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.
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.
@ur momisugly 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”)