political commentator * author * publisher * bookseller * radio presenter * blogger * Conservative candidate * former lobbyist * Jack Russell owner * West Ham United fanatic * Email iain AT iaindale DOT com
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
From the University of East Anglia Archives...
What on earth could this be a reference to? Buggered if I know...
Speakers will include Sadiq Khan MP, Matthew Taylor of the RSA, Polly Toynbee, Kerry McCarthy MP, Jackie Ashley, Gaby Hinsliff, Nadine Dorries MP, Peter Kellner, Nick Anstead, Ellie Gellard, James Forsyth, Will Straw, David Babbs, John Denham MP, Will Hutton and Ken Livingstone.
I've met the Guy who creates these a few times, he's well know within academia, well he had a great experience with our lovely Labour border controls where despite him having a PHd from Stanford, having worked at Caltech, being well known etc he was moments away from having being deported.
Part 1 http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1243
Part 2 http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1244
Part 3 http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1244
Animal magic has it. Torture and twist the data until it confirms the theory.
Michael Mann (Penn State hockey stick man) first did it, then Keith Briffa (U East Anglia hockey stick) did it, seems James Hansen (Goddard Institute of Space Sciences) is in the process of being found out doing it, The New Zealand warmists have been found out fiddling it.
That leaves Marcus Brigstocke as the only leading climate scientist still not yet found out.
Did anyone doubt that there were and are far, far too many of the 'pro'-scientists and fellow-travellers in the 'bought and paid for' category.
How much of this 'peer reviewing' that we have to set so much store by was done by UEA scientists. Maybe just a tincy wincy bit of doubt should be cast on these papers.
Of course for so many on the climate change bandwagon their approach is to be agnostic. I'm on it. I'm earning from it. Do I care whether or not it's one big lie?
Did I read that 30,000 are turning up in Copenhagen. How many of them are paying their own fares and hotel bills? 15? 20? Any of them?
Research into so called „Global Warming“ needs to be rationalized and overseen by an independent body (if we can find one!). The greater majority of people no longer trust the scientists, their conflicting opinions and frigged results. The extreme green nutters are no better than the Taliban and if we continue to listen and accept their deranged ramblings and violent actions then we deserve nothing better than the economic catastrophe that will engulf us all.
David Davis yesterday spoke some common sense in his article written for “The Independent”, but Propeller-head “Hug a Husky” Dave has him put down by his inner cabal to promote his own green credentials movement.
It’s difficult for me to accept that Cameron has thrown it all away in the space of a couple of months, but he has you know! First of all the EU Referendum, despite the twisting, turning, I didn’t say that routine, voter confidence has evaporated. Now we have him again supporting a minority view with support for unproven scientific data.
All this when the only block to his entrance to number 10, Downing Street, is an idiot that doesn’t know the difference between Reese Witherspoon, Rene Zellweger…. or was it Rene Witherspoon (USA Today).
Gareth has now twice posted his claim that Lawson's think tank had "fiddled" the figures. What his link actually says is that a graphic designer had accidentally miplsced the dot showing 2003 temperature. This error was immediately acknowledged & has no bearing on the undisputed fact that temperature over the last few years (period without sunspots) has seen marked temperature falls.
Being honestly such a stickler for total accuracy Gareth will, of course, have placed 10s of thousands of comments here over the far greater number of non-factual claims, like the entire Hockey Stick theory, maintained in the teeth of evidence for years.
Climate change it is not a big issue for me (I don't have any kids after all), and I have been quite open to the idea there might be a random climate fluctuation, something to do with sunspot activity (which seems asynchronous over record observation, although that must be too short an era to mean anything).
But here in the UK all parties seemed to accept there was a problem, including Mrs Thatcher and the current Tory leadership. (Not true of Tory bloggers btw.)
So my main issue concern was when it became a huge *political issue* on the right, seemingly to defend aspects of the oil industry.
As far as I am concerned, this effort to stop human CO2 emissions should be seen as a *prudential choice*. [I realise I have not always such choices in my own life, ahem.] Also, quite apart from climate change, I have as long as I can recall been aware of and opposed to environmental pollution. I would oppose pollution even if humans were not causing climate change.]
OTOH, although I am no abstinent, I have never really prioritised material consumption. [And I have never suspected such of other well intentioned people either.]
I believe we need a spiritually richer world in which more and more humans can realise a divine intellectual/artistic/spiritual potential than I do in ever escalating material satisfactions.
Paul I think it has always been "a big political issue on the right" to tell the truth as they perceive it. It used to be on the left too & this is only one of the ways in whi8ch the left's acceptance that eco-fascism is left wing has discredited them.
If you genuinely believe that cutting CO2 is inherently desirable just on the off chance I assume you have been vociferous in calling for nuclear power. If most on the "left" weren't proveably perfectly well aware that catstrophic warming is a scam then you couldn't stop them pushing nuclear. The idea that somebody believes a "catastrophje2 is coming & insists on stopping the only thing that can prevent it is clearly risible.
Personally I don't think Lawson meant to mislead, I was parodying the conspiratorial atmosphere on blogs like this. I also think that the CRU e-mails are inconsequential - most of them are the unvarnished version of what was already in the public domain. The only one that bothers me is the reference to deleting e-mails about AR4 as we don't know why or what they referred to. I suspect it might be something to do with intra-IPCC politics as the science all comes from published sources so there is no scope for cover up.
The political aspect is interesting - neocons think it is a socialist plot, marxists (well Durkan of GGWS fame) think it is a Thatcherite plot to smash the coal industry and its Unions - but ultimately pointless. In a battle between politics and the laws of physics there will only be one winner.
Paul I think you will agree that the vast majority of global warming activists do hold an anti-nuclear position too. You do seem to accept that that is logically inconsistent & thus either they know it is a scam or they are not driven by rationality. Not sure which would more worrying but I commend your vociferous defence of rationality in their presence.
Lord Lawson's think tank fiddles climate data:
ReplyDeletehttp://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/12/climate-sceptics-get-it-wrong-1.html
Shouldn't that actual method box say "modify data to fit theory"?
ReplyDeletewv: bogies Yuck!
I thought you were buggered anyway!
ReplyDelete@Animal Magic
ReplyDelete.....and/or 'suppress data that contradicts the theory'
Paul Halsall
ReplyDeleteAre you addressing me young man?
Causes to Fight For
ReplyDeleteSpeakers will include Sadiq Khan MP, Matthew Taylor of the RSA, Polly Toynbee, Kerry McCarthy MP, Jackie Ashley, Gaby Hinsliff, Nadine Dorries MP, Peter Kellner, Nick Anstead, Ellie Gellard, James Forsyth, Will Straw, David Babbs, John Denham MP, Will Hutton and Ken Livingstone.
That's a must then! NOT.
I've met the Guy who creates these a few times, he's well know within academia, well he had a great experience with our lovely Labour border controls where despite him having a PHd from Stanford, having worked at Caltech, being well known etc he was moments away from having being deported.
ReplyDeletePart 1
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1243
Part 2
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1244
Part 3
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1244
Makes you proud to be british eh
This is Jorge Cham's work at Piled Higher and Deeper. (Give him a citation Iain - lets face it he's unlikely to make a living on University research ... )
ReplyDeleteHe's got a cult following amongst postgrads, and if you've ever been involved in University research you'll know why.
His work is like Yes Minister, except for academic research.
See also the version of his being detained at Heathrow immigration ... to see ourselves as others see us ...
The date is 2006 and it refers to this: http://www.deutsche-welle.de/dw/article/0,2144,646321,00.html
ReplyDeleteCauses To Fight For
ReplyDeleteI wonder where I can get a job lot of rotten eggs to sell on the door?
It forgets the "Destroy all original data" box!
ReplyDeleteSing "Blow The Wind Southerly" as you think about it.
ReplyDeleteDeniers of the world unite.
ReplyDeleteYou have nothing to lose but your funding.
Iain - you seem to have uncovered the New Labour approach to spinning crime stats...
ReplyDeleteAnimal magic has it. Torture and twist the data until it confirms the theory.
ReplyDeleteMichael Mann (Penn State hockey stick man) first did it, then Keith Briffa (U East Anglia hockey stick) did it, seems James Hansen (Goddard Institute of Space Sciences) is in the process of being found out doing it, The New Zealand warmists have been found out fiddling it.
That leaves Marcus Brigstocke as the only leading climate scientist still not yet found out.
Finally the great climate con begins to disintegrate...
ReplyDeleteDid anyone doubt that there were and are far, far too many of the 'pro'-scientists and fellow-travellers in the 'bought and paid for' category.
ReplyDeleteHow much of this 'peer reviewing' that we have to set so much store by was done by UEA scientists. Maybe just a tincy wincy bit of doubt should be cast on these papers.
Of course for so many on the climate change bandwagon their approach is to be agnostic. I'm on it. I'm earning from it. Do I care whether or not it's one big lie?
Did I read that 30,000 are turning up in Copenhagen. How many of them are paying their own fares and hotel bills? 15? 20? Any of them?
Lord Lawson has been found out fiddling climate change data:
ReplyDeletehttp://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/12/climate-sceptics-get-it-wrong-1.html
Like Michaels & Monckton before him, the sceptics need to be scrutinised as well as the scientists.
Might I tentatively suggest that Polling is little different.
ReplyDeleteFind out what the narrative required by the newspaper is.
Carry out the poll.
Find some statistics which can be exaggerated, interpreted accordingly.
Newspaper gets its 'Hung Parliament' or 'Brown bounce' story.
A bit like military intelligence pre-Iraq. Find out what outcome is required. Then produce the research that delivers it.
'hide the decline' ... Its the new scientific paradigm.
ReplyDeleteResearch into so called „Global Warming“ needs to be rationalized and overseen by an independent body (if we can find one!). The greater majority of people no longer trust the scientists, their conflicting opinions and frigged results. The extreme green nutters are no better than the Taliban and if we continue to listen and accept their deranged ramblings and violent actions then we deserve nothing better than the economic catastrophe that will engulf us all.
ReplyDeleteDavid Davis yesterday spoke some common sense in his article written for “The Independent”, but Propeller-head “Hug a Husky” Dave has him put down by his inner cabal to promote his own green credentials movement.
It’s difficult for me to accept that Cameron has thrown it all away in the space of a couple of months, but he has you know! First of all the EU Referendum, despite the twisting, turning, I didn’t say that routine, voter confidence has evaporated. Now we have him again supporting a minority view with support for unproven scientific data.
All this when the only block to his entrance to number 10, Downing Street, is an idiot that doesn’t know the difference between Reese Witherspoon, Rene Zellweger…. or was it Rene Witherspoon (USA Today).
Gareth has now twice posted his claim that Lawson's think tank had "fiddled" the figures. What his link actually says is that a graphic designer had accidentally miplsced the dot showing 2003 temperature. This error was immediately acknowledged & has no bearing on the undisputed fact that temperature over the last few years (period without sunspots) has seen marked temperature falls.
ReplyDeleteBeing honestly such a stickler for total accuracy Gareth will, of course, have placed 10s of thousands of comments here over the far greater number of non-factual claims, like the entire Hockey Stick theory, maintained in the teeth of evidence for years.
Oh he hasn't - how astonishing.
Worth linking this to the Con Home blog post
ReplyDelete"Climate Change and the Tory Sceptics - The Independent and others miss the point"
"hide the decline"
ReplyDeleteIsnt that Labour's policy on everything?
Climate change it is not a big issue for me (I don't have any kids after all), and I have been quite open to the idea there might be a random climate fluctuation, something to do with sunspot activity (which seems asynchronous over record observation, although that must be too short an era to mean anything).
ReplyDeleteBut here in the UK all parties seemed to accept there was a problem, including Mrs Thatcher and the current Tory leadership. (Not true of Tory bloggers btw.)
So my main issue concern was when it became a huge *political issue* on the right, seemingly to defend aspects of the oil industry.
As far as I am concerned, this effort to stop human CO2 emissions should be seen as a *prudential choice*. [I realise I have not always such choices in my own life, ahem.] Also, quite apart from climate change, I have as long as I can recall been aware of and opposed to environmental pollution. I would oppose pollution even if humans were not causing climate change.]
OTOH, although I am no abstinent, I have never really prioritised material consumption. [And I have never suspected such of other well intentioned people either.]
I believe we need a spiritually richer world in which more and more humans can realise a divine intellectual/artistic/spiritual potential than I do in ever escalating material satisfactions.
Paul I think it has always been "a big political issue on the right" to tell the truth as they perceive it. It used to be on the left too & this is only one of the ways in whi8ch the left's acceptance that eco-fascism is left wing has discredited them.
ReplyDeleteIf you genuinely believe that cutting CO2 is inherently desirable just on the off chance I assume you have been vociferous in calling for nuclear power. If most on the "left" weren't proveably perfectly well aware that catstrophic warming is a scam then you couldn't stop them pushing nuclear. The idea that somebody believes a "catastrophje2 is coming & insists on stopping the only thing that can prevent it is clearly risible.
I don't believe that catastrophic warming is a scam.
ReplyDeleteAnd I do believe in the expansion of the nuclear power option.
In this respect both Labour and Tory leadership are agreed. It is almost only the non-rational people on the right who think there is any scam.
http://englisheclectic.blogspot.com/2009/12/climate-change.html
Sorry for the double post.
ReplyDeletePersonally I don't think Lawson meant to mislead, I was parodying the conspiratorial atmosphere on blogs like this. I also think that the CRU e-mails are inconsequential - most of them are the unvarnished version of what was already in the public domain. The only one that bothers me is the reference to deleting e-mails about AR4 as we don't know why or what they referred to. I suspect it might be something to do with intra-IPCC politics as the science all comes from published sources so there is no scope for cover up.
The political aspect is interesting - neocons think it is a socialist plot, marxists (well Durkan of GGWS fame) think it is a Thatcherite plot to smash the coal industry and its Unions - but ultimately pointless. In a battle between politics and the laws of physics there will only be one winner.
Paul I think you will agree that the vast majority of global warming activists do hold an anti-nuclear position too. You do seem to accept that that is logically inconsistent & thus either they know it is a scam or they are not driven by rationality. Not sure which would more worrying but I commend your vociferous defence of rationality in their presence.
ReplyDeleteSo, the people funding the research can lead to distortions in favour of their point of view?
ReplyDeleteSo, do you accept that this also holds true for the (high-percentage of) climate change sceptic research funded by large oil companies?
Or is only people who Iain "I am not a scientist" Dale disagrees with who are so influenced?