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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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