Blog powered by Typepad

« A book that shook! | Main | HAF honesty! »

Tuesday, 06 February 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

David, even someone as useless at science, and as uninterested in climate change, as I can see that this is bollocks on at least three counts. First, there is a world of difference between "naturally occurring" minor temperature variations between different cities on the one hand, and an average global change in average temperatures of the same amount, on the other; second, if it's all the same to you, I'd prefer to place more trust in peer-reviewed research than any blog; third, if the IPCC report is nonsense, why would the American Enterprise Institute, heavily funded by ExxonMobil, offer money to scientists prepared to speak out against it?

David, I'm reluctant to get into this debate because (a)I don't know anything about it and (b)I don't really care. Anyway, that hasn't stopped you, so here goes:

What will Mr First Comment be saying when the 100,000,000-odd Bangldeshis who've 'got on their bikes' are knocking on his door asking for a cup of sugar?

Similarly, I hope to hear no complaints about Big Communist Government appropriating property, moving people into cities and generally being Too Socialist when it comes the time to "take decisive action to deal with the issue, and to assist those affected to cope?"

Still, it's not going to happen, so what the hell are we all rabbiting on about anyway?

Re: the 100,000,000-odd Bangladeshi's;

My reply would be simple; I don't take sugar!

Re: the 100,000,000-odd Bangladeshis;

I would trade the sugar for some of their fine jute.

Well done, 'NIB', never let ignorance or indifference spoil a good debate. As to your points:

The Bangladeshis are a very good example of how humans cope with catastrophes. They continue to live and work in area that is subject to an endless cycle of flooding with a resulting high death toll because the soil is particularly rich and produces excellent crops. In other words they take their chances, adapt to the conditions, breed in high numbers and cling on because to them it is worth it. If conditions become too difficult, presumably their government will take practical actions to deal with it - not least because they need the crops to feed their people. In other words they will apply measures to specific, existing problems, not waste zillions on ifs, buts and maybes. And it does not require a "Big Communist Government" to build, say, an increased-size Thames water barrier.

Also, well done, 'Brisso', no point ever knowingly missed! What the writer was indicating was the *fact* that different people choose to live in different climatic areas and cope in different ways with the problems. As to your complaint concerning 'peer review' - do me a favour! Just read the contributers to Steve McIntyre's site (It suffered server problems over the last two days but it's up again now), you will get all the peer review you want from some very expert people. Also, if you think the IPCC report was whiter than white, read my post above this and take note of the fact that several distinguished team leaders of the various specialist groups quietly dropped out because they were unhappy at the spin put on their findings.

What amuses me is that you and 'NIB' and all your ilk leap about like scalded cats if the Home Secretary and/or the media whip up what you call a false crisis and use it as a means of inhibiting our liberties by excessive regulations. It's like complaining about a man on a bicycle coming towards you whilst ignoring the juggernaut approaching at high speed!

Oh David, David, David... Please give the 'and all your ilk' stuff a rest. I'm sure you're old enough and ugly enough to know what a straw man is - and I already *told you* I don't care!

I'll remind you that 'it does not require a "Big Communist Government" to build, say, an increased-size Thames water barrier' when that nasty Ken Livingstone (or his equally evil Stalinst successor) asks for the extra tax money to build such a thing...

But obviously you care enough to continue the debate, 'NIB', well done!

Of course, I will complain about *all* government taxes because that is part and parcel of living in a democracy. My point, which you appear to be wilfully avoiding, is that specific expenditure on specific projects to cope with a specific threat can be argued to and fro on a basis of reality. Spending zillions and appointing an army of 'government inspectors' to boss us all around on the basis of an if or a but or a maybe is complete lunacy and opens the door to tyranny!

Both you and 'Brisso' should beware of allowing your dislike/disagreement of my other views to cloud your judgement on this issue.

Yes, you've made that point before, once or twice...

But yet (and this is *my* point) the commenter you approvingly quoted is willing to trust his Government to 'do the right thing' when a catastrophe is happening, but not willing to trust the same Government before a catastrophe has happened.

Sorry, but if that's not walking blindly into tyranny, I don't know what is.

"You and 'Brisso' should beware of allowing your dislike/disagreement of my other views to cloud your judgement on this issue"

David, you should beware of allowing your prejudices on climate change to cloud your healthy scepticism. If you had bothered, you could have discovered that the guy behind your ClimateAudit site, Stephen McIntyre, is no more qualified to pronounce on the issue than you or me. Whereas the IPCC is a multinational project lasting many years, subject to minute scrutiny from hundreds, if not thousands, of accredited experts.

Incidentally, you still haven't explained why ExxonMobil needs to pay people to contradict the report.

'Brisso', "if you had bothered" to read carefully what I wrote you will be unable to find any endorsement by me of the particular views of the owner (Steve McIntyre) of the Climate Audit site not least because I would be unable to follow his statistical analysis - and I have never hidden my mathematicical ignorance. It was the general thrust of the site *plus* the comments threads (some running to 250+ entries) which I recommended. In those threads there are arguments for and against and all the 'peer revue' of the most technical kind you might wish as an interested observer - which I seem to recall, you are not! What I did recommend was an essay linked to from this site which is required reading - but again, only to those with an interest which lets you out.

I already knew McIntyre's general background because he indicates it in his blog. Heaven forfend that a keen amateur (with a technological background) should take an interest in scientific specialities! The next thing you know, mere clerks from the Patent Office in Berne will be telling us that clocks runs slower at speed. Preposterous! Funny how a 'Bolshie bugger' like you who could normally be relied on to sneer at authority figures, rolls over to let people pick your pocket just because 'they're experts and its scientific, innit?'

As to Exon supporting their own research into climate change, is it surprising when much of the HAFs are virulently anti-capitalist? Also, you should ask yourself where the money comes from to support all these climate change scientists desperately seeking any real proof of their hypothesis. The answer is government money and any keen young scientist whose research fails to support the current orthodoxy will find his grants suddenly coming to an end. At least the likes of Exon, for their own good reasons allow *interested* observers to hear both sides of the story.

I'll keep this short, as I'm now remembering how "debating" with Duff is much like reasoning with a small, rather slow-witted child.

"the general thrust of the site" - which fits with your prejudices, and therefore makes it more worthy of your recommendation than the IPCC report itself, which I'm guessing you've not bothered to read.

This is not a question of sneering at authority figures, rather trying to make sense of a complex and controversial issue. Indeed your haste to endorse the views of partial, interested parties - whose arguments you admit to not understand - seems to be the real example of credulous submission to "authority" here.

As for your closing para, I'm inclined to believe that our mutual friend Snotty McShot has hacked into your blog, it's such a delicious parody of your wilful ignorance.

Non-sequitur: As to Exon supporting their own research into climate change, is it surprising when much of the HAFs are virulently anti-capitalist?

Misunderstanding: all these climate change scientists desperately seeking any real proof of their hypothesis - if you'd read any of the report, you'd see that the whole project is about discovery rather than hypothesis.

Bias: At least the likes of Exon, for their own good reasons allow *interested* observers to hear both sides of the story. - "their own good reasons" being the legal requirement to put shareholder returns above any competing interest! They're hardly the neutral observers you profess.

'Brisso', let me start again because for a man who professes no interest in this subject you seem to have much to say, or to be precise, little at great length. However, try and follow this:

a) I do agree that the earth's average temperature is fluctuating.
b) I have no idea what is causing the current fluctuation (by "current", I mean the last 1,000 years) and nor am I sure whether it is going up or down, because the last 1,000 years is the tiniest of tiny fractions in the history of the world and "up and down" requires a yardstick by which it can be measured.
c) I, personally, would not bet the deeds of my house on a report which cannot be published in full until it has been vetted by UN bureaucrats to ensure that it fits their criteria.
d) Nor would I take the word of *self-appointed* busybodies whose main imperative appears to be virulent anti-capitalism.
e) Therefor, I welcome any source of information which one may take or leave but which appears to test the hypothesis of *some* scientists whose incomes, status and funding is dependent on producing 'research' that conforms to the political orthodoxy.
f) I hereby proudly confirm that I treat the pronouncements of *all* experts, no matter how 'scientific', with considerable scepticism particularly if they are likely to cost me money!

Now there you are, 'Brisso', tell me precisely and exactly why you would disagree with any of that but, please, do not waste your time invoking the memory of 'Snotty McShot' (MIA) who is, alas, lying comatose in an 'Oirish' bog and has done for the last two months - thank God!

The comments to this entry are closed.