corruption goes right up to the very top.
Only thing I would change is:
“when are you all going to wake the f*** up”
Great Speech! I like it!
BTW The DMI Arctic temperature is about 4 or 5 degrees K below average. As other have pointed out before, it seems like when it’s cold there it’s warn here and vice versa. In my neck of the woods (metro Detroit area) its a bit warmer than average. Daytime temps are about normal but nighttime temps are warmer than average. A week ago it was colder than average here and warm there. Maybe it just depends on which way the wind is blowing, kinda like a politician’s opinion.
Nothing like quoting a person from the UKIP.
If you had done your homework, you would have known that not a single UKIP person in the European Parliament has been in the House of Commons because not a single UKIP person has ever been won election to the House of Commons. So – – no, he does not have any experience as a backbencher in London.
(It has to do with single-seat constituencies vs. proportional representation.)
(How ironic that the UKIP can only get elected to a body it despises.)
Yikes! It would be nice if you had your political history and understanding of electoral systems in place before you posted the views of an ultra-rightwing politician. Even the British Conservatives Party is generally hostile to UKIP – especially its leader David Cameron. This may be in part due to recent defections by a few Conservatives to the UKIP.
Still, with single-seat ridings, and three major parties already standing in most elections and UKIP polling in single digits, it will be a long time before any UKIP MP goes to London. There’s a big difference between turn-out for the European Parliament elections which most Brits view as a joke and national elections which Brits take seriously.
It is not “here, here”, I believe, but “hear, hear”. My understanding is that “hear, hear” is an excamlation of agreement and understanding. “I hear you and agree”.
View from the Solent
It means we’re screwed. Rudd, the current Prime Minister, should have been guaranteed a second term with the in-fighting that has been going on within the opposition for the last couple of years. But now he’s backed this AGW horse so relentlessly, he’s opened the door for the opposition to make him a one-termer – a practically unimaginable concept only 6 months ago.
Tony Abbott (the current opposition leader) was never in with a shot for any leadership role due to a number of reasons, not least of which is his conservative catholic views that don’t sit well with many women voters. But that all changed late last year when the ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) was being rushed through the senate in a bid by Rudd to bring his trophy to Copenhagen.
Abbott, noticing the discontent with many of his constituents, pounced on this opportunity to seize power from the then opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull who was acting like a traitor to his own party (and still is, mind you). It’s interesting to note that Turnbull was a former chair and managing director of Goldman Sachs Australia.
Now Bob Brown (the leader of the Greens party), who first opposed the ETS due to its modest reduction targets, is obviously seeing that the chance for any action could be lost and is going to settle for lesser targets. He also sees that a desperate Rudd may be willing to make some Greens concessions. So the ETS may get through now, despite Tony Abbott’s opposition.
Many have suggested that Rudd’s long-term goal is a position in the UN. You could be forgiven for thinking that he’s using his current position as a jumping board to his ultimate goal. He’s a very crafty politician and Australians are far too trusting, in general.
While some of our papers have bets both ways, the televised news is almost exclusively alarmist in regards to AGW. It’s sad, but I think we’re a lost cause down here. I think Tony Abbott wants to put up a good fight — and he’s certainly giving them a scare — but we’re just too indoctrinated with the AGW nonsense and our relatively young nation that hasn’t experienced any real hardship is not prepared to hold our government accountable.
Daniel H. saying wierd things like “Here Here!”, what they said was “Hear Hear!” and meeans “I agree! No doubt someone out there knows the origin of the expression but that someone ain’t me.
i think bloom meant to say houston and just generalized when he said the first snow in texas in 100 years. Snow in dallas, may not be common but snow in houston is. Texas is a pretty large state for our non american friends on this site
I agree , though with the comments about the EEC/dictatorship. You have far more choice about state law as individual states within the US than we do as a “country” under the oppressive EU. We have to follow all their ridiculous laws.
The head of the much hated BNP (British National Party) also gave a good speech:
[snip – I originally allowed this, but upon further research, I discover Mr. Griffin is a racist, thus I will not have his voice heard here. – Anthony]
Oh
Thanx for the h/t!
In case you are all wondering what motivated him to use the “scarecrow” term,
I think I’ve discovered the reason (i.e. Finnish tree-hugger):
The groundswell of popular opinion is growing. The upstate returns aren’t in yet, but I hope we are seeing the beginning of the end.
I am off to the college to teach the most recent of my anti-global warming lectures – same as each of the previous ten years.
I’m just speculatin with the “scarecrow” motivation.
She doesn’t look THAT bad, I think. Does she?
Her hair just needs a little work.
I liked it.
He is a bit too reserved though.
@Dave, UK
Thanks for the clarification. Now that you mention it I can see that it’s the EU Parliament because the furniture resembles the interior of a an Airbus A340 instead of the usual ornate woodwork that I’m accustomed to seeing in the British Parliament.
@Roy
Thanks for clarifying the “hear, hear” situation.
Pity UKIP do not have the money to put a candidate in each UK general election constituency; it might ambush some of the AGW-mad politicians we have over here.
Perhaps “scarecrow” is a reference to the Stoat King of Wikipedia…he certainly looks as though he has been through a hedge backwards.
I’d drop the Griffin vid, personally… he has a few “denialist” skeletons in his ample cupboard of the kind you don’t want to be associated with.
@ Daniel H – You’re right about snow in Texas. The Lone Star State gets hit with “blue northers” a lot more frequently than once a century. I suspect that what Mr. Bloom ought to have said was that parts of Texas that haven’t seen snow in December or January for more than a century have this year gotten clobbered by tons of the white stuff, and that’s certainly remarkable.
Most people have no idea how bloody enormous Texas is. There’s the story of the salesman from a firm in Chicago who phoned the home office after finishing up a business meeting in El Paso.
“We’ve got some client interest in Galveston,” came the reply. “As long as you’re down there in Texas, you might stop by there on the way home.”
The salesman paused for a moment. “Well, you might prefer to send somebody directly to Galveston from Chicago. It’s not as far from Chicago to G-City as it is from El Paso to the Gulf Coast. You got any prospects in New Mexico or Arizona instead?”
@Daniel H
“Wow! That was a fantastic speech…”
I wouldn’t go that far – there was hardly time for any real points to be made – it will just be ingored as ‘weather’.. (actually, I liked that last typo so much I left it in…)
“…the Brits beat us Americans hands down when it comes to animated policy debates in the legislature…”
Though the present-day Palace of Westminster was re-built after a fire in 1834, the House of Commons layout dates back well into medieval times, when men were expected to be armed and use their weapons at the least provocation.
The whole house is designed as a confrontational chamber, with two opposing groups on each side of the House, rather than as a Greek amphitheatre, which is the norm for most legislatures. Note the two bands on the central floor – these are a sword-thrust distance apart, and members must stay behind them during a debate. They are still of practical value – Michael Hesseltine swung the Mace at his opponents from behind them in 1976.
You cannot become a British MP if you are unable to think on your feet and respond fluently in this environment. The system is strongly designed to operate with two sides in animated debate, and produces speakers such as Winston Churchill…
If Nick Griffin, head of the BNP, gave a similar speech, that is about the worst company one could ever find oneself in. It is a bit like supporting States’ Rights on purely academic consititutional grounds, and finding that one was being applauded in enthusiastic agreement by the late George Wallace, in his most redneck mood.
Support by Griffin is the kiss of death for any cause.
[After further research, agreed, I’ve removed the video, it is not appropriate here, see note in comments above -A]
K. Bray:
I did a similar thing. Being a visual learner, I created a 10,000 square spreadsheet.
Did it 3x. Colored all the squares blue (in honor of Klaus’ “The Planet is Blue”)
First spreadsheet – colored 3 of the squares red – CO2 concentration 150 years ago
2nd spreadsheet – colored 4 of the squares red – CO2 concentration today
3rd spreadsheet – colored 5 of the squares red – CO2 concentration 150 years from today if the present rate of increase of 1.1. ppm/year continues.
People ask me why I doubt the CAGW theory and I show them this and tell them this is what first got me questioning it. It doesn’t disprove the AGW theory? Just gets the B.S. antenna going. I then point out that only 4% of that final point will be from human production.
Most common argument I get is: You have to analyze CO2 on its own. After all, a few ppm of ricin can kill you!! To which I respond, “you are correct, so go research the effects of the combination of 2 of the most common elements on earth and BTW, neither of them are ricin and both are critical for life on earth”.
I point them to here, RC, (always include RC), Spencer’s, The Ref. Frame, etc. The evangelists leave pissed off. The ones who actually want to learn, go off and research and more often than not, come back with a whole new perspective.
It’s a simple tool but works well. The K.I.S. principle exemplified.
Anthony,
Nick Griffen is a right wing extremist best not mention him in the post, he might be roght here but he is very wrong on some major issues.
I’m not sure what the 100 year reference was to. The earliest snow on record in Houston was December 10th (set in 2008/1944) and this year they had snow on December 4th.
Jeez. Since the National Socialist Party (we’re no longer calling them “Democrat” here in America) lost its filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate a couple of days ago, maybe now we can get Mr. Griffin in front of a Washington committee’s proceedings – and on CSPAN! – giving that same speech to Senator Kerry, Senator Boxer, and the rest of that bunch of thugs bent on ramming the blatantly regressive “cap-and-trade” tax down the throat of every American.
With that kind of lucid rhetoric common in Parliament, how the hell is it that you Brits don’t have Labour politicians dangling by the neck from every lamppost in London?
If Republicans spoke out that way, every “D”-denominated goon in the country would be fleeing for his life.
Excellent to see such blunt talking by a politician, we desperately need more of that. Good to hear the applause at the end also. Will be interesting to see if the media give it any coverage – iirc they mostly ignored the great speech by Václav Klaus in February 2009:
[snip- thanks we won’t be discussing the BNP any further here]
And there is always the British National Party who wants out of the EU as well, and here are links to speeches by their MEPs in the European Parliament on the AGW scare. Griffin cites Richard Lindzen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwIbiZFXw24
Glaciergate even gets a mention:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9WFVQIpJZM
All the major parties in the UK parliament make it their business to be united in being ‘on message’ in supporting the AGW scare, so these sort of views are unlikely ever to be heard in the national parliament.
Please you appreciate our House of Commons Daniel H. The approval shout is “Hear Hear” as in Hear him, Hear him. Yes I like it too — clapping is not allowed.
Re: John Egan (Jan 21 08:30),
You are right about Brits taking General Elections seriously and this particular Brit will seriously not be voting for any party no matter how large or mainstream that backs the present AGW Cap & Trade policies.
Our PM calls me a “flat-earther” looking at Dave & Cleggies present stance they obviously agree with him.
I wonder why, could it possibly be that they would all like the ability to put the blame for rising taxation on the general public. You can hear the plaintive cries, “It’s not our fault! It’s you! You produce CO2 so therefore you will have to pay and you will also have pay some more for the added administration that will be needed”
P.S. Decency dictates that I do not enlighten you with my true heartfelt views regarding our present PM, care should always be taken before passing comment about somebody who gives the impression of needing to consult the manual before operating Velcro.
@ John Egan: ‘. . . national elections which Brits take seriously.’
Well, maybe about 60 per cent of them do; the rest abstain. Could well be nearer 50-50 next time (more people deciding ‘none of the above’). But the MSM certainly take them seriously.
@ Daniel : ‘. . . Texas, a wonderful state. . .’
Hear! Hear!
I’m not seeing the video, could someone post a link at Youtube or whereever they are. I just downloaded a new version of Adobe Flashplayer and something is goobering this.
REPLY: The video is only available in upper case
OT but related- More Lunacy from Hugo – USA caused Haiti’s Earthquake – Hugo Chavez
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/21/chavez_us_weapon_test_caused_haiti_earthquake.html
Remember this “keynote speaker” got standing ovations in Copenhagen…
{ Ben D (08:28:37) :
“when are you all going to wake the f*** up” }
“when is THE REST OF THE WORLD going to wake the f*** up”
We have as much control over earthquakes as we do over climate…
nil to none.
Intelligence and common sense need to be made mandatory for leadership positions. Those human traits seem to be rare these days. G-d help us all.
David Cameron, UK Conservative Party leader, runs the risk of the same fate as Malcolm Turnbull in Australia (fingers crossed)
Anthony,
The NZ mess he may be referring to might be the study by The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. I can’t find a direct link to it, but a story about it is at ICECAP under the title “Feeling Warmer Yet?” , LinkText Here
Living here in North Central Texas I remember a lot was said about the Christmas of 2009 as being the first white Christmas for several communities in a hundred years, maybe this was what he was thinking of…
[snip- thanks we won’t be discussing the BNP any further here]
The New Zealand temperature data issue is covered pretty well here:
http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d25-New-Zealand-climate-agency-accused-of-data-manipulation
Nick Griffin is probably not someone you want to be seen admiring. He vehemently denies he is a fascist, but the shoe looks like a really good fit.
[REPLY: See note in comments above]
Wow our member representatives of the EU get a 90 second chance to address parliament. What a great job for €7,000 a month.
For foreigners, Yorkshiremen call a spade a spade. They are blunt, down to earth northerners who take no hostages (they invented the phrase “where there’s muck there’s brass”). There is controversy over who invented “God’s own country”, but Yorkshire is God’s own county.
[snip- thanks we won’t be discussing the BNP any further here]
For the record, Nick Griffin is also a convicted Holocaust denier. He has said: “I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that six million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also once held that the world is flat.”
He is a truly repulsive individual, with a long record of extremism and racism. It does us no favours to have him on our side of the climate debate, and putting the clip of him on your website, Anthony, could be used to undermine a lot of the very good information that appears here.
It isn’t “here here”, it’s “hear, hear”. It basically means, “come and listen to what this guy is saying”. At least that’s the origin.
I thought both speeches were great. If I were you and your local Conservative candidate has a UKIP representative standing against him in May, you should write to the candidate with a threat to vote UKIP or at least campaign in their favour against him. UKIP scare the Tories more than Labour in their safe seats. Of course none of us want to split the Tory vote to let Labour in again (well ok, those of us who are sick of the Government don’t). The threat should be enough to concentrate minds.
[snip- thanks we won’t be discussing the BNP any further here]
..hmmm…why am I in ‘moderation’…….didn’t think anything was offensive? Peter Risdon makes my point though (in 2 lines, I took about 20 lines…ahem)
@John Egan (above): Your very dismissive, disparaging and patronising comments give a somewhat distorted view about UKIP to our transatlantic friends. Our three main Westminster parties, Liberal Democrats, Labour & Conservative (commonly known as the Lib/Lab/Con trick) have all refused the EU referendum they promised and to make things worse, they all worship regularly at the altar of AGW.
UKIP provides the opposition and don’t let’s forget that they came second and beat the governing Labour party at the latest European election! The MSM makes every effort to ignore them – sounds familiar? Godfrey Bloom hates political correctness and has made many enemies in the Europhile arena, the AGW rant will have surely raised that profile. Good on him!!
I notice that IPCC is now taking nominations for reviewers for AR5, with the closing date for nominations being March 12, 2010.
The nomination forms are behind a password protection, with the passwords, and therefore the authority to make nominations appearing to be restricted to governments and “International and other Organizations” (See http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/Web%20version%20-%20ORG%20Nomination%20of%20Authors%20for%20the%20AR5.pdf”
Does anybody have a list of these privileged organizations?
I suspect that the list of organizations that have been requested to nominate AR5 reviewers will have many organizations like WWF and Sierra Club, but organizations like Heartland Institute and American Enterprise Institute are not on the list.
(Moderators, please move to a more appropriate thread if one exists)
also listen to
Alex Jones of Infowars / PrisonPlanet interviews Godfrey Bloom MEP of UKIP 1/5 12-28-09
Alex Jones interviews Godfrey Bloom MEP UKIP 20th Jan 2010 1/5
Robert vdL
There is at least one other sceptic British MEP, Roger Helmer of the Conservative Party. He is threatening to put up a video clip of his speech but it isn’t there yet.
http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/
This at least just beats the record of the House of Commons when they voted through the Climate Change Act in October 2008 (the day of the first October snow for 70 years) when only three MPs voted against – even though they didn’t even know how much it was going to cost – Milipede had just increased the 60% reduction in CO2 levels up to 80%!
Note that this is NOT Conservative party policy. Cameron is even more warmist than Brown.
[snip- thanks we won’t be discussing the BNP any further here]
I would vote for the UKIP if they contest this coming election. I fear though that we will have no voice on this issue and that the major political parties will keep on forcing this manmade global warming rubbish upon us for the next five years
David Segesta (08:29:17) :
There is something in the goings-on in the Arctic where it can be less cold and the Temperate Zone can be more cold. The Arctic has cold to spare, being that it is in shadow and can re-freeze well before Spring arrives.
This brings to mind a reverse-process, where we are used to thinking of heat energy being transferred from the tropics toward the poles. Now, we see that opposite process at work.
Chris the Brit (10:08:24) :
Hear, Hear.
This is quite revealing – the BBC of course is a standard bearer for AGW
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023145/why-the-bbc-will-always-be-wrong-on-climate-change/
Mr bloom has a blog on climate change in its early stages…
http://blog.godfreybloommep.co.uk
I should add that I don’t agree with everything said here, but I certainly appreciate the manner in which he said it.
To Mike from Canmore (09:06:31) :
Tell those people who doubt you that:
CO2 in the atmosphere is Physics, and Ricin in the body is Biology.
CO2 is blamed for a temperature increase, that is straight physics, not like a poison affecting a biological system. Apples and Oranges.
Some folks have given “greenhouse gasses” magical powers like pixie dust.
There is nothing magic about CO2.
Look at Mars’ atmosphere. 95% Carbon Dioxide. Where is the runaway greenhouse effect ? It’s not there.
The two Viking landers detected the following temperatures at 1.5 meters above the surface… 1 degree F to minus 178 degrees F. That’s frozen solid. (surface rocks however can reach 85 degrees F in the sun)
If CO2 has magical properties, I don’t see it’s magic warming powers anywhere manifested in the real world, neither on earth, nor in space.
We need to focus on real problems, and CO2 and Carbon aren’t problems, they are fraudulent scams.
“It sounds like Godfrey Bloom has been taking advice from the great Lord Monckton, in calling these fraudsters what they are. ”
Hardly surprising since Lord Monckton has been appointed as the UKIP spokesman on climate change.
I shall be voting UKIP IF Gordon Brown finally is dragged into holding an election this year (Civil Contingencies Act notwithstanding)
@Tucci
…Most people have no idea how bloody enormous Texas is. There’s the story of the salesman from a firm in Chicago who phoned the home office after finishing up a business meeting in El Paso…
I prefer the story about the Texans who complained about Alaska being admitted to the Union, because that would mean that Texas would become the second-biggest state.
In response, Alaska offered to split itself in half, and enter the Union as two states. The Texans were going to accept this, until they realised that Texas would then become the THIRD-biggest state….
O/T-ish: It seems Monbiot has lost the plot with his latest piece. The comments make for interesting reading …
Winner of climate change denial’s premier award revealed
John Egan (08:30:24) :
While I mostly agree, it will be interesting to see how many votes parties like the UKIP collect this time round. I have a feeling it will be up quite a bit. FPTP as you say will likely make actual seats difficult.
[snip – no more discussion of the BNP here]
Why do I have nagging concerns about the UEA investigation? Can’t see the Lib/Lab/Con trick being happy with a report that raises serious questions re CRU and AGW being published just before a General Election.
Whitewash, early election or late report?
Or am I just getting to be too cynical in my old age?
That makes me glad I voted for Godfrey at our last EU vote!
Three cheers for the Yorkshireman (and I’m saying that as a Lancastrian by birth!)
I suspect his comments about NZ relate to NIWA and their corrections they make to their long term stations to turn a non-warming trend into a warming trend for their national record. NIWA argued that the changes are normal practice and essential but refuse to release their code or details of the changes. Others (including myself) have attempted to recreate there work but dont get their sharp trend, instead you get a period in 1910 around the same temp as today, with a cool period in the 1970’s. NIWA use homogenisation to “cool down” the 1910 period and there is some debate as to whether this is valid, as its the rural stations that are shifted to match the trend of the urban station (at thats what I think happens). The climate change coalition made a fuss about it over here in NZ
NIWA also declared 2000 – 2009 as the warmest decade on record, being 0.03 degrees warmer than 1980 – 1989 (there previous warmest decade) – I estimate the error margin to be at least +/- 0.2 degrees assuming the stations are all bang on! This caused another uproar as 0.03 degrees is meaningless, but instead of saying it was equal to 1980-1989 they declared it was warmer to the media. Then there was the claim that 2000-2009 was the warmest decade of the millenium lol! Dont even start me on that one!
I think NIWA are going to release their data now under pressure
K. Bray (08:03:16) : Warmists must be thinking that less is more, similar to Homeopathy where the fewer molecules in solution have the more powerful influence… Warmists and Homeopathy will fit in the same can… a can of nuts… allnuts.
K Bray, you only have to click my name to see how committed I am to climate realism/skepticism. However, I take exception to your words about homeopathy. Please do your research on BOTH sides, just as I would advise with climate science. Homeopathy is just as much a victim of orthodox tyranny as is climate skepticism, just as vulnerable to debunks by orthodoxy that are basically BS. There are poor homeopaths, and times when homeopathy does not work, or does not seem to work, just like there are stupid skeptics, and questionable skeptics’ science at times. The presence of these people and these “failures” does not invalidate the discipline per se (strawman arguments). The reason orthodoxy hates homeopathy is because it has to be dependent on a principle that lies beyond the realm of orthodox physics. However, Quantum Physics can provide such principles, through the zero point field. Do some homework and keep an open mind: it’s actually fascinating.
Only a few minutes here, but wanted to correct something in his speech.
I lived in Texas from 2001-2003 and in both winters I was there (2002 and 2003) I experienced snow. Snow in San Angelo in 2002 and snow in Austin in 2003 (well, it was a sleet/ice storm, but it lasted 3 days).
I think he was talking about Houston.
The EU is the working model for the UN World Government. It is an unelected body funded through Value Added Tax. It cannot be ousted and cannot be changed, its expenses cannot be audited and it can do virtually what it likes because all membre countries have signed up to its power.
UN world Government. Give us the money and we will spe.. distribute it to the needy.
It’s their way of saying “Ditto.”
I see the NZ figures have been more than adequately covered in posts above by Bruce M and John Walker, so (having followed John’s link, it only remains for me to say that Ian Wishart, who is an investigative journalist, has published an excellent book on climate change called “Air Con: The (seriously) inconvenient truth”, which is a great layman introduction to why Al Gore really is ManBearPig and shouldn’t be listened to. Highly recommended.
[snip – no more discussion of BNP]
Hehehe, vote UKIP! The only choice left in Britain!
(Sigh) The weather versus climate thing again. Methinks this is an entirely artificial divide. It is all part of the same system, comprising a multitude of cycles from the shortest (e.g. daily) to many millennia long, and everything in between.. all superimposed and interacting in the most complex, chaotic manner. The ‘weather is not climate’ mantra has no scientific base, or does it? Where is the dividing line, and who decided on it? As our understanding of all these interactions is still in its infancy, I feel that it is inappropriate to split the entire mechanism up into two artificial, ostensibly independent, categories, and fall back on this dogma whenever we fail to understand the implications of what is actually happening with the system.
Looks like there is more interesting stuff from Godfrey Bloom: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOygATEabIk
Ecotretas
For those unaware of this development, a respected and still active senior British parliamentarian writes about his unease concerning the EU and also (see his first sentence) seems disdainful of AGW.
See http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100022942/i-used-to-believe-britain-had-a-lot-in-common-with-europe-how-wrong-i-was/
Completely OT: A while ago Roy Spencer mentioned that it was very hard to actually use observations to detremine the feedbacks of the climate. If you watch a certain raise in temperature and compare that to data from satellites, such as long was radiation you never are entirely sure which fraction of the raise in temperature is caused by forcing and which is caused by feedbacks. He then proposed to devise a model with 0.5 K sensitivity (to doubling of CO2 content) and see if current and past temperatures are able to falsify it. Is there anybody taking up that challenge?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/can-global-warming-predictions-be-tested-with-observations-of-the-real-climate-system/
“As I suggested a couple of blog postings ago, maybe we should quit trying to test whether a climate model that produces 3 deg. C of warming in response to a doubling of carbon dioxide is “true”, and instead test to see if we can falsify a climate model which only produces 0.5 deg. C of warming. As someone recently pointed out in an email to me, a climate model IS a hypothesis, and in science a hypothesis can only be falsified — not proved true.“
[snip – off topic video]
@Lucy Skywalker – you’re having a laugh, aren’t you? Homeopathy IS bunk. Ever heard of James Randi? There’s $1,000,000.00 that could be in your bank account if you can prove that it works. As well, I’d be more than happy to prepare a homeopathic solution of cyanide, arsenic, ricin, rattlesnake venom, ground-up box jellyfish tentacles – hell, maybe even some U-235 – and drink it. You know why?
Because it doesn’t ****ing work!
Very entertaining and energetic Godfrey Bloom,
but K. Bray (08:03:16): your comparison with
homeopathy was realy out of the blue.
John F. Hultquist (08:10:04) :
Given a few more minutes he could have told us what he really thinks.
Thanks for the laugh.
WRT: “Hear, hear!” Wikipedia says it is the imperative verb form of hear. So, in effect, it means, “Hear him! Hear him!”
Makes sense.
K. Bray (08:03:16) :
Excellent video. Thank you for posting that dose of reality.
One question, though, the water vapor is presented as 1% to 4%, variable.
I am used to thinking of Relative Humidity.
Where do we look to find the science stats to confirm the 10,000 – 40,000 ppm water vapor?
Godfrey Bloom
As Jim Carrey would say ” Smokin’ ! “
@LucySkywalker
I used to believe in homeopathy, and was even convinced that it had worked for me. But because I am a biologist and the whole thing seemed to be so curious, I looked into it more closely.
You might find this interesting:
http://www.badscience.net/2007/11/a-kind-of-magic/
It sums up my own findings pretty well.
Sorry if this is a bit O/T, but I have a deep respect for the scientific method. Lucy, where is the evidence for homeopathy working at the quantum level?
P Gosselin (08:41:14) :
David (08:50:42) :
I would think that “scarecrow” might refer to the standard “greenie” with their typical attire of home woven wolly clothes, sandals and dread locks or any other form of crappy hair doo.
i.e. why he says that he is a sceptic, because he wears “normal” clothes as opposed to the former speaker.
Homeopathy is based on the same principle as the theory of AGW – that a tiny trace amount of something has a huge effect. In the case of both – bunk.
UKIP have been on this one for a while now. Here’s another of their MEP’s a few weeks ago on IPCC chief Pachauri
I wrote this earlier but it seems to have fell off the web. The trouble is that both this guy and Monckton are members of UKIP, and that party is seen as dangerously right wing and flaky. They support flat tax, sending immigrants home, leaving the EU (which really needs reform) building nuclear power stations and increasing funding to the armed forces. Google them, don’t take my word for it. The public view of them is that they consist of bluff old retired military officers who left the Tories because they aren’t “hang ’em and flog ’em” enough. They are the nearest thing we have to Republicans.
I really don’t understand why global warming sceptics all seem to be right wing and warmists all lefties. It really does not compute to me. I’m moderately leftish but interested above all in the truth. It’s the data, stupid! Who was it who said – it might have been Al Gore, that people these days who are no longer religious, are looking for the Great Cause to give meaning to their lives. I suppose if we all join together in green projects, we might not espouse other political causes that might be more troublesome. It’s a Sysephean project – keep us busy and out of trouble!
Hailing this guy and Monkton as our sceptical heroes could be a major PR error.
Too bad Mr. Bloom had only 1 1/2 minutes. I would have loved to hear him go for another 5 or 10 minutes!
Just for info:
The climate database he refers to is NIWA’s CLiFlo database. Free access is available to the data. There has been some fuss over NIWA’s temperature reconstruction for NZ due to data adjustments which create a warming trend from flat raw data and I can only assume this is what he is referring to, unless there is something else that has hit the web/news yet.
Veronica (13:26:02):
As long as you put “illegal” in front of immigrants, I support all those positions. I guess I’m just flaky like that.
But I do agree that Climategate should not be a Left/Right issue. It should be seen as an Honest/Dishonest issue.
solent:
I don’t know which way krudd is going to jump, but the CSIRO is now saying that the ‘jury is still out’ on climate change:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/jury-still-out-on-climate-change-csiro/1728307.aspx?src=rss
I’ve had the pleasure of meeting Mr Bloom. Sound mind, sharp gentleman.
Earlier I posted a link to a YouTube video, which was subsequently removed. I realise that it was a serious error of judgement on my part, and I will not make the same mistake again. I would like to apologise to Anthony and his team for the extra work this created, and to everyone else who visits this site.
@veronica : warm mongers want to greatly increase the power of the state in nasty ways (freedom of movement, destroying prosperity), sceptics motsly want the state to do nothing because no action is needed. No wonder people who believe in small government feel closer to the latter. Another reason is, of course, that the sceptic look like being right on this one.
I will echo stumpy’s opinion above.
I am sure the MEP is referring to the upward trend put into the NZ data,
that showed no trend when corrected.
The UKIP party does have some well informed members,
but he did seem a bit flustered in this speech.
I assume he had just had to listen to a “scarecrow” spouting the usual EU balderdash….That would Finnish anyone off wouldn’t it. 😉
Re Texas – did it have unusually early winter snow this year,
is that what he might have been trying to get at.
Well, come February he should be able to say something along the lines of,
“We have now had two of the coldest winter periods in quick succession, as bad as any in the last 40 or more years. ”
At least he has a bit more time to prepare the speech this time…
I’ve never seen anything quite like this mood that seems to be prevailing any and every skeptic/scientific forum on the web …. will people please stop sounding so happy … it will give us grumpy skeptics a bad name!
Veronica (13:26:02) :
“The trouble is that both this guy and Monckton are members of UKIP, and that party is seen as dangerously right wing and flaky. They support flat tax, sending immigrants home, leaving the EU (which really needs reform) building nuclear power stations and increasing funding to the armed forces. Google them, don’t take my word for it. ”
Their policies are detailed here:
http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/226-immigration-ukip-policy-2009
Nothing about deporting legal immigrants. They would have a freeze on immigration and then strict controls. I couldn’t find anything about hanging and flogging either.
I wouldn’t describe the rest of it as ‘dangerously right wing’ but it probably depends in your point of view.
“I really don’t understand why global warming sceptics all seem to be right wing and warmists all lefties. It really does not compute to me.”
I think that’s broadly, but not completely, true.
Generally, the view of the right wing is that governments don’t do anything very well. It’s better for them to do a few things tolerably than a lot of things badly. They are naturally distrustful of government meddling. Individuals, more or less have to accept responsibility for themselves. It’s better if individuals decide how to spend their money, rather than the government expropriate it and spend it for them. AGW gives governments a glorious excuse to meddle in anything and everything and will certainly be a reason for colossal wastes of money and restrictions in individual freedom.
The left wing view tends to be that the state can and should be responsible for just about everything. Individuals are poor souls who need the state to protect them from themselves. Taxes are good thing enabling a wise and benign government to do things for the benefit of all. AGW cries out for government and even supra-governmental control.
Now, I don’t think many would say they were pro AGW or sceptical of it in these terms alone, especially on this site, but I’m sure these are basic outlooks which inform what people are inclined to believe.
“It’s all a tax raising scam.. If there was no scope to tax us for money to waste, the government wouldn’t be interested”.
“It’s the most serious problem humans have ever faced. We should be happy to pay taxes to solve it, and forge a path forward together”.
>>The trouble is that both this guy and Monckton are
>>members of UKIP, and that party is seen as dangerously
>>right wing and flaky. They support flat tax, sending
>>immigrants home, leaving the EU (which really needs reform)
>>building nuclear power stations and increasing funding to
>>the armed forces. Google them, don’t take my word for it.
They sound like eminently sensible policies to me. What is your problem??
.
Whenever the UKIP comes up you get these rapid lefties come out to denounce them as ultra rightwing racists. It’s a loser’s argument. The UKIP are a common sense party with a multi-ethnic base.
Their flat tax plan is exactly what every nation needs and would take low income earners out of the income tax system completely.
They are also the only party with a plan to make Britain mostly energy independent. They are the only party who want to end the surveillance society that Labour has forced upon Britain.
They are the only party who want a realistic points based immigration system similar to that of the US and Australia instead of bringing in people and dumping them in slums where criminals and maniac religious preachers turn young minorities into bigger criminals and maniacs.
They are the only party to come out and say they won’t accept AGW until it is completely proven.
That’s called courage and representing the public interest.
http://antigreen.blogspot.com
‘DAVID Cameron was given a stark warning yesterday that his enthusiasm for green policies is unlikely to be shared by the coming influx of Tory MPs ….’
May be the Tories will adjust their green hats to see a little clearer
Veronica (13:26:02) : “…both this guy and Monckton are members of UKIP, and…support flat tax, sending immigrants home, leaving the EU (which really needs reform) building nuclear power stations and increasing funding to the armed forces….”
Argument ad hominem, and of no value in debate. If you’re looking for a perfect spokesman, one without sin or flaw, you won’t find him on this Earth. Jesus is busy with more important matters. Yes, we should probably avoid quoting known racists, but other than that, we need all the help we can get. Monckton has a fine publicity sense and the ability to get Warmist Willies to froth at the mouth in a matter of seconds. I’d rather have him on our side than, say, Al Gore or Joe Romm.
http://antigreen.blogspot.com
‘DAVID Cameron was given a stark warning yesterday that his enthusiasm for green policies is unlikely to be shared by the coming influx of Tory MPs…’
Maybe the Tories will adjust their green hats to see a little clearer ?
Veronica:
Except they are solidly behind the Monarchy and see no reason to enact a written Constitution.
Rather strange republicans if you ask me…
@Tucci
I’m surprised that no one has fact-checked you yet. Chicago to Galveston is 1140 miles. For the joke to work, just substitute Texarkana for Galveston:
El Paso, Tx – Texarkana, TX = 814 miles
Chicago, Ill – Texarkana, TX = 795 miles
(Mapquest estimates)
@Dodgy Geezer
That is still a popular one with Alaskans, who liked to use it on the “everything is big in Texas” oil workers during the pipeline years.
View from the Solent (07:56:19) :
More trouble brewing in Oz over “emissions” trading. http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26614314-953,00.html.
Perhaps the guys down there can fill in some background?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am not sure how alarmed we should be. As stated in The Australian article about the issue, it is an election year, and introducing a $20 per tonne CO2 tax would be a death wish for KRudd:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/greens-propose-20bn-tax-on-carbon/story-e6frg6nf-1225822311443
Basically this is an indirect of A$500 per year for every man, woman and child. In the meanwhile it is suggested that KRudd will flog the dead horse and introduce the ETS bill a third time.
I really think he underestimates the degree of disgust at his filibustering ineptitude.
Chris (12:21:36) : Ever heard of James Randi?
T. P. Fuller (12:43:25) (re Ben Goldacre)
I know both these individuals. Randi is another Gavin Schmidt, Goldacre seems to be another Monbiot. Neither of them are doing science, they are activists doing scientism wrt homeopathy. In fact, between Randi and Schmidt wrt personal qualities, I slightly prefer Gavin. Randi has human qualities I detest, he is a liar who makes money by going out of his way to put good people down without just cause. Not just homeopathy. He gets away with it because he sides with the majority, the “official” science. And btw, read what I said more carefully. And read both sides of the debate – the best of both sides, not the worst, the straw men that opponents “debunk”. Read Prof Benveniste direct. Just as I would say, Read Monckton direct, don’t stop with Schmidt debunking him. Indeed, when I followed that trail, it ended with Monckton… clearly Schmidt could not answer him. But did Schmidt tell anybody this? hahahha.
“dave ward (08:36:48) :
The head of the much hated BNP (British National Party) also gave a good speech:
[snip – I originally allowed this, but upon further research, I discover Mr. Griffin is a racist, thus I will not have his voice heard here. – Anthony]”
I’ll go off topic here. I do not see anything in the actual write up that shows that the man is a racist. There are many single race groups in existence in our world, none of which are considered racists by those who run the racist accusation industry. You cannot be part of the congressional black caucus unless of course you are black. You cannot be in any Indian tribes, unless you were born into one. People should have the right to associate with anyone they so chose, and in an environment in which white people are constantly charged with racism for simply not giving preferential treatment to others, I would find it quite nice to be able to hang out with a bunch of people similar to me where I could talk without the ever present opportunity to be called a racist, sexist, hair colorist for any statements I might make that can be taken out of context to make claims from.
So, unless you actually have any evidence that this man harbors negative feelings towards others for no other reason than their skin tone, I will call BS on your assertion that he is in fact a racist.
The reason why Cameron doesn’t like UKIP is because UKIP now occupies the politically conservative platform that Cameron and his (not the) Tory party have so shamefully vacated.
Many ordinary people in the UK are sick to death of the mainstream politics groupthink (pro-EU, pro-AGW etc.) that has disenfranchised the electorate. I voted for UKIP during the EU elections. I will certainly be voting for them later this year. For me to vote for any of the “big three” would only compound forty years of treasonous acts of wilful, anti-British vandalism, delivered by a succession of quisling prime ministers (with one noteable exception), that finally stripped the UK of its sovereignty on 1st December, 2009.
Lucy Skywalker (11:16:24) :
Here is just one article on the true value of homeopathy:
Homeopathy by the (mind-boggling) numbers
or just placebo effect?
Haven’t read all the way down yet, but in response to lefty follow-up question asking sarcastically what the difference is between climate and weather, that’s easy and ALL skeptics should be prepared:
Climate is anything warm,
Weather is anything cool.
Links not working for me today, or gremlins are gnawing on them…
Homeopathy revisited:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2010/01/homeopathy-by-the-mindboggling-numbers.html
Thanks for posting.
The real importance of this isn’t the accuracy of what he said, but the attitude.
The problem for the UK is that democracy has been emasculated by the main parties who all agree, in defiance of public opinion, on the Lisbon Treaty and on Climate.
It is only UKIP that would deliver what the voters want on Europe, and now it seems, only UKIP that will oppose the climate change nonsense.
Thus, the importance is that UKIP represents a return of democracy and an opportunity to vote against these measures that is denied to the electorate by the main parties.
Editorial in Nature:
John S. What do traveling salesmen know about geography anyway? Besides, if you’ve ever driven across west Texas, that joke feels right.
I was in Corpus Christi in 2004 for the once in a century snowfall – we actually had a white Christmas. Unbelievable.
@ Daniel H,
er, actually, the European parliament and it isn’t to be confused with any kind of democratic institution, but never mind (except that I think it is the prototype of what Maurice Strong wanted Copenhagen to create for everyone).
Oh, and what they say isn’t “Here! here” as in “Here, now, you can’t say that!”, but “Hear! Hear!” meaning “Hear him, Hear him.”
re NEW ZEALAND
Rather than deleting the raw data or refusing to release it, New Zealand did NOT delete it and even released it to the public! It thus becomes a prime example of what is likely to have happened in CRU NOAA & GISS.
Highly recommended reading showing what climate modellers are paid to do :
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/
http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d25-New-Zealand-climate-agency-accused-of-data-manipulation
Robert, yeah Texas is a large state, it would fit two and a half times into the state of Queensland where I live in Australia. But I did drive through Texas once…
🙂
“Baike (08:33:25) :
View from the Solent
It means we’re screwed. Rudd, the current Prime Minister, should have been guaranteed a second term with the in-fighting that has been going on within the opposition for the last couple of years. But now he’s backed this AGW horse so relentlessly, he’s opened the door for the opposition to make him a one-termer – a practically unimaginable concept only 6 months ago.
Tony Abbott (the current opposition leader) was never in with a shot for any leadership role due to a number of reasons, not least of which is his conservative catholic views that don’t sit well with many women voters. But that all changed late last year when the ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) was being rushed through the senate in a bid by Rudd to bring his trophy to Copenhagen.
Abbott, noticing the discontent with many of his constituents, pounced on this opportunity to seize power from the then opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull who was acting like a traitor to his own party (and still is, mind you). It’s interesting to note that Turnbull was a former chair and managing director of Goldman Sachs Australia.
Now Bob Brown (the leader of the Greens party), who first opposed the ETS due to its modest reduction targets, is obviously seeing that the chance for any action could be lost and is going to settle for lesser targets. He also sees that a desperate Rudd may be willing to make some Greens concessions. So the ETS may get through now, despite Tony Abbott’s opposition.
Many have suggested that Rudd’s long-term goal is a position in the UN. You could be forgiven for thinking that he’s using his current position as a jumping board to his ultimate goal. He’s a very crafty politician and Australians are far too trusting, in general.
While some of our papers have bets both ways, the televised news is almost exclusively alarmist in regards to AGW. It’s sad, but I think we’re a lost cause down here. I think Tony Abbott wants to put up a good fight — and he’s certainly giving them a scare — but we’re just too indoctrinated with the AGW nonsense and our relatively young nation that hasn’t experienced any real hardship is not prepared to hold our government accountable.”
Hear! Hear!
Re the New Zealand report he was flailing around that some asked about, I think this is it:
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf
“Warmist ideas, like Homeopathy theory, would predict that methane is even more the culprit of warming than co2 and n2o accordingly even more a problem than methane…”
Shhhhh, those are plans B and C.
Hmm, could be because of all those centuries trading raids with their northern neighbors. Dealing with bloody-minded Scots Borderers will keep one on one’s toes. If lived in the UK and couldn’t live in Scotland, but had to choose somewhere, it would be Yorkshire…almost as good as Scotland. 😉
@Anticlimactic –
It is hard to believe that any scientific study that includes adjusted figures could ever be accepted by a government or a peer-reviewed journal without both raw and adjusted data being furnished, complete. When complicated algorithms are used, the exact formulae should also be listed, as well as the reasons for each adjustment.
Sometimes multiple adjustments are made – for example, some adjustment for UHI would normally bring a downward adjustment, while a relocation of the met station might bring a positive or negative additional adjustment. In those cases (which may even be a majority of met stations in the HADCRU reports), the specific, individual, adjustments to the raw data should be presented. Cumulative adjustments that do not identify how much was adjusted for each factor is nearly impossible for a third party to understand methodology and intermediate values.
It is utterly astounding, from all the adjusted-vs-raw charts I’ve now seen, how nearly 100% of the adjustments due to met station relocation have been upward adjustments and only upward. It is hard to believe that with the tiny value HADCRU put on UHI that any relocation would be anything very large at all. Given that small UHI value (which I believe is in the 0.12C or 0.15C range), large positive adjustments like the 0.5 values in the New Zealand charts would seem impossible, because moving from the center of a city to 100km out into the countryside (or vice versa) is less than 1/3 of the adjustment used – and nearly always applied in the upward direction. I am at a loss to even speculate as to any possible reason for such a large adjustment. This may be warranted (I personally doubt it), but if I were a peer reviewer or a government official receiving such adjustment trends, I’d insist they explain why such a trend is necessary, and would therefore want to question it all, station by station and relocation by relocation.
Has any reason been given by HADCRU given any specific reasons for their adjustments? A list of reasons? A general statement? We all know some of what might be included, but is there a statement anywhere we can refer to?
Given READ_ME_HARRY.txt, HADCRU is incapable of replicating its own data or producing replicable data for anyone else. Steve M at Climateaudit.org may feel he’s been picked on, but it seems they are stiffing everyone, not just him, and the reason increasingly is obvious: they don’t even know HOW they got their results, because they were hip-shooting it all, to get the results they wanted.
The NZ data was not done by HADCRU themselves, but they had such huge influence – and made huge efforts at HAVING such influence – it seems like HADCRU’s influence was a likely reason for the adjustments of the NZ data. It would be instructional to keep tabs on this, to see what develops – as in who throws whom under the bus.
The world owed ONE HELL OF A DEBT to the guy I call “Deep Leak.” If the AGW religion dies a slow or quick death (either one is okay with me), we all have Deep Leak to thank for it, whoever he is.
Veronica’s knee-jerk comments on UKIP are the result of her indoctrination by the PC battalions like the BBC and the Guardian / Independent, which always try to smear anything which disagrees with their raft of collectivist ideas as ‘right wing’ – a completely meaningless term of abuse.
I’ll vote for whichever party most closely represents my own stance on the most important issues. Currently these are imo, in more or less this order:
Leaving the EU dictatorship and restoring sovereignty to our parliament; exposing the AGW / Cap and Trade scam; building state of the art nuclear power plants and securing our energy supply – but NOT by building ruinously expensive and almost useless windmills; restoring the rights of the citizen in the face of an overweening state; securing our borders against unlimited immigration; properly funding the armed forces; restoring standards in our education system.
Only UKIP offers to do these things. The Tories certainly don’t.
I can’t see any sense in which this is a ‘right wing’ agenda; and in any case people who bandy this silly term around as a form of abuse always in fact mean ‘fascist’ – and fascism is a statist, left-wing ideology. A right wing ideology refers to unfettered capitalism: not a UKIP policy.
By the way I think you’ll find most old colonels, if you bother to talk to them, very sensible, as well as patriotic. But not PC (thank God)
Yes, Godfrey Bloom can pack a punch in 1′:30″.
Take a look at what we have to put up with ….. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLOV-SMOpto
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OR_v56BpIQ
.
Just in case anyone is still wondering why an issue as ‘neutral’ as Global Warming has become a party political issue, this is due to GW being a perfect fit for traditional Leftwing Big Government ideals. In fact, GW is so ideal for Leftists, it gives every indication of being ‘invented’ for that very purpose.
As a generalisation.
Rightwingers pass power to the people – to individuals, to families, to clubs, to companies, to corporations.
Leftwingers think government knows best, and try to destroy families and amass power in centralist governmental organisations.
The management of Global Warming required a centralist worldwide governmental institution, which is right up the Leftwing street. Ditto the centralism of having a pan-European government. The humorous contradiction to this Leftist policy being that the expansion of the EU eastwards was called Lebensraum.
[can.I.get.some.guidance.on.why.I’m.seeing.so.many.messages.in.spam.or.trash?-.I.could.use.the.guidance.to.improve.my.own.moderating,.cause.I’m.not.seeing.the.problem…ML]
.
>>and almost useless windmills
They are windelecs.
Windmills grind corn into flour, windelecs generate electricity.
.
Phillip Bratby (09:48:20) :
For foreigners, Yorkshiremen call a spade a spade
Aye.
Not like those shandy drinking southerners, who’re more likely to call it “an earth-inverting horticultural implement”.
Cheers from a North-Yorkshireman living “darn saarf”
Mark
K. Bray (08:03:16) (and Mike from Canmore and others)
CO2 in PERSPECTIVE
The 2 minute video below visually quantifies co2 in the atmosphere and puts the “human-produced” portion into perspective. co2 ain’t gonna do it…
The film you showed may be convincing for those who don’t know more about the physics, but it is misleading people. At first, the human part of CO2 is about 6% nowadays, but that is irrelevant, as humans are near fully responsible for the total increase in CO2 level, as we emitted over 200% of the extra amount found back in the atmosphere. That every year 20% of the CO2 is exchanged makes that the human part (as type) in the atmosphere rapidely is reduced, but still we are responsible for most of the extra CO2 (as quantity) in the atmosphere.
And physics show (measured as well) that CO2 absorbs some IR radiation at certain wavelengths, thus retains heat. Not much (some 0.9 C for 2xCO2), but not zero. That is physics. Not like homeopathy, which still needs to be proved with double blind tests.
If the real sensitivity for 2xCO2 is higher (as the IPCC and all climate models says) or lower (as many skeptics expect) than 0.9 C, that still is an open question, but it is certainly not zero…
Sam
No. When forming views of UKIP, I read their website.
Veronica
I gather from your argument that if UKIP members were seen by others as slim young things, you would be supportive of their position. Could you confirm that this is your view?
JL Krueger
Yorkshire does not border Scotland fyi. For that honour we have the Border Rievers of Northumberland, and then there is durham, before you get south enough for Yorkshire. I am not sure why it is that Yorkshiremen are so notoriously stroppy, but it’s not because they keep banging their heads on Hadrian’s wall.
(I used to live in Yorkshire and I loved it.)
Mark & Phil. Northerner myself but from the other side of the rose divide. I won’t hold it against you…
Heh heh.
Trying to define political positions purely on a Left/Right scale always leads to problems because the exercise is too simplistic.
A rather more useful scale is to add to the Left/Right axis a Liberal/Authoritarian axis. Someone who is e.g. Authoritarian Right is very different to someone who is Liberal Right.
On the other hand, someone who is Liberal Left often has more in common with someone who is Liberal Right than they do with someone who is Authoritarian Left.
More details – and a fun test!
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
I’m a life-long Conservative voter – but this year I’ll be voting UKIP. That’s because Cameron broke his promise on the EU referendum. Hopefully I’ll be able to return to the fold in the next general election, but that – assuming the Conservatives form the next government in a few months’ time – may depend on their energy and climate change policies.
Sadly Cameron seems to be deluded on climate change just as much as Brown, maybe more so. But there is hope. A number of prominent Conservatives are sceptics (even Anne Widdecombe!) and there may be quite a bit of scepticism in the Conservative grass roots. Of the three largest parties, I would regard the Conservatives as the best hope – though maybe a forlorn one.
UKIP does seem to be significantly more sceptical on climate change than the three main parties, and I strongly agree with them on identity cards and, of course, the EU.
Chris
TYPO: unnecessary apostophe in title.
[Fixed, thanks. ~dbs]
How about “CRU HAD Leak”?
(After “Cool Hand Luke”)
I’m honestly trying to figure out what Veronica’s argument is. Smaller government, building nuke stations, increased funding for the armed forces, and a flat tax are bad? Several east european countries have implemented flat taxes, and partly as result weathered the current economic problems far more successfully than the we in the west with our “progressive” tax regimes did.
@ferdinand meeus Englebeen
Was intrested in your definate view on the amount of CO2 being human induced (if I read you right 30% in the atmosphere now is down to us over the last 100yrs or so yes?). I flipped back to a post on by E.M.Smiths Musings from the Chiefio blog on 25th Feb 2009 on the C12 / C13 ratios used to determine this figure. According to E.M.Smith there may be doubt that we are measuring ‘fossil fuel’ CO2 and there are numerous questions to be answered first.
Forgive me for my ignorance if I’ve got this all wrong, and confusing apples and pears, but E.M.Smiths article did make me raise my eyebrows at the assumptions made about the FF content of our 388pmm ?
Thanks.
@ feet2thefire,
That link appears to be to the revelations about Dr Jim (Jim’ll fix it) Salinger’s doctored temperature graph where the warming is all in the correction.
That isn’t new.
So, either their is something else that is new about New Zealand’s climate data or the UKIP MEP has only just discovered it.
What a pathetic riposte from the greenie “What’s the difference between Climate and Weather?”
The UKIP MEP, as should be appropriate for a parliament, was well dressed in a suit, showing some undeserved respect for the EU parliament, while the chair looked as if he had just dropped in from a feet up in front of the telly. He was probably wearing slippers.
The scarecrow jibe was well aimed and hopefully was felt by those it was directed at.
UK Sceptic
I was wondering if there were any representatives of the civilised side of the Pennines here (Mrs MarkE is a Lancashire lass – best thing I, & worst thing she did was getting married). Totally off topic, but I happily share the following which she taught me:
Yorkshire born & Yorkshire bred
Strong in t’ arm & think in t’ head
As to UKIP, they now occupy the centre right ground that the Conservative party has vacated. Most of the UK media see that as beyond the pale because their consensus is on a very crowded area to the left of centre. No one hates UKIP more than Conservatives because (a) although UKIP are unlikely to win (m)any parliamentary seats they may take enough votes to deny the conservatives victory; and (b) I would expect a RINO to hate the real thing in the states.
mikef2 (05:09:12) :
Was intrested in your definate view on the amount of CO2 being human induced (if I read you right 30% in the atmosphere now is down to us over the last 100yrs or so yes?). I flipped back to a post on by E.M.Smiths Musings from the Chiefio blog on 25th Feb 2009 on the C12 / C13 ratios used to determine this figure. According to E.M.Smith there may be doubt that we are measuring ‘fossil fuel’ CO2 and there are numerous questions to be answered first.
Had some years of discussions on this very topic with other sceptics… The point is that you have an enormous exchange (about 150 GtC of 800 GtC in the atmosphere) of CO2 between the atmosphere at one side and oceans/vegetation at the other side. That are seasonal exchanges, but the net result over a full year’s cycle is near zero (about 4 GtC more sink than source). Humans add 8 GtC per year, of which about halve the amount stays in the atmosphere.
That doesn’t mean that all that human, low 13C, CO2 stays in the atmosphere. With the seasonal exchange, some 20% is exchanged each year with CO2 from the oceans and vegetation. The ocean surface and vegetation exchanges act more as buffer than as sink for (13C) CO2, as a large part of it is coming back in the other seasons. Only the deep ocean exchanges are of interest: CO2 from the atmosphere sinks near the poles and old CO2 with its own composition from the deep comes into the atmosphere mainly at the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Thus a part of the atmospheric mix of human and natural CO2 composition is exchanged with high 13C CO2 from the deep.
It is possible to estimate how large the addition of deep ocean CO2 has to be to dilute the atmospheric 13C level to what is observed. Here a graph of what the d13C level of the atmosphere would have been from human additions, without deep ocean exchanges and with different deep ocean exchanges:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_zero.jpg
But there are far more indications that we are responsible for the 30% increase, see:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html#The_mass_balance
Re
Ferdinand Engelbeen (01:45:08) :
“as humans are near fully responsible for the total increase in CO2 level”
So who was responsible for the Rapid Increases in CO2 150,000 years ago, 250,000 years ago and 350,000 years ago?
>>More details – and a fun test!
>> http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Yes – I took that test, and discovered I was a Leftwinger !!!!
It sort of makes sense, though.
.
A C Osborn (07:34:47) :
Ferdinand Engelbeen (01:45:08) :
“as humans are near fully responsible for the total increase in CO2 level”
So who was responsible for the Rapid Increases in CO2 150,000 years ago, 250,000 years ago and 350,000 years ago?
“Rapid” is quite relative in this case: about 100 ppmv in 5,000 years for glacial-interglacial transitions vs. 150 years for the current increase of about 100 ppmv.
There is a quite good relationship between temperature and CO2 levels in pre-industrial times: about 8 ppmv/degr.C. This ratio is quite linear over the past 420,000 years and temperature is the driving force for the change in CO2 levels, which lag with about 600 years during warming episodes and several thousands of years when the earth was cooling again.
See: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/Vostok_trends.gif
But that doesn’t fit the current period anymore: The MWP-LIA difference of about 0.8 degr.C shows a change of about 8 ppmv in ice cores with the highest resolution, thus again about 8 ppmv/degr.C. The warming of about 1 degr.C since the LIA to the current warm period thus should give a maximum of 8 ppmv extra. But we see an increase of over 100 ppmv nowadays (and humans have emitted over 200 ppmv over the same period)…
@ P Gosselin (08:37:14) – In your extended video, when Chris Davies gets up and asks if he knows the difference between climate and weather, I am sure he gets up and asks that question when there is a heat wave or hurricanes and all we see in the news are accounts from AGWers about “climate change” causing all those WEATHER events.
The AGW double standard is pathetic.
@ Ferdinand Engelbeen (01:45:08) :
That is the very issue as to why an increasing number of people are arguing against the AGW crowd: It IS and open question.
The AGW people have not
A.) Proven that their hypothesis is even true
B.) Used a process of elimination to exclude other possible causes (solar irradiance, cosmic rays, natural variation, Milankovitch cycles, etc.) of increased temperature trends,
and as the Climategate emails have depicted, the data seems to have been adjusted in some squirrely ways (which therefore need to be revisited and corrected), so
C.) Their data has not been properly vetted in the first place, therefore even their data should have been not trusted until replicated/vetted – meaning no one should have accepted the claims of warming in the first place. Of course, since 1990 anyone who seemed suspicious of the data was considered some kind of tin-foil crank, and Climategate is showing that maybe the cranks were right after all. (All the trust and confidence the vast majority of people had given – that scientists would be honest and objective and follow the scientific method – seems to have been misplaced, since several recent looks at the raw data and the adjustments that have been made – like the NZ data – show that at least some of the “rise” in temps is all in the adjustments, not in the raw data.)
Therefore if
D.) the warming is in the data adjustments, not in the raw data
E.) the central clearing house of the data – HADCRU at East Anglia, acting for the IPCC – cannot even FIND their data to share with those who want to replicate it (and if, as HARRY_READ_ME.txt shows, even their own people cannot make heads or tails of their data)
F.) the satellite AND weather balloons do not agree with the adjusted data – but DO agree much more closely with the raw data
G.) the climate modeling programs have neither been able to replicate recent climate years nor been correct in their predictions of the 2000-2009 slight decrease in warming (and that is in the now highly suspect adjusted data)
– if all that is the case (and it is not the entire case against AGW, not by a long shot), it is incumbent on the AGW drowd to do any proving of CO2 effects, not for their skeptics to prove CO2’s innocence.
If there is a man-made effect on the climate, all evidence (principally the urban heat index) leans toward land use as being a far bigger factor than CO2 could possibly be, so even if AGW is happening, I argue that they are barking up the wrong anthropogenic tree.
In addition, it is already being seen that CO2 is causing greater plant growth. NO ONE would argue that more plant life is a negative thing. The Greens should be celebrating increased CO2 in the atmosphere, if anything.
.
MarkE (06:57:02) :
UK Sceptic
I was wondering if there were any representatives of the civilised side of the Pennines here…
Me too; even if I do live in the Midlands. Of course, civilised, open, generous, friendly, as opposed to…
Question: What’s the difference between a Yorkshireman and a coconut?
Answer: You can get a drink out of a coconut.
UKIP increasingly seem the best option, if only to try to get some sense into ‘Chlorophyll Dave.’ The trouble is that the Tories are bought and paid for by Zac Goldsmith – another rich greenie who has likely never done a useful day’s work in his life. At least chlorophyll is useful.
Continuing my previous comment, briefly:
The current lively and heated debate is one that should have taken place back in the 1988-1995 period, and the AGW side should have been told to put up or shut up and go home. I’ve been finding out about the early meetings at which the “consensus” was arrived at, and it turns out the invitees to the early conferences at which the UNEP and the IPCC were created did not even include anyone who disagreed with the premise. So, of COURSE there was a consensus – everyone there was already personally convinced of its truth. All opponents were excluded from those conferences.
Out of those came the declaration that it was all “settled science.” No it wasn’t.
And when the individuals in opposition to it spoke up later on, those opponents were castigated as radicals and cranks and skeptics – and now are referred to as “denialists” and “deniers,” which terminology is intentionally aimed at equating them with holocaust deniers.
The debate that should have taken place before such things as the UNEP or the IPCC were ever formed have only now begun to take place – TWENTY YEARS LATE!
It is my semi-informed opinion that there is a coincidence that needs to be looked into and looked into HARD:
The two decades of the 1990s have been the period when the ADJUSTED data shows a steep incline in the global average temperature (as measured by met stations), and this also happens to be the period in which the data has actively been “homogenized” (HADCRU’s term), which means adjusted.
Since it was in the interests of the UNEP and the IPCC and HADCRU and its followers (HADCRU was, indeed, the central focus of climate data processing and publicizing) to see global temperatures rising, and
since it was the homogenized data (not the raw data) that shows this rise in global average temps,
it seems very suspicious that the very people whose organizations and careers and incomes are dependent upon global warming being shown to be real.
I accuse them of having a predetermined conclusion, and that when the data did not show such agreement with that conclusion, they intentionally distorted the data adjustments. I further accuse them of hiding the evidence of their fudging of the data and continue to hide the data, in terms of resisting FOI/FOIA requests, as well as partial releases of data which can not be made sense of in its released state, as well as not releasing their methodology specifics so that people even know what it is they are trying to replicate. This is like a chemist inventing a new process, and then releasing only a partial list of chemicals involved and not telling what was done to the chemicals involved. Less than complete release of the data and methodology is the same as conspiring to cover up a crime.
And the crime is FRAUD.
mikef2 (05:09:12) : I flipped back to a post on by E.M.Smiths Musings from the Chiefio blog on 25th Feb 2009 on the C12 / C13 ratios used to determine this figure. According to E.M.Smith there may be doubt that we are measuring ‘fossil fuel’ CO2 and there are numerous questions to be answered first.
Glad you like it! I just basically kept track of the “What?” moments as I researched the topic the first time I ran into it (here, from a ‘warmer’) and discovered that we really just don’t have the basic data to even begin to have a clue.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/
but an interesting bit of ‘back of the envelope’ math shows it’s not a problem to suck CO2 out of the air to the point where plants are starving for it; and, for that matter, they already have…
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/of-trees-volcanos-and-pond-scum/
Now if only I could give a fire and brimstone speech like the MP / MEPs…
E.M.Smith (04:47:21) :
Glad you like it! I just basically kept track of the “What?” moments as I researched the topic the first time I ran into it (here, from a ‘warmer’) and discovered that we really just don’t have the basic data to even begin to have a clue.
I think you underestimate the science involved in stable isotope interpretations…
There are quite different changes in d13C ratio for different plants, current and fossil alike. But these have one point in common: fossil and current organics are depleted in 13C, compared to near everything else: carbonate deposits, volcanic degassing, deep and surface oceans. The atmosphere is slightly depleted in 13C (- 8 per mil d13C), compared to the (deep) oceans 0 to +4 per mil. While fossil and fresh organics are at average -24 per mil (with a wide range).
So how can we make a differentiation between fossil fuels and vegetation decay, the only known bulk carbon sources with low 13C? There are two indications: 14C (from cosmic rays and atomic bomb experiments) is absent in fossil fuels (much too old) and oxygen use.
We can calculate the equivalent oxygen use from fossil fuel use. The real oxygen use can be measured. This shows a slight deficiency since about 1990 (when the oxygen measurements were accurate enough). Thus some less oxygen was used than calculated from fossil fuel use. Thus some more oxygen was formed by growing vegetation than was used by decaying vegetation. Thus vegetation was a net sink for 12CO2, leaving more 13C in the atmosphere. And thus the only remaining source of the rapid sinking 13C levels in the atmosphere and the upper oceans is fossil fuel use.
The d13C and oxygen changes can be used to estimate the partitioning between the sink capacity of the oceans and vegetation:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/287/5462/2467.pdf Battle ea. partitioning
http://www.agu.org/journals/gb/gb0504/2004GB002410/2004GB002410.pdf Bender ea. idem
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf until 2002.
That is confirmed by the sinking 14C levels too, before 1950. After 1950 the atomic bomb testing increased 14C levels in the atmosphere, which makes a comparison quite difficult. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect