I am writing to ask you to join us in our vital and urgent campaign to stop
climate change
Now FoE might be a powerful pressure group, but not even the Almighty can stop climate change. It is a naturally occurring (and permanent phenomenon - always has been, always will be. Now I obviously know what they meant, but when they are this inaccurate in a fundraising letter one wonders about how accurate they are in other outlandish claims about global warming.
122 comments:
I think even a third rate theologion might admit that the Almighty can stop climate change. Even the term 'almighty' definitionally leads one to that conclusion.
Tut, tut - remember that you Tories are Green these days!
Or maybe not....
It should obviously say 'our vital, urgent and pointless work'.
...but not even the Almighty can stop climate change.
His Grace begs to differ. It is intrinsic to the notion of omnipotence that the Almighty could indeed stop climate change, if he so wished. He has, after all, previously been known to stop the earth on its axis, and raise a carpenter from the dead.
Oh dear Iain. You've really got to stay more on message than this, I'm afraid.
Remember, we CAN stop climate change. We've just got to put 'off' switches on our Plasmas, tax car parks and get rid of road signs.
Why don't you give Mr Gummer a ring to find out more? He's probably flying out to play golf, but leave a message. Or try talking to Zac. He's probably overseeing the upgrading of the helicopter landing pad at his Somerset estate, so try his mobile.
a vacuous point of semantics...
Yeah! We CAN stop climate change! Working creates more greenhouse gases than....anything! Also, stopping cows farting can help save the planet! Dull, dull, dull. If India, China, the good 'ol USA and Russia arn't on board for significant co2 reductions- face facts we (or future generations) are 'Fooked'.
Iain,
Are you seriously suggesting that nothing man does or can do will effect the environment? Seriously?
You really make me dispair of this Party sometime.
Anonymous, stop being so stupid. Climate change is a permanent condition. It has been so since time began. Nothing can stop climate change. The point I was making was they were very loose with their language. They should have said 'global warming', not 'climate change'.
Disagree completely. God can stop climate change, and so, if everyone (including the US and China) pulls in the same direction, can man.
Iain,
You really shouldn't speak aboutissues you know little about.
Global warming is not the issue - the issue is "man made climate change" - this can indeed be cooling for some parts of the planet (simply put - more "heat" due to increased GHGs leads to more cloud cover through increased evaportaion leads to increase in the earths albedo leads to less heat from sun leads to cooling.)
Are the Fiends of the Earth offering any guarantees on this deal? I hope they're well underwritten.
@ Cranmer,
Your Grace, I take your point about the Almighty raising chippies from the dead - does he do the same for sparkies, too?
I do not have to be an envorinmental expect to know that climate change is a permanent condition.
Oh, give it a rest, Iain. It's pretty clear they meant 'Climate Change' as it is currently understood, rather than the general concept of climate fluctuating over the course of history. I was under the impression this was a heavyweight blog - doesn't focusing on this make you look just a little petty?
Makes a change from the far right whackadoo rubbish that infects Iain's threads too often. Good for you, Iain, don't let anyone put you off. Looking forward to you putting pro-Cameron posts out now you're on "the list"!
It is obvious what FOE meant: to stop catastrophic climate change.
Indeed.So that's what they should have said, isn't it?
Re: Matthew,
Not at all. Whilst FotE and other such organisations may have laudable aims and even (on occasion) credible science to back up their claims, this is too often clouded by unsubstantiated assertions, or loaded and misleading terms designed mopre to manipulate than to inform.
Iain's valid point (which seems to have either been missed or deliberately ignored by several people on this post) is that if the green lobby wish to be taken seriously by policy-makers, they need to start being more accurate in their choice of terminology.
Stop climate change? Why would anyone want to do that. We all use central heating don't we? What is the purpose of central heating if not very local climate change?
Iain's comment is an entirely sensible one. What utter tosh to suggest that anyone is able to 'stop' climate change!
It's just a shame Friends of the Earth didn't think of doing this before the last Ice Age. That caused a lot of upset to our ancestors and also made an awful mess of Snowdonia and the Lake District, as every GCSE-kid traipsing over those landscapes can see only too clearly.
Anyone remember the old Private Eye cartoon from the time of the miners' strike of a group of miners on a demonstration with plackards saying 'Miners Demand Eternal Life'.
It's just the same.
Yup, Iain, that's what they should have said. Well done.
FRINGE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP IN HYPERBOLIC PROMO SHOCK belongs somewhere alongside 'Bear in wood defecation scandal', p. 94.
If you believe that a weather deity called Yahweh controls the weather(when he feels like it), or that human beings can stop climate change ("sun stand thou still") then believing that Gordon Brown can cure scrofula should be not too much of a stretch.
Need to change your slogan.
"Vote Blue, Don't Go Green"
...Oh dear, the lurch to right is gathering pace, whatever next; rambling on about Migrants and the EU.
James and others, agree. That struck me, too.
Matthew swanks in with an overweening air of superiority, noting: "... they meant 'Climate Change' as it is currently understood...".
What I currently understand by "Climate Change" is the climate of our plant is, err, changing. Perhaps the Friends of the Earth are not friends of precision of definition. I wonder why?
"I was under the impression this was a heavyweight blog - doesn't focusing on this make you look just a little petty?"
No, it makes him a little precise, which is the point of language.
There is no "man-made" climate change. It was much hotter in the year 50 AD than it is today. You fantasists are going to have to face scientific facts one day. Climate change is caused by activity on the surface of the sun. You and your anti-progress/anti-capitalist ilk are welcome to fly up to the sun to try to stop it.
anon @ 12.29 - there is a vast difference between caring for the environment (good) and believing human-generated action can alter climate change on a global scale(stupid).
Well. A lazy pass from Foe there. Could have gone anywhere. And here's Dingly showing him how it should be done!
Quite remarkable.
@ Cranmer,
Your Grace, I take your point about the Almighty raising chippies from the dead - does he do the same for sparkies, too?
Mr Unsworth,
In His Grace's experience, God always deploys the vernacular. It is not therefore so much a matter of raising sparkies from the dead, as timber technicians, lumber operatives, wood executives, or however Jesus' job title might now be termed.
Verity, I'm an undergraduate sitting in my dressing gown eating toast and commenting on blogs because if I have to read any more Dworkin today my brain is going to dissolve. Trust me, I'm not swanking into anything.
I'm pretty sure there's not much point getting into a debate over the causes of climate change (Climate Change) here. However I think you should at least admit that the current scientific consensus is against you. If you believe that consensus to be wrong, then fair enough, but to call those who are concerned about man-made climate change 'fantasists' is wrong.
And you don't have to be anti-progress or anti-capitalist to hold my opinions - I'm neither. I like my car, and I like my electronic devices. I also like the fact that they are my own property, to use as I see fit. I'm simply aware that using my property in a certain way may well harm the environment, and I would like to make others aware of that danger too.
Also, precision is not 'the point of language'. It is a desirable quality in the use of language. And the point was whether Friends of the Earth's imprecision was in itself something to which it was worth drawing attention.
Shall we assume that Friends of The Earth's climatological scientists are no more fans of precision of thought than are their writers?
Just look what you have done, Mr Dale: all of this wasteful comment from one vacuous post.
jimbo
Re lurching to the right. After Brown's promise of "British jobs for British workers", what BNP policies will New Labour steal next?
There are limits to even omnipotence, for example one and one will never equal three no matter how many lovely assistants are ushered onto the stage by The Great Conjuror . Altering the Universe in this gross way is much the same as reconfiguring a tautology. I `m not at all sure the friends of the Earth are not claiming an ability to tinker with the very nature of truth. Which god cannot do.
God equally cannot have been responsible for moral meaning. Either he chose "good things" arbitrarily, and might have plumped for murder instead of love , or their goodness pre-existed god. Invention is not a quality moral meaning can possess as much as one and one cannot equal three
All in all he must be nearly as under employed as a Scottish MP. Sounds like a sweet deal
I don't think the Almighty is as powerful as he is cracked up to be. He didn't stop the Holocaust, malaria or world famine, has he? Either that, or he's not as ethically good as he's supposed to be.
What will the 'FOE' use the money for? Will they just employ more 'meeja' types on fat wages to lobby the commisars or pay for more 'rent a mob' clowns to prance up and down in silly costumes? Thats realy going to help the planet isnt it?
These pressure groups are being paid by the EU and regional governments(us) to 'lobby' themselves to push for a higher TAX enviroment, thats the whole point!
The truth is that the climate has always warmed and cooled and will always undergo cyclic change, you cannot stop climate cycles any more than you can hold back the tide, like king Canute!
The AGW/MMCC doomsayers can hold back the truth for only so long, lets hope they dont inflict too much damage in the mean time.
Mattheew - the concensus among climatologists is, mankind is much too puny to influence the universe. The sun is what causes climate change, and that has been a normal part of our planet for millions of years. We would have to be as powerful of the sun to influence our climate. And we're not.
BTW, how did we get out of the Ice Age without people carriers and central heating? Indeed, mankind hadn't even learned to stand upright at the time, never mind drive.
The precise conveyance of thought is indeed the point of language. Otherwise we could say, "Welcome! Take a fish!" indicating a chair. It would be quite confusing, and that is why in any language, the defintion is agreed.
Poohbear - King Knut was demonstrating to his courtiers that he was not powerful enough to stop the waves even if he, as king, commanded that they stop. He was admirably proving that man's power, even the power of a king, is limited.
He didn't stop the Holocaust, malaria or world famine, has he?
Indeed not, but one needs a tighter grasp of Augustinian theodicy.
Esentially, God is letting us get on with it, and we reap what we sow. For him to intervene would conflict with man's free will. As long as man chooses to be prodigal, there shall be famines, holocausts, and global warming (not that His Grace believes that man is remotely to blame for the latter).
I was almost prepared to take climate change seriously, you, know, I really was. I asked one of my friends who is a proper scientist with a doctorate and everythink.
But when you see how shrilly the climate change lot reply when you question their orthodoxy, you have to wonder. I mean, if you state something that is palpably untrue, people just think you're mad. But when you query someone's belief and they get all huffy and shouty you can't help wondering if they're scared, and what it might be that they're scared of.
Since Friends of the Earth already get most of their income from government grant (mainly EU governments) I think theycan & should do without yours Iain.
They are what is termed an "astroturf" organisation, ie fake grassroots, who are, in turn, one of the organisations favoured by the EU for giving advice on whether they ought to introduce more government regulations, taxes, emply more regulators etc.
Coincidentally they are also favoured by such government funded bodies as the BBC, providing alarmist soundbites on a regular basis.
Matthew - that great scientific consensus believed that we have just had the warmest decade in eons, and then, oops!, it transpired that the Chief Wizard Scientist had got his data wrong by about 70 years.
Verity,
No. The consensus among climatologists is that the current warming of the climate is very likely to be the result of normal climate variability alone. The point is not that the earth's climate does not naturally change. The point is that the evidence suggests the climate is currently changing at a faster rate, and with more severe consequences, than it would be changing without human influence. We are not responsible for all changes in the climate; however, the scientific consensus is that we are responsible for the acute and harmful changes taking place at the minute.
Changes in the earth's orbit around the sun form only one part of causes in climate change. Another part is the composition of the earth's atmosphere. It is this composition which we are changing with our carbon dioxide emissions. So no, mankind is not too puny to influence the universe in this regard.
Also, Verity, your point about the Ice Age makes little sense. All you are implying is that the earth's climate can change naturally, with dramatic effects. True. The point is that there is very strong evidence indeed that in this case it is not natural or inevitable - it is due to our actions.
So let's do something about it. Let's cut down emissions. Please, Verity, tell me why you don't believe that carbon dioxide emissions contribute to climate change. Please tell me why reductions in emissions wouldn't help slow or stop this particular change in our climate. (NB I am not, repeat not, asking you to tell me that the climate often changes naturally. I know. Everybody knows. Tell me why you don't believe the evidence that this time it is different, that this time it is manmade.)
To win an election steer well clear of this green nonsense Joe Public doesn't believe a word of it and realises it's a stealth tax measure.(Joe Public does NOT include Guardian readers by the way)
Never underestimate FOE. They're fanatical and quite convinced about everything they proclaim, that they can stop "climate change" (which is all our fault, of course, so we must all be made to suffer for it) and that theirs is the only right and proper course of action, the One True Path which they will attempt to enforce on the rest of us. They're just not interested in debate, because in their minds the issue has long since been decided: We're All Guilty. The sheer intellectual arrogance and historical ignorance of their position bothers them not in the slightest, because they know they're right. And of course because politicians are misguided enough to kowtow to the absurd FOE dogma.
Cranmer, it's you who needs to get a grip, mate.
Archbishop of Canterbury,my arse.
If Friends of the Earth wish to influence and persuade they must avoid hyperbole like the plague. It plays into the hands of sceptics like myself.
In particular, if they wish to persuade us that science is on their side they must learn to argue in scientific terms, using language with precision.
Well said Iain, we have to resist these zelots who pervert the truth to suit ther own ends. They used to be called The Flat Earth Society in the search for Utopia.
Otherwise we could say, "Welcome! Take a fish!" indicating a chair. It would be quite confusing,
If I said that to someone whilst indicating a chair it is far more likely that they would assume that 'fish' was some kind of cant word that people from my part of the country / school / profession / etc used for 'chair'. Without wanting to get all Derrida about it, 'chair' means something very different to most people. I am currently sitting on a chair. That probably produces a mental image in your head. But the chances are it is completely inaccurate.
Human sociolinguistics has evolved to the extent that context - when two people speak the same language - can be one of the most reliable indicators of meaning, because of the gulf between what you say (eg 'chair') and what you mean (eg 'burgundy leather Cogswell'). If I told you that I was going to the pub tonight to get "utterly schnozzled" then you would, I assume, put together what you know and infer that I was planning to become inebriated.
All of which is a long way round to saying stick to the reactionary politics and leave the semiotics alone.
Whoops. Meant to say (4.47 pm) "very UNLIKELY to be the product of normal climate variability". Huge apologies. What was that about precision of language again?
Matthew - those are hand picked lefty scientists with an anti-capitalist/anti-progress agenda. The vast majority of scientists engaged in all the diverse fields of climatology say our current, very tiny, warming cycle is perfectly natural. See, every time there is a lot of activity on the surface of the sun - sunspots - the earth warms up. When the activity dies down, the earth starts cooling.
Geologists tell us that the earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years.
Neil Craig is correct. FoTE and other agenda-driven groups are [witting] tools of governments for introducing taxes and more regulations to control their citizenries. He's right about the BBC, which you pay for, as well.
Matthew, because the damage, if any, is so tiny as to be immeasurable. You are over-estimating the importance of man on this planet. I admit that they can do relatively small damage, like killing of animals inhabiting rivers and river banks, but this is environmental damage and not "man made global warming".
You have to look for motives, Matthew, and the motive here is control of the population and ever-more taxes with which to buy votes to keep the governing party in power. With absolutely not a shred of proof of any kind, the British government is going to put an extra tax on flights "to fight global warming".
Al Gore is a moonbat, not a scientist. He only has one degree and that is a BA. He's the biggest shareholder in Occidental Petroleum and his family used to be Armand Hammer's best friends. His family made their money from coal mines and tobacco for generations. (And still does, I believe.) And, surprise, surprise, the largest "carbon offset" trading company in the world is owned by ... ol' Al. What a scam!
He needed a vehicle to take him back into the American consciousness (he wants to be persuaded to run for the Dems) after the hanging chads burned out.
You're a student. You should be more enquiring and less accepting.
Surely if we build enough wind farms the world's temeperature will stop rising? That is what they are saying in our local paper. Perhaps I have misunderstood something.
it is apparent that even the Almighty is helpless to resist The Age of (inter alia, Climate) Change. Gordon help us all!
Not everyone who believes in "Man made Global Warming" is uncritical of some of the wilder claims that are made. Lenny Smith, whose webpage is here is one(http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/cats/Lenny%20page.htm)
Would appreciate it if someone can tell me how to put links under "Here".
@ Cranmer,
Your Grace, I thank you for your counsel. You say "Jesus' job title"
One wonders what His job description might be, too.
Presumably there would be remunerations and, possibly, an Eternal Pension. Huge amounts of capital required for that - possibly Infinite.
veity said
"... it makes him a little precise, which is the point of language."
"Mattheew - the concensus among climatologists is .."
".. that is why in any language, the defintion is agreed."
Oh dear!
I don't think the Almighty is as powerful as he is cracked up to be.
If he was he'd have aborted Gordon
@ psj "He didn't stop the Holocaust, malaria or world famine, has he?"
There are those who believe that he may indeed have inflicted these lamentations upon us all.
Just to remind us who is 'in charge', as it were.
If Climate Change is 'man made' there is only one logical enduring long term solution - remove the cause.... MAN. Anything else is, at best, a complete waste of time.
I've no doubt that the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are limbering up even as we speak.
In which case in the words of the immortal poet "Dont Worry-Be Happy"
Hiya Matthew,
You need to know that this blog attracts people like me.
And Verity.
Cheers mate.
Matthew, as Verity seems a bit busy at the moment, may I point out that there is a strong strand of scientific opinion that high co2 levels are a consequence, not a cause, of global warming.
Scientists at the University of Mannheim state that the concept of 'greenhouse gases heating up the Earth' is a 200yr old myth, and is actually physically impossible.
ps. What a great thread - climate change AND theology!
Veridee said
- "Matthew - those are hand picked lefty scientists with an anti-capitalist/anti-progress agenda. The vast majority of scientists engaged in all the diverse fields of climatology say our current, very tiny, warming cycle is perfectly natural."
Read "Home Brittanicus" by Chris Stringer. Quoting non-existent stories is your fave rhetorical device isn't it Veridee?
"See, every time there is a lot of activity on the surface of the sun - sunspots - the earth warms up. When the activity dies down, the earth starts cooling."
No its not Veridee. There have been a number of scientific studies along these lines which have showed that the correlation between sun spot activity and climate warming doesn't hold up - sorry (yes and I have papers published in, inter alia, Phys. Rev. A. so not too interested in your rubbish opinions on science)
"Geologists tell us that the earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years."
really? Geologists? They study rocks don't they?
"Neil Craig is correct. FoTE and other agenda-driven groups are [witting] tools of governments for introducing taxes and more regulations to control their citizenries. He's right about the BBC, which you pay for, as well."
Yes have a good rant and off to bed. Guessing it's about now you accuse him of being arrogant or somesuch. You are the most poisonous person on this blog.
"Matthew, because the damage, if any, is so tiny as to be immeasurable. You are over-estimating the importance of man on this planet. I admit that they can do relatively small damage, like killing of animals inhabiting rivers and river banks, but this is environmental damage and not "man made global warming". "
And your scientific judgement is based on what? A deep cynicism of human nature? Sorry I meant to say your O level in French.
"You have to look for motives, Matthew, and the motive here is control of the population and ever-more taxes with which to buy votes to keep the governing party in power. With absolutely not a shred of proof of any kind, the British government is going to put an extra tax on flights "to fight global warming"."
Thats it, attack Matthew. Not a lot to say.
"Al Gore is a moonbat, not a scientist. He only has one degree and that is a BA. He's the biggest shareholder in Occidental Petroleum and his family used to be Armand Hammer's best friends. His family made their money from coal mines and tobacco for generations. (And still does, I believe.) And, surprise, surprise, the largest "carbon offset" trading company in the world is owned by ... ol' Al. What a scam!"
And I ask again Veridee, your scientific credentials are precisely what?
"You're a student. You should be more enquiring and less accepting."
So what's your excuse, Veridee?
November 16, 2007 5:54 PM
Because the climate changes all the time and because no one realy understands it properly. you can blame anyone or anything for it from cars to cow farts but the only real thing that drives our climate and all the ones on the other planets in our solar system is the sun. watch a pan of water on your stove turn up the gas and it boils faster.See simple just like ecomentalists.Will these fools start trying to turn the sun down?.
Chuck Ainsworth said
"Presumably there would be remunerations and, possibly, an Eternal Pension. Huge amounts of capital required for that - possibly Infinite."
Not really - if one uses a reasonable inflation-adjusted discount factor of say 3% an infinite pension can be funded by a current investment of 1/0.05 = about 20 times whatever ones heavenly pensioner wants to receive on an annual basis. What do you think he would require to retire though? A standard British pension? Maybe a bit more than that? Enough to retire to Spain?
Iain
Nice to see that you have rattled the cages of some of these Global Warming Scaremongering Weirdoes.
I am campaigning for a Godwin type law which can be invoked whenever one raises their ugly heads in a debate.
"Oh-my-Godwin Law" has been suggested. Any other suggestions?
Re Godwins Law how's about.
Icarus Law
As inspired by Verity 1.59
"You and your anti-progress/anti-capitalist ilk are welcome to fly up to the sun to try to stop it."
Gwil ap Tomos
(forgot to sign my previous)
here's a thought - cows eat grass - presumably grass which grew by extracting carbon from the atmosphere. Then they expell it in the form of (mostly) methane. Surely its carbon in - carbon out? Silly scientists? How could 2000 of them have missed something so obvious. Or could they?
Answers on a napkin. All you scientific experts out there love to hear what you think (especially the trout).
Verity, as a student, I know a conspiracy theory when I see one. I also know that what makes conspiracy theories attractive is the presence of a real motive of the part of the conspirators. I submit to you that the most significant vested economic interest in this debate belongs with those who would seek to deny climate change, not those who recognise its existence. Oil companies and car manufacturers - if there is any conspiracy here, it is being conducted by those who make money out of carbon emissions.
Let's have a look at your little theory.
1)"The motive here is control of the population and ever-more taxes with which to buy votes to keep the governing party in power."
Increasing taxes is a vote-winner? Really? Is that really true? Or is that nonsense? I'm going to go with nonsense, personally.
2) "With absolutely not a shred of proof of any kind, the British government is going to put an extra tax on flights 'to fight global warming'"
The government asked for evidence, and received it in the form of the Stern Report. What are your objections to its content, exactly? Please read it and tell me how it fails to amount to a 'shred of proof'.
3) "Hand-picked lefty scientists with an anti-capitalist/anti-progress agenda."
Hand-picked by who, exactly? Are they actually all 'lefty', or have you just made that up on the spot? And if you apply any kind of sensible thought to it, does the idea of an 'anti-progress' scientist make any sense whatsoever?
4) "Al Gore is a moonbat, not a scientist".
No. What you meant to say was: "Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist." You are not in a position to be calling anyone a moonbat. And, whatever his other flaws (and there are lots), Al Gore is a politician with a strong environmental track record - his advocacy on climate change stretches back a long, long way, far before any personal involvement with carbon offsetting.
Anything else, Verity?
As Judith quite rightly said what a great thread Global Warming AND Theology.
In one someone expects me to believe Man is responsible for Global Warming and, equally ludicrous, in the other someone expects me to believe that The Almighty could raise an electrician from the dead...in Jerusalem....2000 years ago.
Gwil ap Tomos
@ Greenspam
Who the hell is "Chuck Ainsworth"?
And you're making prodigious assumptions about the lack of interference by a NuLab government.
Anyway, I'd sooner leave my pension arrangements in the hands of The Almighty rather than in the hands of The Almighty Gord.
Troll Patrol write: "geologists study rocks, don't they?" For a scientist of such encyclopaedic knowledge as your good self, I would have thought that you would know that geologists study the earth. They're the chaps and chapesses who date rocks and dinosaur bones and date the various ages of our planet by what the strata contain. They are also known to discover oil.
As I'm sure you know, it comes from the Greek prefix geo, meaning earth or land. (As a matter of snide interest, in Homer's time, the word was gaia, and we all know where that went.)
You want my "scientific credentials" for knowing that the Gore family and Armand Hammer were best buddies? And that Gore's family money comes from coal mining and tobacco?
(I've just thought of something! You know the theory that El Nino and other violent storms are started by the beat of one butterfly's wings? Well, I was wondering if that tsunami around three years back could have been started by one hanging chad fluttering in the wind? And that's where Gore got the idea?)
To Verity,
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
You haven't a clue about anything scientific or technical. Please spare us your ignorant comments.
'...to stop man's contribution towards climate change' I suspect they meant; but that would have been sexist.
Same old climate deniers, saying the same old things.
Ian Dale 'Nothing can stop climate change' yes we can, but we need to try, not just give up.
Veritee 'There is no "man-made" climate change' yes there is, see any number of scientific proofs.
'BBC providing alarmist soundbites on a regular basis' they are not almighty, they report news as do the rest of the media, Neil Craig would rather they stopped reporting and just did repeats?
'Al Gore is a moonbat, not a scientist', he made a good film, which from veriteee comments she hasnt seen, but she would learn something, does she need scientific qualifications in order to comment? thought not.
Neil Craig is completely wrong about FoE funding, instead of mostly govt grants, over 90% of comes from individuals. The rest comes from events, grants and trading. See www.foe.co.uk/about_us/friends_earth_funded.html for their accounts. I hope to see an apology soon.
Troll Patrol, Adrian Windrush and the celebrated Anonymous: I have never written personal abuse about any poster on any blog. Not because I'm shy, but because I don't know them and don't wish to look stupid.
Yet you write over-heated personal abuse against me, who you don't know. You're angry and confused that a woman is presenting contrary arguments.
Let us just say that, were a man to write similar arguments, you would not try to dismissively degrade him by changing his blog name.
You're weak.
Stern is not a scientist. It is my understanding that most of the ICC report is based on taking the most extreme of hypotheses about climate change and its causation, and then stirring up hysteria about it.
I am all in favour of risk-management, being one of the most risk-averse people on the planet, but it is possible to take things to extremes - especially when certain people who are leading the Hyper-Alarmist Tendency are doing very well out of it, thank you.
Verity, I'm actually with you on this one. I don't like the undertone to some of the posts attacking you. It's often interesting to see the difference in reaction when someone posts under a female name. Hope you don't think I'm doing the same thing - I'm not. I just think you're a bit of a nutjob when it comes to climate change!
@ Verity "You're angry and confused that a woman is presenting contrary arguments."
Sadly this is the norm in the Unsworth household...
"He didn't stop the Holocaust, malaria or world famine, has he?"
Since God seems to be getting a bit of a kicking may I defend Him by Pointing out that the Holocaust was man made, that world famine has been essentially ended except, except in war torn areas, by the Green Revolution (no relation to the Greens) & that malaria continues as a major killer only because Luddite Greens banned the widespread use of DDT.
Since God is clearly not as young as he used to be we humans are going to have to face up to our responsibilities in running the universe. A responsibility the Luddites will do anything to shake off.
Adrian & I have clashed before on matters of fact & let me say that I acknowledge that his claim I am lying about FoI being promarily government funded represents tha absolute pinnacle of honesty of which he & any Luddite organisation which stands with him, is capable. On the other hand
"Friends of the Earth Europe, the group pre-eminent in lobbying the EU for tighter controls to combat global warming, received €635,000 in funding from the EU commission last year.
That, with additional funds from German, Austrian and Dutch ministries of environment, plus contributions from the United Nations Environment Programme, accounted for over fifty percent of the group's income, making it primarily a taxpayer-funded organisation."
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6214838&postID=2877763547643041238
Which proves he is a complete 100% liar like most of the rest of the genocidal child murdering parasities that make up the Green movement. No offence.
I cant speak for the others, but veritys claiming she is under attack for being a woman is ridiculous. She made some false claims, which were attacked. She doesn't defend them, instead seeking to change the subject.
Neil you are wrong about FoI being 'promarily government funded', I gave a reference to their accounts, in response you give a ref to this blog! Then you say Im a 'complete 100% liar', you would know about 100% lying I suppose, your clearly an expert on it. To be taken seriously you need to prove what you claim or admit you are making it all up. When your wrong, to abusively attack others wont make you any less wrong.
OK quite obviously I put the link up wrong.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/07/eu-pays-to-be-lobbied-on-global-warming.html
That do you OK?
Apology awaited.
Adrian - if you bothered to read the accounts to which you link, you would see that they cover a grand total of about £5 million, which is far from FoE's total resources. You will also see specific reference to FoE Trust, to which they are currently encouraging their supporters to transfer their donations. The 90% claim is therefore based on incomplete evidence.
Adrian Windisch - What "false claims"? It is you who are presenting imaginative FoTE fictions and it is up to you to prove them, which you cannot. FoTE is has a symbiotic relationship with governments. It presents phony science - much disputed by other scientists - that governments can use as a tool of control and extra tax-raising. For this it gets funding from ... governments. And that tower of probity and integrity, the United Nations.
The academics supporting the FoTE line are in it out of self-interest, publishing papers, media appearances, career advancement, and so on.
Neil Craig hits the nail on the head when he refers to followers of this theory as Luddites. He is also correct to point out that in Africa, thousands die of malaria every year due to the ill-considered banning of DDT.
This was at the tragic behest of the first hysterical spotter of universal environmental destruction, Rachel Carson. Her book, The Silent Spring, started this whole nonsensical downturn.
I can't undertand why so many folks can't see what is staring them in the face - ie that climate change has been going on warmer, cooler, warmer, cooler since time immemorial and certainly since well before man came along in the past hundred yewqrs or so with his coal fires and hot rods. Can somebody please tell me why all the drawings of Roman soldiers in Britain depict them wearing sandals and short skirts guarding Hadrians Wall if it was not for the fact that it must have been a sight warmer up north in those days. The Thames froze over in 1700-something. Must have been a bit chilly that year. Similarly why is that huge expanse of ice to the north east of Britain known as GREENland? Must have been ice free when the Vikings or whoever went fishing there, no? Climate change is a natural phenomenon and changing your light bulbs and using a bit less electricity will chnge nothing. Weren't we all being warned of an impending great freeze in the 1970s? Whatever happened to that? Please people, get your head out of cotton wool and use your brains.
Let the facts and scientific evidence fall where it may.
I have two questions.
1. What climate conditions constitutes global warming?
2. What climate conditions constitute normal climate?
The ammount of postcards these people send in bulk to the MP i work for defies belief. They seem to store them up for about 6 months then send them all at once. Happily the boss does not reply to postcards so they go straight in the bin!
"Similarly why is that huge expanse of ice to the north east of Britain known as GREENland?"
Much of Greenland is green in the summer months.
Some Like It Hot - Quite. Apparently, in Greenland in areas that occasionally briefly thaw, there are the remains of farms, preserved in ice, from when the Norwegians had a thriving farming community there.
When the Romans occupied England, the English upper classes adopted the dress of the conquerors and took to wearing togas. There were vineyards north of York.
This whole 'man-mad global warming' argument is so ludicrous and such an obvious scam (soliciting grants, for example) that I find it alarming that adults could be buying into it. If they'll buy into man-made global warming, they'll buy into anything, and that is a bit of a worry.
Wasn't The Big Lie an Orwellian construct?
Sorry - meant to say north west (of course!)
P T Barnum said that no one ever lost money underestimating the public and we are watching the truth of this unfold.
There are vast amounts of money waiting to be conned out of a gullible public.
This post was completely pointless. I challenge somebody to come up with any sentence that is completely unambiguous.
Example: "That crow is black."
Problems:
-There is no perfect definition of a crow, which would always allow somebody to determine whether something is a crow or not.
-What does "that" mean?
-Must the crow be perfectly black (absorb all light - virtually impossible)?
-Does "that crow" mean just the crow's feathers - what about its internal organs? Does the air in its lungs count as part of the crow? What about its blood and sweat?
-What if the crow absorbs all visible light, but not infra red, is it black then?
-What if people have differing eyesight, and disagree on whether something is black?
However, in a suitable context, almost every English speaker would understand what the sentence "That crow is black." means. Exactly the same with the statement about climate change. I don't know what more you can expect from language, which is fundamentally imprecise.
Language is fundamentally preciseif used with precision. That's why we have it.
Climate change means climate change. It doesn't mean mad-made climate change. It means the climate's changing. As it always does.
People who think it's caused by man are elevating the importance of man in the universe.
Tonight on the BBC world news, are 'global warming deniers, 1)mentaly insane? 2)evil witches? 3) wicked criminals? should these deranged/mad people be helped or punished? We also feature the worlds greatest scientist Dr ALBORT GORE MD/BSC/VC/RSJ/TCP/JCB/CJD, who will save the planet from disaster single handed with his gargantuan intelect.
NEWSFLASH... Because the 'debate is over, all scientists will be sent to political re education camps and from now on only BBC trained media graduates can speak about global warming which IS beyond doubt!
In other news, it has been proved beyond doubt that the evil Tories in league with the dastardly Jooos and Americans caused global warming in their relentless quest to make money and destroy the masses and peasant workers, so from now on the glorious leader comrade Brown will be the ONLY candidate at the next general erection! The BBC fully expect comrade Brown to get 99.97% of the vote.
Neil, you put up the wrong link, and want me to apologise for it, somehow this doesn’t surprise me. Your link refers to FoE Europe, not FoE, and its a blog where anyone can anything. My link referred to FoE, and it was an account submitted to the charity commission. The next blog on your site is 'Friends of the Earth: dodgy c*nts' clearly a reliable balanced source of information.
AD627 see above.
Verity, your post referred to Al Gores family interests; I said you don’t seem to have seen the film ‘The Inconvenient Truth’, where this was discussed, and that you should see the film. You say Goes views don’t count as he isn’t a scientist, its then natural to ask if you’re a scientist. I think those not scientists also have an opinion, but we should read what scientists are saying. You seem to regard this, and misspelling your blog name as a personal attack, then you miss-spell my name, didn’t you say you didn’t do personal attacks? You seem full of contradictions. You should read what the man you admire describes those who disagree with him as ‘genocidal child murdering parasities’, now that’s an attack! You say its up to me to prove FoE accounts, I already did. If you want to make a case you need to prove what you say, I won’t hold my breath. You then move on to DDT, claiming it would save lives, but it isn’t internationally banned. It has been used, and its not as effective as the makers claim. Rather than causing deaths, the cautions in Silent Spring about the indiscriminate use of pesticides could have saved many lives. http://info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm And Luddites were against technology, greens are against waste.
In the news today the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has challenged governments to act on the findings of a major new report on climate change. Launching the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he said real and affordable ways to deal with the problem existed.
Adrian Windisch - I certainly didn't intend to misspell your name and this time have copied it directly off your post. Your mispelling of my name was not a typo, and nor was your doppelganger's "Veridee".
You write: "You seem full of contradictions." Oh, dear, that's us women for you! We don't know where our silly little heads are!
You write: "veritys claiming she is under attack for being a woman".
Incorrect.
I am claiming that you are answering my arguments in a specific, dismissive way because I am a woman. You are trite and patronising.
Re DDT, I said, quoting a poster above, that DDT had been banned in response to the first "environmental" wolf-crier, who was Rachel Carson and whose book The Silent Spring encouraged the banning of DDT and thus enabled malaria and also killer diarrohea to spread in African villages with filthy water when this was unnecessary.
Of course I haven't seen 'An Inconvient Truth' by Mr Moneybags and consumer of huge amounts of electricity at his mansion (and, indeed, it is his right to so consume) and owner of the world's largest "carbon footprint" trading company! Has anyone except schoolchildren - get them young! - forced to see it ... and how, as a matter of interest, did this get made compulsory?
This is the latest gig of the moneybags Gore family. They're operators. That's why they were in so tight with Armand Hammer and OXY. I mean, the world's largest shareholder of OXY stock?
You quote the latest Third Worlder Secretary-General. You're giving credence to anything a UN Secretary-General says?
Why? And whyan't we get a nice German in? Or a no-nonsense Aussie? John Bolton would be my fave.
"Launching the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ...". Now there's a phrase to chill the heart.
Don't you all remember 'YK2' - the end of the world financial and banking system etc etc ????
That was a great world scam, the IT industry made a killing.
Climate change (whatever it is) is an even bigger scam, and much better than YK2, because it is not really temporal. You can argue it indefinitely.
We all realised we had been conned with YK2 when computers continued to operate normally on the 1st January of the new millennium.
I may not be a climatologist or a scientist - but I can recognise a scam when I see one. 'Climate change caused by man' is the ultimate scam, and a very clever one.
verity said...
"whyan't we get a nice German in?"
What a pity your hero Adolph Hitler is dead.
I presume English isn't your native tongue. We don't use the term "whyan't".
Verity
"and how, as a matter of interest, did this get made compulsory?"
It got made compulsory by lefty-fascists of our nulab government. It got made uncompulsory when a court ruled the compulsion to be illegal. Obviously only gullible fools would watch the nonsense for information purposes.
The anti-West UN has indeed repeated the lies that the same bunch of liars keep lying about. What a surprise.
Well said, david shukman!
"verity said...
Mattheew [sic] - the concensus [sic] among climatologists is, mankind is much too puny to influence the universe. The sun is what causes climate change"
Mercury (depending on its position in its orbit) is between 0.30 and 0.47 AU from the sun. It has a mean surface temperature of 179C.
Venus is about 0.72 AU from the sun. It has a mean surface temperature of 462C.
Care to explain? With these distances, you should expect Mercury to receive nearly four times as much solar radiation as Venus, yet it is much colder.
Interestingly, Mercury has an atmosphere that is about 3.6% CO2. Venus's is about 96.5% CO2. But, presumably, this is a coincidence.
By the way, the concentration of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere has increased by 35% since 1832. Before this, it was largely unchanged for thousands of years. There is an interesting graph here.
"Language is fundamentally preciseif used with precision. That's why we have it."
Then give me any example of a perfectly precise sentence, as I asked.
"You quote the latest Third Worlder Secretary-General..."
Well, I don't know what definition of "Third World" you are using which includes South Korea. I also don't know how you can discount somebody's views based purely on his nationality. This just gives the impression that you are hopelessly xenophobic.
"The next blog on your site is 'Friends of the Earth: dodgy c*nts' clearly a reliable balanced source of information."
Well Adrian I might object that it is a little kind to them but hardly wrong.
"genocidal child murdering parasites" is not kind but not untrue about an organisation which supports the unnecessary killing of millions of African children every year by the DDT ban. However you squirm on this the fact is that before the west insisted on aid receiving countries giving up DDT malaria deaths were down to 50,000 & now they are 2 million annually. That is indeed a death toll greater than Hitler's.
[9:19] Re Hitler. He was Austrian, stupid.
It rather takes the sting out of your killer point, doesn't it?
Hitler is indeed very wicked and is recognised as the gold standard of wickness on an unimaginable scale (although Pol Pot had more people killed) and he did practice his evil in Germany. One man 60 years ago.
You think the entire German nation should still be making amends? Are you insane? Or just a vicious little twerp?
I also suggested an Ozzie. No sly, "clever" little point to make? I also suggested John Bolton. I look forward to reading your killer point.
I don't know what the attraction of this blog is to knee-jerk mouth breathers when you people are always so badly informed and make points a reasonably alert six-year old would discard as not being clever enough.
[11:15] - Frankly, I don't think we want an Oriental general running an unmonitored organisation mired in corruption, much as I like S Korea and S Koreans. If we have to have the UN, and my preference would be to dynamite it, I would prefer someone who adheres to the values of the advanced West. John Bolton has my vote.
Genghis - thanks for a killer point that we had all forgotten! The great YK2 global scam! Slipped right out of our consciousness on 2 January 2001.
You are right. Global warming is even bigger because it is not finite. The "threat" won't end on any particular date; they can run and run with this one. And the tens of billions of dollars sloshing around the NGOs and quangoes and consulting firms and Al Gore makes YK2 look like a pin prick.
YK2 was going to be the end of the world banking system. Global warming's going to be the end of the world! I love it! Thanks for that!
YK2 ... how distant it seems now. Almost as though it's from another era, although it was only eight years ago.
I have compiled a handy compendium of great anti-capitalism scams that caught on worldwide.
1962 - Rachel Carson publishes "The Silent Spring". kicking off the environmental movement and the age of eco-fascism. That gal has a lot to answer for, including panicking the advanced West into withdrawing DDT from African water supplies.
1968 - a fellow by the name of Paul Ehrlich wrote a book about the "population bomb"
Who remembers the "population bomb"? Paul Ehrlich? 1968? No? Ancient history, but apparently the world was heading for over-population and the earth couldn't support us all and people in Africa were going to starve. (Ever noticed, it's always Africa that's going to get shafted?)
Lester Thurow popped up in the Eighties with something else about scarey demographics. Can't be bothered to read about it. I think it had to do with an aging world population.
In the 1970s, the world was running out of petroleum!! We only had enough to last us for another 20 years! This was because wicked capitalists wanted to drive around in cars! (Like, the Africans didn't?)
Around about the same time, the icy wind of "global cooling" blew in. Oh, God! The Sahara was going to freeze over! In fact, all the food-producing areas of the world were going to be covered in snow big time. Africans would starve!!!! I don't know what the authors of this were proposing to do about global cooling, but I'm sure it had something to do with petroleum.
YK2 - The international banking system was going to collapse! (Seems like another era, doesn't it?)
2006 - The portly figure of Al Gore brushed the hanging chads aside and re-emerged onstage as the world's greatest expert on ecology. He was lucky that the tsunami had struck a year or two before. Nature was powerful!!! The capitalist world had to curb its lavish lifestyle because we were burning up the planet and Africans would starve!
Odd, that he never mentioned Mt St Helen's, but I guess the insides of volcanos are pretty hot year round and there's not a lot you can do to blame it on humanity. But I was living in Texas, 2,000 miles away and we walked out of our houses one morning to find all our cars covered in volcanic ash. With this much power, I'm surprised that Al hasn't found a way of working it in to the Great Man Made Global Climate Change scam.
I may have missed a couple of the smaller scams and would enjoy hearing of any that others recall.
Ban Ki-Moon is an "Oriental general"?! None of the biographical information I have found about him suggests that he has ever been in the military (in fact he entered the S Korean diplomatic service as soon as he graduated) so I think you will have to clarify that. About the Oriental bit, are you suggesting that it is not his nationality that you have a problem with, but his race? If so, that is even less logical.
The Y2K bug was hyped by IT professionals who knew they would be able to secure a lot of work from it. I honestly don't see who is going to benefit from overestimating global warming. CO2 offsetting is hardly a large industry, and didn't exist at all until climate scientists decided that GHG emissions are a problem. If you think that governments can use this to get away with increasing taxes (as if this is the sole desire of politicians), you really do not understand politics at all.
verity said...
"[9:19] Re Hitler. He was Austrian, stupid.
It rather takes the sting out of your killer point, doesn't it?"
Hitler became a German citizen in 1932.
"Hitler is indeed very wicked"
So you think he is still alive?
"I also suggested an Ozzie. No sly, "clever" little point to make?"
I think Dame Edna would probably be about right for you.
"I also suggested John Bolton. I look forward to reading your killer point."
Draft-dodger Bolton resigned from the UN because his confirmation in the post was about to be rejected by the Senate. They know him better than you or I do.
[3:56] I assumed that someone with the title General was/had been in the military. It's a moot point. The United Nations is a Western concept and, if it has to exist - and there are way too many vested interests and way too much corruption for it to be dismantled - it should be run by someone with Western standards of behaviour.
Plse don't bore us with examples of corrupt Westerners. We disapprove of these people and we punish them. This is nothing against the Koreans, who I like immensely. I always think of them as the Italians of Asia. They're certainly the least reserved and the most emotional. And nothing against this Moon fellow, about whom I know absolutely nothing and will not be finding out.
I don't want the UN at all, and if we have to have it, it should be under the control of the West. I'm not a New World Order person.
The people benefitting from the global warming meme are Al Gore, all the academics who have jumped nimbly onto the bandwagon and got grants,conferenences, media appearances, papers published - and this includes the universities themselves - and all the quangoes and NGOs which have popped up around it; and all the people who want to control the growth of capitalism and have populations dependent on governments. This is an immense global industry.
Re Al Gore, think about it. He was born into an immensely wealthy and powerful political family (his grandfather was a senator from Tennessee). Al Gore got a BA from either Harvard or Yale, can't remember, and started work on a law degree before quitting and running for the Senate and won, as indeed, with his family name and history, he would.
Al Gore has spent his life in power and privilege and has devoted himself to looking after his own intersts. Suddenly, in his mid 50s, having lost the presidency of the United States and being somewhat at a loss, he became concerned about YOU. Not just YOU, but the whole planet.
Just the ticket to ride back into the public consciousness and put those hanging chads behind him. And make a few more dollars for the family fortune with this ludicrous "carbon trading" company.
[4:20] It doesn't matter what date Hitler got citizenship of Germany, he is not a genetic German. To blame a host nation for the genetic defects of someone who was born elsewhere is moronic. Hitler's genes were not magically tranposed on citizenship.
However, frankly, I think your suggestion of Dame Edna for S-G of the UN is brilliant. She could totter into the General Assembly and say, "Good morning, Possums!" and throw a few gladioli at representatives of corrupt nations. Well, she'd need more than a few. There could be a little flower cart full of them at the podium.
I love it.
"I have compiled a handy compendium of great anti-capitalism scams that caught on worldwide..."
So... I suppose that DDT is perfectly safe, that the number of people on Earth (and their average age) isn't changing, that we have an everlasting supply of oil and that there is never going to be another ice age? Anyway, what does any of this have to do with capitalism? Presumably, communists don't need oil or food, aren't affected by cancer, and are willing to put off retirement until their eighties.
DDT - No. It has to be used with caution in the service of saving hundreds of thousands of lives.
Don't understand your second point. The number of babies being born worldwide is growing, although Britain has killed quarter of a million of its own.
What does "global warming" have to do with capitalism? It is in the cause of curbing it and according more control to governments, who can then do five year tractor production plans, just like the glorious days of yore in the USSR.
Proven oil reserves, according to oil and gas magazines and not Al Gore, around 100 or more years. We'll have stopped using petroleum products long before that.
"If you think that governments can use this to get away with increasing taxes (as if this is the sole desire of politicians), you really do not understand politics at all."
Well somebody doesn't.
PS DDT has been proven safe for humans (see item 36 on http://junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html
& the "evidence" of its most serious damage -that it thins the shells ofbird eggs - has been largely disproven. But who cares - all the kids the Greens kill are brown.
Adrian, I used YOUR link to demonstrate that YOUR statement that 90% of FoE funding came from individuals was based on a figure for FoE funding of £5 million. I then stated that this did not represent all FoE's resources and that the accounts specifically referred to FoE Trust - a body not covered by the accounts - where additional FoE funding is being channelled. The conclusion from this is that YOUR assertion that 90% of FoE funding is derived from individuals is based on a partial set of accounts.
Given that we know from the EU’s own (appalling) accounts that the EU donates substantial sums to pressure groups, until you managed to produce some relevant FoE accounts, I will continue to believe that FoE receives substantial sums from governments and the EU. This lends credence to the idea of a symbiotic relationship between FoE and the political classes, in which the former provides the latter with convenient reasons for extracting taxation from the populace.
Thank you Neil and Verity for making such a mess of arguing your own cases.
Both have made racist ignorant comments, and should apologise.
To suggest a 'UN secretary general' must have been in the army because of the word general is laughable. To insist on not watching the film by Al Gore but pretending to know all about him proves their desire for ignorance. One person can make a typo, if another does it is an insult, so much for the concept of fairness. Your racism on 'Orientals and third worlders' shows how interested you are in saving lives in developing countries. Gore has been interested in ecology for a long time, read his book Earth in the Balance, learn what he has to say and confront your prejudices.
Inconvenient Truth hasn’t been banned in schools, before its shown it needs a statement to be made, which will update it as it was made based on science a few years ago.
Neil when you say 'But who cares - all the kids the Greens kill are brown' you reveal yourself as a racist as well as being ignorant and wrong.
AD627 I haven’t seen any reliable evidence that FoE has significant funding not mentioned in their accounts. Its possible FoE Europe is a separate organisation, my info is on FoE.
Adrian Windisch - Your low level of ability to reason and to understand arguments is alarming.
You write, with no tether to sense: To suggest a 'UN secretary general' must have been in the army because of the word general is laughable.
I said 'the military' not the army. At least try to get your direct quotes correct. Second, if someone is called General Honorê, for example, I don't assume that he is a Mr Honorê whose first name is General. It is not laughable to take normal usage for granted. What is laughable is your twisting yourself into ever tinier contortions in an attempt to win at least one tiny point from me, Neil Craig, AD627 and others.
Name one "racist comment", that I or any other defenders of sanity have made, if you please. Just one.
You write re St Albert: To insist on not watching the film by Al Gore but pretending to know all about him proves their desire for ignorance. Proves a desire for ignorance? Are you nuts or just a thicko? I know enough about Al Gore to be familiar with his politics. We all know Al Gore, dear.
Your racism on 'Orientals and third worlders' ... Orientals is a perfectly acceptable term in the Orient. At the very least, it saves them from coming under the blanket term "Asians", meaning Pakistanis, so fondly employed by the entire British media. It is no more offensive than calling a French person a European. ...shows how interested you are in saving lives in developing countries.
Which is, not at all. Time they had a go at saving themselves.
I will let Neil Craig and AD627 reply to your attacks against them.
Adrian said
"Neil when you say 'But who cares - all the kids the Greens kill are brown' you reveal yourself as a racist as well as being ignorant and wrong."
I don't believe you are quite that stupid & incapable of recognising satire. The rhetorical, but correct, answer to my question is that I do care or I wouls not mention it & you eco-Nazi don't or you wouldn't murder them.
Mous - since your contention is that anybody who has been employed at any time is automatically lying in the ex-employer's interest I assume you are equally on record as saying that nothing FoE says can ever be trusted because they are paid by governments. The same obviously applies to everybody in the IPCC or getting government grants to research climate, or Al Gore who prints cabon credit notesfor money, which pretty much leaves you with the only scientific evidence for catastrophism is because Zac Goldsmith say so.
My assessment is that Milloy knows infinitely more science than Goldsmith & is not quite infinitely smarter.
Adrian Windisch wants proof of the unhealthy funding arrangements between friends of the earth and it's state sponsors. Glad to oblige.
This is from the FoTE website which indicates that nearly all of their funding (85%) comes from government. Here's the link and the offending paragraph: http://www.foei.org/en/publications
/ar/2003/funding.html
'...85 percent of our income is subsidies received from government agencies and foundations (for details see financials ). These funds are granted to us for specific projects and campaigns and for our Membership Support Fund.'
Hope this clears things up for you Adrian.
But hey, I'm just one of the majority of scientists who generally consider the MMGW theory junk science. If only I was ahem, a well funded economist like Stern I'd understand why all I need to do is to forget scientific principles and have faith in Gore's, er, crockumentary.
Verity, 'You quote the latest Third Worlder Secretary-General...And whyan't we get a nice German in? Or a no-nonsense Aussie? John Bolton would be my fave.' Its racist to judge a person based only on their country of origin. You want a white anglo saxon leader of the UN, because your prejudiced against 'others'.
You said 'I assumed that someone with the title General was/had been in the military', do you know any generals in the Navy or Air Force? Do you think a general secretary of a union is in the military too?
When you say you don’t do personal attacks you seem very happy to attack Gore and, and unwilling to read his book or watch his movie, you seem to know little about him.
My direct quotes are just fine, re read them if you wish, your lack of understanding is sad, your willingness to insult others whose knowledge is greater is even sadder.
Neil you used those words, so you are a racist. Insulting me doesn't change the facts, though you can continue to try and distort them. No need to bottle it in any more, just go and join the BNP.
Well said anon, sounds like junk science is junk.
Adrian I still don't believe you are the idiot you claim to be (just as I didn't believe you were a qualified engineeer when you claimed that on the previous thread). However, against Verity, you have fallen into one of the simplest logical errors, known as the undistributed middle.
That all generals (except General Arthur Scargill, I title I have never heard but you apparently have) are members of the military does not mean that all members of the military are generals.
neil craig said...
" ... against Verity, you have fallen into one of the simplest logical errors, known as the undistributed middle.
That all generals (except General Arthur Scargill, I title I have never heard but you apparently have) are members of the military does not mean that all members of the military are generals."
It is Verity not Adrian who has fallen into a logical trap; i.e. she assumes that, since generals are military men, anyone with the word 'general' in their job title (e.g. Secretary-General) is a military man.
Verity said
"Troll Patrol, Adrian Windrush and the celebrated Anonymous: I have never written personal abuse about any poster on any blog. Not because I'm shy, but because I don't know them and don't wish to look stupid."
yes you did - you described me a "arrogant little prig".
In what was a frank but not deliberately offensive discussion about religion. Know thyself Veridee. And its got bugger all to do with the fact that you are female.
Verity wrote:
"Yet you write over-heated personal abuse against me, who you don't know. You're angry and confused that a woman is presenting contrary arguments."
This is beyond rational contradiction. I have had women bosses, women friends whatever. I have yet to see a single insult to you as though your views are wrong because you are a woman. You're the one who lets it degenerate into personal abuse. Stop it.
Veridee,
The "Troll Patrol" thing was as a reaction against "anon v. anon" trolling initially. Don't mind a robust opinion but lose the personal insults.
"just a vicious little twerp?"
which bit of this isn't personally offensive?
why say it? your points may be arguable but, despite being well made, are destroyed by this sort of rubbish.
Adrian Windisch - The UN is an Anglo-Saxon concept that was started to promote peace and Anglo-Saxon values. Therefore, a Korean, however clever and nice, and I'm sure he is as I've yet to encounter an unpleasant Korean, or that drip from Myanmar or the sleazy Kofi Anan are not appropriate for the job.
BTW, I don't necessarily want a white Anglo Saxon in the post. I would be perfectly content with a strong, conservative black American. It's the values, stupid.
I would also approve of a conservative Indian.
I fear "the other", do I? Define "the other", please. I look forward to it.
Troll Patrol, My blog identity is Verity. Making juvenile changes in it in the hope of diminishing what I write is weak, weak, weak. If you're 13, OK. What would look clever to a 13-year old looks weak and inadequate in an adult. In fact, it advertises that what follows will also be feeble, so I didn't read on.
verity said ...
"[4:20] It doesn't matter what date Hitler got citizenship of Germany, he is not a genetic German. To blame a host nation for the genetic defects of someone who was born elsewhere is moronic. Hitler's genes were not magically tranposed on citizenship."
There is no difference genetically between Austrians and Germans.
We can change climate change. On the long term. But we need to act now. Pressure is a necessity to be heard in Copenhagen.
Post a Comment