Meet the eccentric Tory peer who could stop Al Gore
May 9th, 2007
Will the Oscar-winning ex-VP take up the debate challenge?
The current third favourite in the betting on who will be the Democratic nominee in next year’s White House Race is the failed candidate from 2000 who has yet to enter the race. Yet still the money continues to be put on Al Gore and he’s how at a not-so-generous 5.6/1.
For the former Vice-President and failed candidate in 2000 has taken on a new lease of life with the climate change issue and incredible success of his film “An Inconvenient Truth”, for which he won an Oscar.
In the polls Gore is running at a fairly consistent 12% and he appears to be waiting in the wings should something happen to the front runners, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
But could Gore’s presidential hopes be undermined by the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley who is placing advertisements several times a week in the New York Times and Washington Post challenging Gore to a public debate on climate change?
For Monckton, who worked for Margaret Thatcher at 10 Downing Street, has become the leading spokesman globally for those who cast doubt on the global warming theories following a series of closely argued features in the Sunday Telegraph last November. In March he issued this public challenge to Gore which has been taken up by many in the blogsphere.
“The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley presents his compliments to Vice-President Albert Gore and by these presents challenges the said former Vice-President to a head-to-head, internationally-televised debate upon the question “That our effect on climate is not dangerous,” to be held in the Library of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History at a date of the Vice-President’s choosing.
Forasmuch as it is His Lordship who now flings down the gauntlet to the Vice-President, it shall be the Vice-President’s prerogative and right to choose his weapons by specifying the form of the Great Debate. May the Truth win! Magna est veritas, et praevalet.
Given at Carie, Rannoch, in the County of Perth, in the Kingdom of Scotland, this 14th Day of March in the Year of our Lord Two Thousand And Seven. God Bless America ! God Save The Queen!”
Monckton has clearly formulated this in such a way so that it will appeal to a US audience.
The move has led to a very active online petition in favour of a debate and it is reaching a stage where it is hard to envisage Gore running for President without dealing with it. Either he agrees to the debate with Monckton with all the risks that that involves or he is seen to have chickened out. Either way it is not good for the former V-P’s White House hopes.
The Monckton campaign is starting to get a lot of media attention and there was a two page feature in the review section of the Observer on Sunday.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
On Leadership. Flawed characters sometimes produce flawless works.
When elected in 1997 Blair won power on the wave of expectation and hope that hadn’t been seen in years. With hindsight many will say that Blair fulfilled much, and as much as we focus on the negative today, let us also recognise the achievements.
Blair is a great leader precisely because, he not only caused great expectation, but in seeking to be right he dared to be unpopular. He proved his worth and will be remembered for leading us forward at a time of great peril, where dangers that mount ever higher with each passing year were confronted.
Perhaps he is even a great conservative leader, who just happened to be leading the Labour Party. Let Blair be remember for the work of peace in Northern Ireland, and courage in the face of the threats to global civilisation that confront us today.
Blair resigns as party leader but not PM on Thursday 1oth May. New party leader will be sworn in at special conference held on June 30th.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/09/nbrown109.xml
Would I be being just a touch pedantic if I point out that neither the “County of Perth” nor the “Kingdom of Scotland” actually exist?
The former ceased to exist in 1975 (abolished by the pre-1974 Tory government, please note), and the latter ceased to exist in 1707 (although its recreation is on the agenda).
It is, alas, probably indicative of the Viscount’s approach to both facts, and the modern world.
And why on earth is an alumnus of Cambridge and Cardiff proposing Oxford as the venue? Pandering to US brand-awareness no doubt.
Are English peers allowed to request that God blesses a rebel colony?
re 3. I think that the Oxford Natural History Museum has been suggested because this was the venue of probably the most important scientific debate of all time when Charles Darwin presented his concept of evolution in 1860.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Museum_of_Natural_History#The_1860_evolution_debate
Monckton’s style is very distinctive!
Of course he is a loon not to believe in climate change, and that debate is already lost. Monckton’s arguments were not tightly argued, more sophistry of the highest order. If I was Gore I would take him on and let the full weight of the evidence of global warming pour forth from the scientists like a tidal wave before he even starts. Because when you really look at the evidence, global warming denial because you don’t want to change the way you live your life is a bit like standing on the deck of the Titanic shouting ‘they built her so she could never sink!’
4. Mike Smithson
Fairy nuff.
Bit early for the pbc silly season, isn’t it?
Paul: does he not believe in climate change, or does he not believe that it is the increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that is causing rising temperatures? The two are very different. The first is frankly barking. The second is a much more interesting question, especially given that many other planets in the solar system are also showing increased temperatures.
re 7. Silly season? Maybe yes. I suppose as we have finished the UK and French elections and wait for the Labour succession we have a strange gap.
In any case I’ve been meaning to do a thread on Al Gore’s White House prospects for months and have been looking for something to hang it on. The Observer feature on Monckton seemed to provide it.
We are having our own local version of this in Broxtowe next month. Beeston Labour is screening An Inconvenient Truth and then debating it with Roger Helmer, an East Midlands Tory MEP who takes Monckton’s position.
There was another twist which I think I mentioned here before. The debate was originally planned for April, but a Conservative constituent got his LibDem councillor to raise a complaint that it was “treating” the electorate to show a documentary film during an election, so we postponed it till after the election. Another LibDem councillor has reported me anyway to the police for “conspiracy to commit a criminal act by proposing to show the film”. The police are still considering the complaint and say they will interview me in due course. (Remind me - LibDems are protective of free speech, right?)
A risk of this sort of debate is that the much of the public may split the difference and concludes that the position is unsure so hey, no need to do anything till it’s clearer. But even if one thinks that there is only a 50% chance of terrible damage to the planet (and the weight of scientific opinion appears to suggest it’s a lot higher), then precautionary action seems urgent anyway,
Robert: the sceptics’ view is that there changes come and go naturally (they point to the belief 30 years ago that a new ice age might be coming), and anyway if it’s happening it’s a natural phenomenon unrelated to human activity. The sceptic cause has been popularised by Michael Crichton (he of Jurassic Park), who wrote a documentary thriller with copious footnotes (’State of Fear’) describing an environmentalist conspiracy to make people believe in climate change so as to boost NGO income. The green villains in the book kill their opponents by pressing poisonous octupuses into their armpits, paralysing them so they fall over balconies and in front of cars. Despite this wacky aspect, the book is widely-read and cited by anti-climate change campaigners (among its other claims are that hurricanes off the southern American coast are rare, although one would expect them if climate change were happening - yes, written the year before Katrina).
On our more usual topics, I think Harriet Harman is going to make it onto the ballot for the deputy race - I know of a couple of recent additions to her list and she’s getting close to 40, which should be close enough to get a few more in the final days. Hilary Benn’s campaign is now working hard to catch up, approaching Hain supporters to argue that as we’re sure to be on the ballot anyway they might as well give Hilary a shot - they may have left it too late, though. Jon Cruddas and Hazel Blears apparently aren’t quite there with firm commitments either, and it’s possible that the ballot will end up simply as Johnson/Harman/Hain, though I’d have thought there was space for at least one more. Current expectation is that the period for nominations will be Mon-Wed next week.
5. Good points. It is in Gore’s interest to take this debate on if it gets the international coverage its proponents claim it will. That’s not an unreasonable condition: Gore couldn’t be expected to take on every sceptic across the globe. In that case, if it doesn’t happen it will be because there’s insufficient interest; if it does, Gore should win comfortably, extend his environment-campaigner brand and be seen to give the little guy a chance.
Of course, he might perform poorly, but if he can’t deal with Monckton, then he’s no chance with Hillary, Obama or whoever the Republicans choose.
As for his prospects, he’s currently running a very effective non-campaign. As things stand, he wouldn’t beat both front runners and if that remains the position by September, I doubt he’ll run (no matter how much he’d like to). But should one encounter problems, he’ll have had the summer concerts to keep his profile up, has the contacts and name to raise money quickly and is still seen by many Democrats as the legitimate winner of the 2000 election. At the moment, he’s the safe-choice candidate at a time when one isn’t really needed (which leaves Edwards with a problem should Gore enter the race formally).
The mood surrounding US elections can change quickly and he’s well placed if he’s needed. Even so, his price looks somewhat on the stingy side to me.
3 - yes they do - the 1974 changes only changed the “administrative” counties not the “historic” counties. Thus Middlesex exists and the old county boundaries continue for sporting and other purposes.
The United Kingdom contitutes a Union of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland and the Principality of Wales with Northern Ireland. It is as daft to say that the Kingdom of Scotland does not exist as it would be to suggest that the Principality of Wales does not. Both do!
12 - if Rik W did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him
I agree with you Rik. Bring back the historic counties.
whether or not anthropogenic factors are partly responisible for rising temperatures is largely immaterial, we are 500 years overdue a new glacial period based on the average durtations of interglacials in the Quaternary. When that hits we’ll need all the carbon in the air we can get.
I think both debaters would do their cause harm. Monckton because he comes over as a bit of a swivel eyed loon and Gore because ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is a very bad explanation of Gore’s (very strong) case. The intrusion of his child’s car accident is offensive mawkishness. He gets a number of key things wrong and makes a number of leaps of faith. His lifestyle hypocrisy doesn’t help either.
If this debate were ever to happen (unlikely) I think most people would avoid it like the plague. I am worried that An Inconvenient Truth is treated as Gospel though and is shown in schools as if it were.
Nick, apologies for what on the face of it seems a nonsense and waste of everyone’s time. Why don’t the police tell the complainant: Thank you, but they are not going to pursue the matter.
I have some sympathy with the sceptics on climate change and am concerned at the number of charlatans promoting schemes based on solving climate change. The problem seems to be that we will know who was right in 150 years time - can you leave bets to your great grand children?
12/13 - thirded, re the proper counties. As a Lancastrian, it is one of my pet subjects, given that my county was butchered beyond recognition, and unlike other mangled counties, nothing has been done to redress the change subsequently. Would only take a few roadsigns and a directive to the Ordnance Survey to map accordingly, which everyone else - including the BBC - would then dutifully follow. (A recent favourite of mine was a news report which mentioned a man who “moved from Lancashire to Rochdale”…)
On climate change, the issue is surely not whether it is changing, but whether (a) mankind is really making any meaningful contribution to it and (b) can we do anything to stop it or slow it down? I tend to favour the “fart in a hurricane” analogy as regards mankind’s contribution.
Meantime, I’m enjoying the better weather and doing my bit to keep temperatures rising…
10. Johnson/Harman/Hain and hopefully Benn would be a formidable list. Though Cruddas and Blears have their supporters I think in many ways they will confuse the job of deputy with that of the party chairman. I’d prefer a deputy Prime Minister and for the chairman to be responsible for party matters
There’s no way on earth Al Gore will get the democratic nomination.
He’s old hat.
I’m tempted to lay at 5.6/1, but that means locking up £112 (I don’t have) for the sake of a tiny £20 for the next god knows how many months.
I’d be better off in the stock market!
Tory failure: its official.
“As Janet Daley wrote here on Monday, the party’s much-trumpeted “success” in last week’s elections represented hardly any advance at all.” Simon Heffer, DT
20: re Heffer, why does a Tory paper like the Telegraph continue to employ such a vocal cheerleader for the Labour Party?
Lord … it must be a slow news day if the best on offer is some eccentric Tory toff with a bonkers sideline on green issues.
Mind you he’s got Cameron pegged for the froth pot he is and crypto social democrat and Blair a like that he is becoming.
However what tales Monckton might tell about the heady days of the Thatcher administration and the well aimed blows of that mighty handbag ! ….. although I tend to the view that with those eyes this particular Conservative Viscount is almost certainly an ermine collar short of a peers robe !!
Old Matlock also decamps to Perthshire. I wonder if they’ve met. Monckton is clearly the old coffin dodgers sort of Tory !!
20. He’s right - 900 seats - pathetic.
23 Jack W, don’t you see? Matlock IS Monckton. Obvious, really.
Anyone who knows Christopher Monckton will be aware that he’s a conceited fool and demented publicity seeker.
Somehow, I doubt that Gore will give him the time of day.
Simon Heffer is a complete joke nowadays!
There are few uglier aspects to modern politics than the global-warming-denying lobby (and I don’t just mean Lawson).
Simon Heffer, of course, is an exception.
Re 20, if the UKIP supporting Heffer believes that +900 seats is no advance at all then what is -1 (from 6) which is the UKIP figure after putting up 1,000 candidates?
Are Heffer, Daley and Toynbee, just past their sell by date?
24 Augustus. Indeed …. it all fits.
All that ribaldry about wanting to be a peer. The joke was on us !!
25 Herman. I’m sure you’re correct that Monckton is a totally demented loon of the first order but what a poor world it would be if we were all cast in the same mould.
You’ve only to look at the dramatis personae on PB to realize that a little colour goes a long way !!
I sent this to Polly Toynbee after her article in yesterdays Guardian in favour of PR.
“Dear Polly,
How can “The Lib Dems suffered even worse” be true.( today’s Guardian). Both Lib Dems and Labour had about the same number of councillors before these elections and Labour net losses are 495 (to date - 3 councils still counting!!!) whilst the Lib Dems lost 246 - similarly Labour lost control of 8 councils (net) and Lib Dems 4. In councils gained Lib Dems gained control of 6 and Labour 3. I note Tony Blair said that they were a disaster for the Lib Dems -hope you haven’t swallowed his spin.
In areas with a Lib Dem MP , in general the Lib Dem vote improved (a spread sheet with votes cast produced by Mark Senior (via http://www.politicalbetting.com) is attached.
I am all in favour of PR but it wont help the Lib Dems get more seats than they deserve (see Scotland in Wales!!) - Good luck in persuading the Labour Party that they should be fair!!!”
Polly replied thus:
“Lib Dems dropped 1%, Labour dropped 0.4%”
Some interesting movement on the ‘Blair Switch’ market on Betfair (i.e. will he ‘officially cease to be leader of the labour party’ in the second or third quarter 2007). It was commented earlier on this site that there is an ambiguity in exactly how this date will be defined - is it the date he announces his resignation (almost certainly this week, i.e. Q2), or the end of the leadership contest (quite possibly Q3, although an announcement in the Telegraph posted earlier in these comments indicates it could be 30th June, i.e. the very end of Q2). I noticed that this price had dropped to as low as 1.11 for Q2 yesterday (trading between about 1.11 and 1.18 during the day), and thought this was probably worth laying at that price, just on the ambiguity of how Betfair will interpret this. My own view is that it’s most likely Blair will continue to be ‘officially leader of the labour party’ at least until the end of the leadership election, i.e. that his announcement (probably Thursday) will be of his intention to resign (but not actually to resign until a new leader is elected). Though even under that criteria, it’s now very borderline whether it would be Q2 or Q3, if the Telegraph’s report is accurate, and the new leader is elected on 30th June. I noticed the price has jumped sharply this morning (trading at 1.36), so I took the opportunity to trade out my position at that price.
31 on which model did Polly make this absolute statement? The problem with Curtice and R&T is that they are models. I don’t know their average errors but at +/- 1% both those changes could be wiped out or doubled. All we have is that in some areas LDs dropped out of contention and in others they gained. Overall in seat terms the strengthening was less than the losses. Labour stayed stuck at their bedrock and saw further losses across all but their core to match last years. No real change from 2006 but that was poor for both.
What struck me in her article was that Polly’s SDP roots are showing.
[30] Well M’lord,
it is certainly the case that this site is enlivened by the presence of such a totally demented loon as yourself- good to have you back and in such fine fooling too!
Perhaps you may care to chellenge Mr. Gore yourself?
Sorry to shift off such an interesting thread but in the interest of balance I’d just like to repeat a Blair Switch post from last nite which I wrote after most sensible people had gone to bed.
Thanks.
********************************************************
- Anybody betting now on this market needs to be extremely careful. It is far from clear how it will be settled. There are at least four imponderables.
1. What will TB actually say?
2. How will the NEC interpret what he says?
3. How will the NEC interpret and implement the Party rules?
4. How will Betfair interpret 1,2, and 3 above?
It may all become blissfully clear tomorrow. He may simply say something to the effect of ‘I am resigning today - X is taking over as Party Leader with immediate effect - the next elected Leader will be announced by the NEC on June 30th.’ Betfair will then pay out on Q2 and we can all start thinking about something else.
Somehow I suspect it will not be so clear cut. Of the many possible scenarios, the one suggested by Benedict strikes me as amongst the more probable. Blair will tender his resignation, triggering an election, but will continue in post until the NEC announces a new Leader. This could still result in a Q2 pay out, especially if there is no contest, but Q3 is every bit as likely, given the 7 week time span which the Party constitution appears to allow for the process.
In view of these imponderables, I haven’t bet the house but I have been attracted by what I regard as very generous odds on Q3. Personally I was interested in any price above threes but have have found, to my surprise, that much larger odds have been widely available over the past few days. I have not therefore needed to risk much cash for a potentially nice pick up.
In short, Q3 may lose, but in taking odds between fives and ten, I believe I got very good value.
17. I am equally irritated when driving out of Coventry to encounter expensive road signs north, east and south proclaiming ‘Warwickshire’. Which reminds me, the BBC politics website has still not posted the Warwick DC result which were announced yesterday. Seven Conservative gains (and control of the council).
10.”Hilary Benn’s campaign is now working hard to catch up, approaching Hain supporters to argue that as we’re sure to be on the ballot anyway they might as well give Hilary a shot - they may have left it too late, though”
and btw, since Benn can be a serious contender in he reaches the ballot, I’m not sure it would be in Hain camp’s interest to let him reach it
Extraordianry, isn’t it? Toynbee says that the Tories had a triumph last Thursday and Heffer says they made no progress at all. Rather awakward for my fixed belief that they’re both always wrong about everything …
On topic, Nick Palmer’s surely right. Climate change may only partially be due to human activity but it’s better to be safe than sorry.
I find all these ex colleagues of Thatcher trashing global warming a bit odd, given that Thatcher clearly recognised and started to deal with the issue as far back as 1989.
That said, I suppose the discussion is what effect the debate, or lack of it will have. It is hard for me to tell from here, but there are a lot more sceptics.
[38] I’m still half asleep, to judge by my typing…
32. Martin T. Yes, following the debate here yesterday there has been a marked adjustment in the market. After avoiding this market because of the ambiguities I finally went in at the weekend at 4/1 Q3, only to see the prices adjust alarmingly against me. The discussions here yesterday appear to confirm how uncertain an event to call and interpret this is. As a result of these adjustments I have managed to reverse my Q3 position so that I am now modestly Green on Q3 and neutral on Q2. Relieved to have backed out of this one. Well done for seeing the value and good luck.
re Q2 vs Q3 don’t underestimate the potential of the Labour party to cock up the counting of the votes. I assume they will use counting machines!
36: BBC has finally caught up
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2007/councils/html/44uf.stm
Final results:
Con +911 (+39 councils)
Lab -505 (-8)
LD -246 (-4)
Others -162
Anyone still thinking that “our effect on climate is not dangerous” has to be a few apples short of a barrel, although I agree with anyone saying that natural sun cycles are also having an affect.
But ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is a great film, IMHO, and in it Al Gore comes over as a very personable man with a not inconsiderable amount of charisma.
34 Cicero. Interesting idea !!
“The Most Saintly Jack W presents his compliments to Vice President Albert Gore and by these presents challenges the said former Vice President to a head-to-head internationally televised debate upon the question “In 2000 how the hell did you lose to the Texas village idiot?” to be held in the Queen Vic public house Walford, East London.
44 - how did the last Ice Age end?
4×4s?
Newbury bypass?
Apologies if already posted.
The 100,000 estimate of spoiled ballots appears to be on the low side !!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6637387.stm
The problem that I have with the climate change debate seems to be one that other people (certainly on the sceptical side) don’t recognise - and that is similar to Pascal’s wager. If human actions are causing climate change, then we need to do all we can to stop and minimise that. If they are not, and we change to renewable energy sources anyway, well no great loss.
To SNP supporters (and Scots in general).
What is the flower SNP MSPs are wearing during the swearing the oath ceremony?
Re 45, JackW,
Hello All,
been away for a few days, so missed the lot re: locals, Scotland, Wales, France etc.
In summary:
Results were bad for Labour, but not catastrophic, good for Tories, but not “sweep-the-country” spectacular, poor for the Lib Dems.
Glad to see Labour getting 26 seats in Wales. I always thought that 22 was WAY too short. So much for the “historical Plaid surge”!!! Andrew Davies comfortably home in Swansea West. Labour holding Delyn and VoG was excellent in the circumatances.
Now Peter Black should stop fannying about and allkow his Lib Dem colleagues to form a coalition with Labour. There is NO CHANCE of a so-called “rainbow coalition” as the Tories are the kiss of death to Plaid and Lib Dems.
Re 48, Lennon, you have hit the nail on the head, though I am not sure about no great loss, I would say a gain as we will have more sustainable lifestyles.
49 - Without looking at any pictures - I would guess the Thistle. (Flower of Scotland) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thistle
48 Absolutely, Lennon! And anything that gets 4×4s out of my way must be a good thing.
48 Agree - there is a cost/benefit analysis. Some the sceptics quote do not deny human activity is resulting in climate changes but that the costs of changed activity are higher than the costs of adaption - if you believe those that say its too late then we need to look at their proposals. Others claim its not human acivity or that human activity plays a small role - much needed sceptism to make the proponents check and validate their theories.
Myself - I think that there is a large component on climate change that is a result of human activity and this is re-inforcing natural cyclical changes. We need both to reduce the amount of pollution we are causing through greenhouse gas production and consider what we can do to minimise the results.
I’ve been surprised at how quite small changes have cut my energy consumption and bills without impacting my lifestyle. Changing to a condensing boiler, lowering the thermostat and having heating on less has meant my gas consumption has gone down a lot and I’m paying about what it cost me a couple of years ago before the gas prices rose. Turning off TVs, office equipment etc at the mains and lights when not in use has brought my electricity bills down to actually slightly less than they were three years ago. The opening of a village shop has cut my petrol consumption quite a bit as has more reliance on audio-conferencing so I work from home more rather than travel to meetings. Makes me feel quite the green saint
Though perhaps a three litre coupe isn’t the chariot a saint should use…..
It doesn’t matter what’s causing climate change (presumably the fact that something is happening is undeniable, just not why it’s happening), what matters is what people are going to do about it.
Any arguments about why it’s happening are missing the point (or avoiding it on purpose).
robert: given that many other planets in the solar system are also showing increased temperatures
Um, sorry, you cant get away with high-powered claims like that without linking to some evidence. Where is it please?
55 Ted. Bloody hell Ted !!! …. I really fear for you. A sandal and quiche moment cannot be too far away.
ukpaul: Yours is a good point. However, if millions of poor people are going to die and billions be made to live in misery because of something that isnt westerners fault, then they will be left to do so - because westerners really dont give a shit. However, if it is the fault of westerners, then guilt will perhaps be enough to make people use their cars less often. Perhaps.
If everyone stopped talking and together we all opened our fridge & freezer doors for 24 hours; surely that would be enough to counteract global warming.
46 How did the last Ice Age end? Hot air.
Source? Which is more powerful and so more likely: people or the sun?
Do people contribute: certainly. How much? No-one knows for sure (see the latest UN report that talks of ‘probabilities’).
Can humans reverse the effects of the sun? Calling Mr Cnut? Will Mr Cnut leave the beach and come to the reception desk please, he has an urgent call.
Does it harm us to try to moderate climate changes? That depends upon how we do it.
Do we need to take more care of the environment? Of course we do, otherwise we are no better than the African elephants breeding and munching our way to the destruction of our habitat: Earth.
The greatest risk to our survival: global warming becoming an intolerant and oppressive religion that loses sight of the objective realities. Although I must admit Al Gore is an unlikely Torquemada Carbonundrum, but some of the other more aggressive greens fit the bill better.
re 3 and 4, I’m sure Mike is right that the Oxford University Museum of Natural History was chosen because of the historic Darwin debate - that was the reference that instantly sprang to my mind.
The other claim to fame of this venue is that it was where I took my 1st year undergraduate maths and physics lectures, though I suspect this wasn’t the reason it was chosen by the Noble Lord.
I read that Mars is warming up - pesky Martians in their big green 4×4s…
57 (& big Al Gore) - sorry its true..
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
49 - I’ve not seen the pictures but I’d guess it’s the white rose of Scotland - the Nats wore them when the Parliament reconvened in 1999.
By far the most notable fact in the Al Gore film as far as I am concerned is that the Earth’s population has trebled since I appeared on the scene in 1955. This must be having an impact on the demand for use of the planet’s resources. Unfortunately, Malthus has not been proved wrong yet.
re SNP - I always though that the Flour of Scotland was McDougals….
Mike Smithson I wonder if others have found the site sometimes becomes an ‘ever load’ as Iain Dale’s and Guido’s are sometimes.
I have long suspected the movie ads as the reason that the refresh/reload never quite finishes. It happens using Safari and Firefox, both on contribution loading and simple refreshing. Maybe its an Apple thing?
68 Of course THAT time it all went as it should. Sod is definitely about today, waving his jam sandwich threateningly at anyone who carps.
51 - Wales was a close run thing. Labour held V of Glamorgan from Conservatives by 83, V of Clwyd by 92 and Delyn by 511 (and you might need to thank UKIP for retaining Glamorgan & Delyn).
Sorry Jamie, try again. From the link you posted:
“according to one scientist’s controversial theory.”
Gosh, so it’s a consensus then.
“carbon dioxide ‘ice caps’ near Mars’s south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.”
Three data points? Gosh, so it’s a trend then.
“Abdussamatov’s work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.”
I wonder why?
“Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that ‘the idea just isn’t supported by the theory or by the observations.’”
I wonder why?
Nice try, but no cigar. There is NO serious evidence of other planets warming because of the sun.
OT - There has been much talk of all the Blairite contenders having ruled themselves out of the race (Miliband, Reid etc). But of course there is one very senior Blairite who hasn’t said he won’t stand. I speak, of course, of Tony himself. Is there anything to stop him resigning the leadership and standing for re-election himself….?
49, 53, 65
The Little White Rose
The rose of all the world is not for me
I want for my part
Only the little white rose of Scotland
That smells sharp and sweet - and breaks the heart.
by Hugh MacDiarmid
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/holyrood/faq/answers/art006.htm
http://www.rampantscotland.com/graphics/wildrose_white3956a.jpg
55. Ted, I have found the same thing in my household and despite the rise in gas and oil prices over the last few years my fuel bills are going down. Also looking at solar panels?
58. JackW, you will have to dream up a suitably fitting name for this new type of cross dressing tory hybrid?
72. Yeah, the fact that it wont happen.
I thought the white rose was a Jacobite emblem. Jack, Jack have you infiltrated the SNP now!
58 Jack W - sorry but since I saw the light I have become a True Blue-Green conservative! Will not ever wear sandals (where I grew up that was a sure sign of a Rooineck VC10er just over from the UK) and dried raw ostrich or kudu remains my snack of choice.
Chris D (74): David Fotherington Cameron?
74 In a conservation area but might go for solar tiles on the hidden side when roof needs re-doing in a couple of years.
78 “Hello endangered species birds, hello smog-filled sky”
47. How does that report show that the estimate of 100,000 is “on the low side”? It statres that the number of spoilt votes in the constituency section was 85,717, which is lower than 100,000. Therefore the estimate of 100,000 was too high.
There is of course no logic in adding together the 85,717 spoilkt votes in the constituency section and the 56,247 in the list section, as was erroneously done by that idiotic journalist.
Monckton is a quack. A quick glance at the notes of his Telegraph article shows he plays fast and loose with facts.
The accepted rough dating for the Medieval Warm Period is ca. 800-1300, he shifts it to 950-1450 to suit his thesis.
His claim that ‘In 1421 a Chinese Imperial Navy squadron sailed right round the Arctic and found no ice anywhere’ is presumably based on Gavin Menzies book ‘1421′, which has been roundly condemned as a work of little merit, bordering on fiction, by sinologists, cartographers and medieval historians.
He claims that ‘Eric the Red had named Greenland “Greenland” to encourage Danish settlers, because in his time south-western Greenland was indeed green. It was ice-free, and was extensively cultivated until c.1425 AD, when the farms were suddenly overrun by permafrost.’ The settlements in western Greenland were abandoned long before those in the east; permafrosting is by no means _sudden_.
Etc. etc.
The problem for Gore is that Monckton has a full grasp of all these erroneous claims, and Gore would have to be on the top of his game to refute each and every one. Monckton’s game would be to not tackle Gore’s science, but make Gore refute his nonsense.
One slip-up from Gore and he looks foolish.
53/65/73.
Thanks. The flower was nice, but too big in some cases.
Labour MSPs wore a red rose whilst swearing (ok, I haven’t watched all of them but the ones I saw had it).
Roseanna Cunningham had her “I protest” before taking the oath
12. Middlesex does not exist; Croydon is not in Surrey; Bromley is not in Kent; the 1964/1975 boundaries are the correct ones; anybody who dares to suggest otherwise is insane.
17. There is nothing wrong with a statement that someone moved “from Lancashire to Rochdale”, because Rochdale is not in Lancashire. To get to Rochdale, one would have to move over the county boundary out of the county Lancashire into the county of Greater Manchester.
36. Coventry is not in Warwickshire; it is in West Midlands county. Therefore there is nothing wrong with finding a sign ont he county boundary which says “Welcome to” whichever county one is driving into. (Unles of course, you have some sort of moral objection to helpful and informative road-signs in principle).
Oh look there’s Gordon…..the coward finally breaks cover.
78&80.
79. Ted, been looking into the idea of solar panels and its not cheap!
76 Icarus. The Jacobites are infiltrating everywhere !!
The white cockade is indeed the emblem of the cause.
77 Ted.
75 - Crikey, lighten up……
88. Straight answer John. Brief and to the point.
12 “the 1974 changes only changed the “administrative” counties not the “historic” counties. Thus Middlesex exists and the old county boundaries continue for sporting and other purposes.”
I recently watched the TV Series “The Tudors”. They described Hampton Court as “Hampton Court, Surrey”
12 @Middlesex does not exist“.
Yes it does. Middlesex exists. Repeating something does not make it true.
89 - See 88
Deputy Leadership
Celia Barlow (Hove) has declared for Harriet. She was thought to be leaning towards Blears.
Baldrick will vote Cruddas
82 Chrisco duffs up Tory quack Monckton :
http://revart.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/yoohoo_lame_duck_large.jpg:
Does Global Warming mean that the Vikings will be able to return to Greenland, just like 1000 years ago?
Apparently the Vikings were driven out of Greenland because of Global Cooling.
71: Well observed that man — I’m party to the process the media uses to pick up these stories and they love the “maverick whos says something different”, even at the expense of accurate science.
I was at an american conference on climate change last year. Keynote lecture was absolute doom and gloom, the audience consisted of ~10,000 primarily american climage change experts. Did anyone raise a hand and challenge, not in the slightest.
I work in vaguely in this area and concluded that putting fake parking tickets on 4×4’s is actually a better use of my time since people don’t want to listen…
Gore should go for the lecture. He can prepare a vast stock of evidence on his side given some time.
I consider Blackheath to be in Kent. Zone 3 and much of Zone 2 is suburban. People who don’t live somewhere on or near a monopoly board location aren’t proper Londoners.
91. I appreciate you have nothing else you can say. Thats ok too.
84 - do you work for the BBC by any chance?
Suggest you picket Lancashire, Warwickshire and Surrey cricket clubs for having the temerity to play outside their counties of nomenclature. Likewise Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire with those playing in unitary areas now outside their associated counties. And Middlesex cricket club for having the cheek to even continue to exist. Perhaps they could become “Greater London Cricket Club” instead?
Perhaps you really are a Loony…
97 - I have plenty of other things to say, but you seem not to have taken in what I said earlier. I just felt that my rather tongue-in-cheek first post didn’t warrant such a terse response, that’s all.
12, 90. Technically the Kingdom of Scotland does not exist, nor does the Kingdom of England; they were both subsumed into the Kingdom of Great Britain. That is not to say, of course, that Scotland and England do not exist - they are legal administrative units of the U.K., but are not kingdoms.
Surely whether we believe climate change is happening or not, our lifestyles will have to change at some point anyway, as the way we are living now will become unsustainable. The first obvious reason is the reliance on cheap oil, which really should have been dealt with during the oil crisis of the 1970’s but wasn’t. Also supplies of natural gas run low, and in 50 years both will be hugely depleted to the extent that we certainly won’t be able to use them as we are now.
And as for making everything more fuel-efficient and insulating our homes and other such measures, surely these are measures, as Ted points out in post 55, that we should be perhaps doing anyway as it will save us a lot of money in the longer term.
As far as the debate goes, I start cringing every time I turn on the news to hear stuff about our “carbon footprint” and other such nonsense, and people talking about being “carbon neutral”, trying to sound as if they know what they are talking about. Monckton may be a lunatic at times, but it is precisely people like him we need to actually stop the rollercoaster of the environmental lobby trying to control every aspect of our lives, and to actually look through the evidence properly. It isn’t nearly as strong as we are led to believe.
93.
99. In my limited experience if you tell someone to “chill out”, “lighten up”, take a “chill pill”, or “not to worry themselves” it tends to have the opposite effect.
99. Sensitivity isnt my strong point but if you stick around I’m sure you’ll notice. It isn’t personal.
103 - I guess we’re getting into the territory of the limitations of textual communication (a right can of worms……………….)
104 - Nothing personal here either
55 Ted - if it is indeed the same fine fellow from the Conservativehome site.
You and I have had this debate before and you are well aware of my extreme scepticism of Anthropogenic Global Warming based on my work as a geologist. Basically this is summed up in the simple phrase that the climate is changing but there is no valid scientific evidence that man is to blame.
For any theory to be said to be scientifically valid it has to be able to eliminate any other factors which might produce the same results. Not only have the proponents of AGW failed to do this but, as time has gone on, more and more evidence has come to light that there are indeed other major causal factors which cannot be ignored. The lastest work is by Henrik Svensmark – Director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Centre.
He is joined in his scepticism about man’s effects on our climate by – amongst many thousands of others - the former head of the Australian National Climate Centre, the current Director of the International Arctic Research Centre and the Head of Meteorology and Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
All these scientists have looked at the question of climate change and concluded that the scientific evidence that man is responsible for climate change is weak or non existent. They have followed proper scientific principles and not allowed politicians to influence their decisions.
Climate change is happening and has happened many times before. The Earth has been both much hotter and much colder in the past and in geological terms we are living in a relatively cool period at the present.
This is not - as someone has claimed on here a case of win/win if we pursue the current policies for combating climate change. The money being wasted on this could be far better spent on other real environmental issues like providing fresh drinking water in the 3rd world or preventing deforestaion and desertification caused by intensive farming. Instead we throw billions after a wasteful cause becuse it serves the twin purposes of keeping the population frightened and allowing governments to hike taxes.
Here Prince Charles Edward Stuart wearing the white cockade on the left of the bonnet. Hanovarians wore a black cockade in support of the usurper, the Elector of Hanover :
http://www.appins.org/Images/pcharlie.jpg
107. Some sense on the issue - you’ll be shouted down shortly…
35. Read this. BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6638593.stm
92 - “Baldrick will vote Cruddas”
And Blackadder?
95 - “~10,000 primarily american climage change experts”
Says it all really. Twenty years ago the nume of cliamtologists in the whole world would have been numered in a few hundred. Much of the work on Palaeoclimatology was done by people like me - the geologists.
Now there are 10,000 climate change ‘experts’ at a single conference all of whom have jobs which depend upon this scare lasting their working lives. Doesn’t exactly provide for an objective, scientific interpretation of the evidence.
Blackadder is standing in Dunny on the Wold.
107 Thanks Richard for those helpful and sensible observations.
96 I live near a water works…(in sussex) Am I a proper Londoner?
107. Let us be precise. Monckton is not challenging global warming, he is challengeing ‘MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING’. The first is accepted by all, the latter is a highly controversial proposition that is heavily undermined by the actual evidence.
Between the 1940’s and 1970’s there was ‘global cooling’. The eco-lobby told us there would be a ‘man-made ice age’. We were the cause. We had to change our habits. Burn less fuel.
Between the late-1980’s and today there has been ‘global warming’. The eco-lobby told us this was ‘man-made global warming’. We are the cause. We have to change our habits. Burn less fuel.
The entire thesis for man-made global warming is based on the proposition that man-made carbon dioxide is causing global warming. However, all evidence on past climate has proven that carbon dioxide concentration rises after the warming has occurred, not before. Temperature rise was caused by something else, and rising carbon dioxide was an effect, not a cause.
Presumably rising temperature reduces the amount of vegetation globally, and raises the incidence of natural fires, and so increases carbon dioxide concentration. These are effects, and not causes, of rising temperature.
To abolish the Medieval Warm Period because it disproves ‘man-made global warming’ is outrageous. This is not just bad science, it is a criminal deception.
The cause of global cooling, and now global warming, is so obvious that even a child could give you the answer. Look up at the sky, ask yourself why you want to go out on a sunny day, and the answer is simple - THE SUN. Solar cycles operate at many levels, with the most basic cycle operating at 30 years intervals. Hence global cooling and now global warming. So important is the sun as the cause of global temperature that carbon dioxide, man-made or natural, is virtually irrelevant.
‘Man-made global warming’ is a hoax. It is based on bad sicence - and blatant manipulation of the evidence.
As a scientiist I have to agree with Monckton.
110. I have to acknowledge Will L that:
“…the day before Mr Blair is expected to announce his resignation as Labour leader” (BBC, today)
appears much closer in meaning to “resigns” than “preannounces the future date/timetable for his resignation”.
As Ptp says @ 35. all may be clear tomorrow. The journalists reporting this may not appreciate the significance of his exact statement to us punters.
108 - Jack he looks a right cockade if you ask me!
118 Icarus. Wretched Whig … be gone with you !!
[118] Hmmm… get her, no wonder the Jacobites died out…
66. Augustus Carp states that “the Earth’s population has trebled since I appeared on the scene in 1955.” Are you claiming credit for this Augustus? In which case we should be considering Augustus cooling as a remedy.
[121]
So we can solve the problem of global warming with a bucket of water on the Carp libido
I’m not qualified to assess the evidence so I’m happy to defer to those organisations that are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
The only organisation listed as rejecting the human influence on climate change is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Re 116, Will L, in response to your post, can I point you to this I wrote some time ago:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2007/03/great-global-warming-swindle.html
In short, whilst global warming causes carbon dioxide levels to rise, that says nothing about what happens when external factors cause carbon dioxide to rise, such as the burning of fossil fuels.
111. Blackadder is standing in as the returning officer after the previous returning officer accidentally brutally stabbed himself in the stomach whilst combing his hair.
107 Richard You are clearly an eccentric, publicity seeking, swivel-eyed loon dullard.
Why can’t you simply chant the mantra with everyone else and avoid those nasty flames in Smithfield. After all can so many people be wrong?
What do you mean you want evidence… and you want to think for yourself. May the great Carbon save us from such heresies.
This is a dazzling debunking of climate change science. It is also wildly wrong
Deniers are cock-a-hoop at an aristocrat’s claims that global warming is a UN hoax. But the physics is bafflingly bad
George Monbiot
Tuesday November 14, 2006
The Guardian
For the past nine days my inbox has been filling up with messages labelled “Your scam exposed”, “The great fraud unravels” and “How do you feel now, asshole?”. They are referring to a new “scientific paper”, which proves that the “climate change scare” is a tale “worthier of St John the Divine than of science”.
Published in two parts on consecutive Sundays, it runs to a total of 52 pages, containing graphs, tables and references. To my correspondents, to a good many journalists and to thousands of delighted bloggers, this paper clinches it: climate change is a hoax perpetrated by a leftwing conspiracy coordinated by the United Nations.
So which was the august journal that published it? Science? Nature? Geophysical Research Letters? Not quite. It was the Sunday Telegraph. In keeping with most of the articles about climate change in that publication, it is a mixture of cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish. But it has the virtue of being incomprehensible to anyone who is not an atmospheric physicist.
The author of this “research article” is Christopher Monckton, otherwise known as Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. He has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and, as far as I can tell, no further qualifications. But he is confident enough to maintain that - by contrast to all those charlatans and amateurs who wrote the reports produced by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - he is publishing “the truth”.
The warming effects of carbon dioxide, Lord Monckton claims, have been exaggerated, distorted and made up altogether. One example of the outrageous fraud the UN body has committed is the elimination from its temperature graphs of the “medieval warm period”, which, he claims, was “real, global and up to 3C warmer than now”. He runs two graphs side by side, one of which shows the temperature record over the past 1,000 years as rendered by the UN panel, and the other purporting to show real temperatures over the same period.
The world was so hot 600 years ago, he maintains, that “there was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none”. By contrast the planet is currently much cooler than climate scientists predicted. In 1988, for example, the world’s most celebrated climatologist, James Hansen of Nasa, “told the US Congress that temperature would rise 0.3C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1C), and that sea level would rise several feet (no, one inch)”.
Most importantly, “the UN repealed a fundamental physical law”, doubling the size of the constant (lambda) in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. By assigning the wrong value to lambda, the UN’s panel has exaggerated the sensitivity of the climate to extra carbon dioxide. Monckton’s analysis looks impressive. It is nonsense from start to finish.
His claims about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation have been addressed by someone who does know what he’s talking about, Dr Gavin Schmidt of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He begins by pointing out that Stefan-Boltzmann is a description of radiation from a “black body” - an idealised planet that absorbs all the electromagnetic radiation that reaches it. The Earth is not a black body. It reflects some of the radiation it receives back into space.
Schmidt points out that Monckton also forgets, in making his calculations, that “climate sensitivity is an equilibrium concept”: in other words that there is a time-lag of several decades between the release of carbon dioxide and the eventual temperature rise it causes. If you don’t take this into account, the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide looks much smaller. This is about as fundamental a mistake as you can make in climate science.
What of his other claims? Well, the reason the “medieval warm period” doesn’t show up on the UN panel’s graphs is simple. As far as climatologists can tell, there wasn’t one. So why did the Vikings, as Monckton points out, settle in Greenland?
As a paper published in Reviews of Geophysics shows, Vikings first arrived in Greenland at the very beginning of the “warm period” Monckton discusses, when temperatures, even according to his graph, were lower than they are today. They did so because life had become too hot for them in their adopted home (Iceland): not climatically, but politically. There does appear to have been a slight warming in some parts of the northern hemisphere. There is no reliable evidence that this was a global phenomenon. As for the Chinese naval squadron sailing round the Arctic, it is pure bunkum - a myth long discredited by serious historians.
So what of those graphs? Look at them carefully and you see that they are measuring two different things: global temperatures (the UN panel’s progression) and European temperatures (Monckton’s line). You will also discover that the scales are different.
As for James Hansen, he did not tell the US Congress that temperatures would rise by 0.3C by the end of the past century. He presented three possible scenarios to the US Senate - high, medium and low. Both the high and low scenarios, he explained, were unlikely to materialise. The middle one was “the most plausible”.
As it happens, the middle scenario was almost exactly right. He did not claim, under any scenario, that sea levels would rise by several feet by 2000. But a climatologist called Patrick Michaels took the graph from Hansen’s paper, erased the medium and low scenarios and - in testimony to Congress - presented the high curve as Hansen’s prediction for climate change. A memo sent in July from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, a US company whose power is largely supplied by coal, revealed that Michaels has long been funded by electricity companies. “In February this year, IREA alone contributed $100,000 to Dr Michaels.” Michaels, it says, meets periodically with industry representatives to discuss their activities in countering stories about climate change.
Pat Michaels’s misrepresentation of Hansen’s claims was picked up by Michael Crichton in his novel State of Fear, and somehow transmuted into an “error” of 300%. Monckton gives no source for his claim about Hansen, but Crichton’s novel features in his references. The howlers go on and on. There is scarcely a line in Lord Monckton’s paper which is not wildly wrong.
Yet none of this appears to embarrass the Sunday Telegraph, which championed his findings this week in a leading article. I think I know what the problem is. At a meeting of 150 senior journalists last year, who had gathered to discuss climate change, the chairman asked how many people in the audience had a science degree. Three of us raised our hands. Readers cannot expect a newspaper editor to possess a detailed understanding of atmospheric physics, but there should at least be someone who knows what science looks like whom the editor consults before running a piece.
A scientific paper is one published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. This means it has been subject to scrutiny by other experts in the field. This doesn’t suggest that it’s the last word on the subject, but it does mean it is worth discussing. For newspapers such as the Sunday Telegraph the test seems to be much simpler. If they don’t understand it, it must be science.
Monbiot.com
Hm. I’m not yet convinced (though I am entirely prepared to be) that human activity is causing climate change. But whether we are or not, cutting down on carbon emissions must be a good thing, no? There are far more reasons than just climate change for conserving energy.
If Monckton really is a Viscount, then presumably his paper comes already “Peer Reviewed”.
128. I have been convinced for a while and think that taking steps now is vital, I have nothing to lose if I am wrong and as Ted and I noted earlier it does cut down the fuel bill. Those that argue against climate change are asking the rest of us to take one hell of a gamble on behalf of future generations.
Interestingly Monbiot spouts about his science degree but fails to metion it was in Zoology. Which has absolutely nothing to do with Climate Change studies
More to the point Steve in order to be fair we should also include Monckton’s response which he made in a short letter to the Guardian:
It’s a shame that George Monbiot didn’t check his facts with me before using his column to describe my two recent Sunday Telegraph articles on climate change as “nonsense from start to finish” (This is a dazzling debunking of climate change science. It is also wildly wrong, November 14). He implies that a classically trained peer ought not to express scientific opinions. It’s still a free country, George. And at least I got the science right.
George says my physics is “bafflingly bad” and contains “downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish”. Yet he himself nonsensically refers to “lambda” as a “constant” in the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative-transfer equation. Lambda is not a constant, and it’s not a term in the equation. (my emphasis)
He wrongly states that the equation only describes “black bodies” that absorb all radiant energy reaching them. No qualified physicist would make such a schoolboy howler. Of course the equation isn’t limited to black bodies. Its emissivity variable runs from zero for white bodies to 1 for black bodies. The Earth/troposphere system is a rather badly-behaved grey body with emissivity about 0.6. (my emphasis)
He lifted these errors verbatim from a blog run by two authors of a now-discredited UN graph that tried to abolish the medieval warm period. I’d exposed the graph in my articles. Check your sources, George.
He says I was wrong to reinstate the medieval warm period cited by the UN in 1990 but abolished by it in 2001. A growing body of scientific papers, some of which I cited, shows that the warm period was real, global and up to 3C warmer than now. Check them out, George.
He says I shouldn’t have said the Viking presence in the middle ages shows Greenland was warmer than now. The Viking farmsteads in Greenland are now under permafrost, and you can’t farm permafrost.
He says I was wrong to say James Hansen told Congress in 1988 that world temperature would rise 0.3C by 2000. Hansen projected 0.25 and 0.45C, averaging 0.35C. Outturn was 0.05C. I fairly said 0.3C and 0.1C. He says my source was a work of fiction by Michael Crichton. It wasn’t: it was Hansen’s graph.
He says I overlooked the difference between the immediate and delayed temperature response to changing conditions. In fact I expressly addressed it, citing evidence on both sides of the theory that the delayed air-temperature response arises from warming of the oceans.
He says I said the warming effects of carbon dioxide had been “made up”. I didn’t. I said all were agreed that there was more CO2 around and that we could expect some warming. But there is no consensus on how much.
He says I claimed to know better than the UN’s scientists. I’m arrogant, George, but not that arrogant: I said the contrarians were probably a lot closer to the truth than the UN.
Too many facts wrong. Too much argument ad hominem instead of ad rem. Too much ignorance of the elementary physics of radiative transfer and equilibrium temperature.
Still, gie the puir numpty a cigar - at least he spelled my name right.
Monbiot is himself is a “swivel eyed loon” of the environmental, anti-capitalist variety and can under no circumstances be cnsidered a serious commentator on this issue.
re 129, Augustus Carp,
130 Yes and No. Cutting reliance on fossil fuels has obvious benefits, even if it turns out not to be the case that human activity causes global warming. It makes sense to reduce our dependence for fuel on politically volatile countries.
But the sort of policies advocated by Green zealots, such as ending food imports from poor countries, or banning people from having two children, or reducing economic growth really would be damaging if implemented.
133 Richard and I have discussed this before. I tend more towards agreeing with the impact of human activity but Sean Fear’s comments reflect closely my views. The Green zealots are perhaps the biggest danger to acceptance as their zealotry drives out sensible discussion.
133. Sean, as I said earlier some of us seem to be turning into cross dressing hybrid tories but we have not yet morphed into a parody of some of the more zealous Greenies just yet. We would be handbagged by the blue rinse brigade before that happened.
127.
Academia is infested with nuts and cranks. Go to any university sociology department and you will find hard-core Marxism being taught to impressionable young minds! Walk into the economics department and you will find a crude mathematical nonsense (answering none of the fundamental questions of economics) being taught. Walk into the psychology department and you will find mainly waffle and little scientific reasoning, as is also true of the political science department. Our universities are a disgrace and most degrees issued by them are worthless.
Why do we have this problem?
As humans we are our own worst enemy. We tend to be driven forward by hysteria and crazed emotions more readily than evidence, careful reasoning and objective truth. ‘Most people will not find out the truth, but simply accept the first story they hear’ (Thucydides, 420BC). Universities and academics are not immune to these problems - they are most widepread in universities.
To disparage Monckton’s scientific arguments on the grounds that they are ‘funded by the oil lobby’, or some other wierd arguments is ludicrous. Not only is this false. It is irrelevant and shows the desperation of the eco-lobby. It is like saying anyone teaching maths is motivated by their salary. Whether the ‘maths’ is true or false, affected by the fact that the teacher is paid. This is about growing up, more than truth. Most of the eco-lobby are like children, they are failed Communists looking for a way to push its agenda by other means.
They cannot rebut the counter-argument so instead they resort to cheap and pathetic attacks against those putting them forward. The eco-lobby will fail.
Aren’t we having a very chilly May. My heater is on!
131 I was at the Geology museum on Saturday (they’ve turned it into part of the Natural History Museum now so it’s a lot more interactive). I would reccommend a visit to anyone of the doom mongering mind set. There’s a nice easy to understand pendulum in the geology museum and some very clear explanations of geological events over a very extended time period
Adopting policies to improve the sustainabiity of economic growth, use resources more wisely and take better care of our planet are clearly good but the ambition of too much green thinking is the reversal of economic growth in a mad bid for pastoral idealism to be effected globally. A basic understanding of the geological evidence will show Richard Tyndall to be much more right than wrong.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have banned CFC and it doesn’t mean we should assume our current use of resources can go on in the same way. It does mean however we should be more sophisticated in our approach to the problem.
Firstly, hello everyone, I’m a long-term lurker on the site, but this is the first time I’ve ever posted.
I’m not an expert on climate change, but I am a student of Norse history, so I can at least contribute to the Greenland issue. I don’t think there’s much dispute among historians that the climate in southern Greenland was more amenable to human settlement in the late tenth century when the Norse arrived than it is now, but the Norse were never able to lead the pastoral lifestyle that they did in Scandinavia and Iceland. They tried at the beginning, but archaeological evidence shows that over the years they were forced to abandon this and concentrate almost wholly on hunting of seal, walrus and caribou.
A drop in temperatures may have been a factor in the eventual extinction of the colonies, but there’s also evidence to suggest that poor health and nutrition, as well as the increasing isolation of the settlements from the rest of northern Europe, played as larg e or larger a role.
Interesting stuff, anyway!
138 Welcome out of the shadows. Fantastic post! pb.com is just brilliant.
I think the whole problem with the climate-deniers is that they have an almost religious belief that anybody who suggests that there may be cases of market failure are left-wing anti-capitalists trying to bring down the system any way they know how. I know plenty of scientists and I’ve never known a more reputable profession entirely dedicated to the pursuit of truth. Yeah, there are individual mavericks who like to fake results to bring attention to themselves, but as a group they are very trustworthy. The idea that behind closer doors they’re all flag-waving closet Marxists just doesn’t wash. What’s far more likely is that the small minority that dispute are causing doubt where there is very little by making pseudo-scientific arguments til everyone gets bored and no action is taken. This is what happened by scientists funded by the nicotine industry with regards to smoking in the 60s and 70s and the same thing is going on now.
Welcome Danbar! This is one of the things I love about this site - you can always find a student of norse history if you want one.
138 Yes welcome, Danbar. Can’t have too much informed sanity on the site.
140 tjm, I think the “religious” aspect of this is worthy of greater study. Many of the Eco-zealots display a mystical worship of the Earth which I recognise from my own (albeit somewhat different) religious observances. There is a fine old hymn by Bishop Heber which contains the lines, “Where every prospect pleases, and only man is vile” and a lot of people seem to apply that approach to environmental issues nowadays. It’s an old heresy, but quite an attractive one. It gives its adherents a suitable set of reasons for Puritanism (so maybe it’s not all bad after all!)
Augustus Carp
Senior Sidesman
St-James-the-Least-of-All
143. I agree the sort of people that make up “Green” parties are generally a bit like that. But the bulk of scientists and the rest of the mainstream politicians who’ve woken up to climatc change aren’t. We need a sensible line between the free market at all costs lot on one side, who say “do nothing”, and the green fundamentalists on the other, who say “end capitalism”. What we need is a sensible middle approach, where we maintain capitalism but heavily tax carbon intensive industries. Once the tax is in place, the markets will adapt, new and cleaner technologies will emerge, and we can carry on with sustained economic growth.
O/T. Ladbrokes have now opened a market on the new Home Secretary.
At first glance the John Denham price is the biggest difference to the existing Hills prices. Thoughts anyone?
Jack Straw 2.00
David Milliband 4.50
Hilary Benn 7.00
Alan Johnson 9.00
Hazel Blears 11.00
Peter Hain 11.00
John Denham 13.00
Margaret Beckett 17.00
Ruth Kelly 17.00
John Hutton 21.00
Douglas Alexander 26.00
Patricia Hewitt 26.00
Des Browne 34.00
Tessa Jowell 34.00
John Prescott 51.00
David Davis 101.00
145. Johnson or Hain - probably Hain after his NI turn in the spotlight.
The irony of a vandal as HS will not be lost I hope.
145 - talking of new Labour talent, ahem, who was that well-coiffured, relaxed, grinning Labour MP with the pink tie sat nodding away sagely next to Blair at PMQs today?
Anyone recognise him? He’s not someone I’ve seen in the public eye of late….
129 Augustus. This Monckton chap is indeed a Viscount :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton%2C_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
………………..
138 Danbar. Welcome to PB. Although as a norse expert I feel the reverse of your name sounds more Viking - Rabnad …. yes, that’s better. Radnab the Red - Are you politically red ??
148 You know how it is these days, Jack. I thought that maybe it was an honorary one like Paisley’s Doctorate, or something he bought second hand in a Labour Car Party Boot Sale from Tony Blair.
145 I would approach this in much the same way as a decent handicap at Kempton. Cross out the no-hopers first and then eliminate those who are obviously poor value. Have a look at what’s left and if you can spot one or two who look overpriced, you may have a bet.
Prescott and Davis are joke suggestions.
As Brown’s campaign manager, I reckon Straw could just about have his pick of Cabinet posts. Would the Home Office appeal to him most? It’s a bit of a poisoned chalice, isn’t it? My impression was that he enjoyed being Foreign Secretary and wasn’t best pleased at being moved on. Until very recently, he was hot favorite to be next Chancellor. It all makes evens shockingly poor value. Delete.
David Miliband seems pretty happy where he is or might be suited to something like DFID. His own feelings will have to be respected in view of the support he commanded for a run at the top job and the fact that he thought better of it. I can’t see as he would think the Home Office much of a reward, or a stepping stone to future glory. Odds of 7/2 look pretty skimpy. Delete.
The rest look much of a muchness with no obvious candidates standing out. If you aggregate their prices you get to a percentage of approximately 82.5% - a decent edge, all things considered, but the trouble is there are too many plausible candidates. You could give me four goes and I wouldn’t guarantee to get the winner.
At a push I’d suggest Denham at 13s, but suspect a ’safe pair of hands’ like Benn or Johnson would be more likely.
Think I’ll hold back.
149 Augustus.
143 Augustus Carp Interesting that you mention St James in this context since by all accounts he was somewhat of a ascetic Swampy type himself and his views on the rich (James 5 1-6 etc) if taken literally were to the left of Nye Bevan !
140 - There are a number of problems with this attitude.
Firstly scientists need jobs like anyone else - see my posting about the numbers of climatologists that owe their living to the ideas about Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Secondly scientists tend to work in very specialised areas. This is often without reference to other disciplines. This means that whilst they may know that their bit of the science is strigently tested and is accurate within the bounds of their discipline, they are relying upon others - often administrators and politicains to deal with the ‘big picture’. It is only when they find their work blatently misused - as with Chris Landsea who resigned in protest at the spin being put on his work by the head of his study group at the IPCC - that we see something of the way the system works.
Thirdly and most basically, a scientist can only call themselves such if the follow the Scientific Method. Failure to do so negates any claim they might have to be practicing science. There are no ifs and buts about this. Either you do science following a strictly laid down methodology which includes the elimination of other possible explanations for the effects you are seeing, or you do not. Speculation and best guesses, no matter how well informed, are not science. They might as well be voodoo.
It is this scientific method which sets proper scientific study apart from religion and quack science. Unfortunately in the rush for grants and the politicisation of the Global Warming debate it is this basic principle that so many scientists have forgotten.
Sit tight on the new HO minister market. The rumours will come out pretty soon aboutw ho is in what frame. Gordon is mean’t to be aiming for a big splash so there may well be a lot of moving around going on.
152
Swampy died last week, of heart failure. His surgeon could have saved him but Swampy diapproved of by-passes.
148 Jack W. No tribal loyalty but I will confess to an inclination towards traditional Cornish LD gold. But I suspect that Rabnad the Yellow(livered) would not strike fear into the hearts of PBC’s coastal communities!
Thanks for the welcome messages!
153 when I pointed out to our deputy principal that the new degree course in ‘complementary therapy’ should be an arts and not a science course you could have heard a pin drop! I think the Scientific Method has been debased enormously by non-scientists adopting the appearance of applying scientific rigour to their subject - as someone who studied economics I still feel I should be a BA and not a BSc.
Danbar - Jack is 104 you know!!!
157 - Of course some go the other way - all Bachelors degrees at Cambridge are Arts degrees… so I have an MA in Maths (ok, so it’s a Black Art…), and friends who did Engineering, Science etc. for a fourth year have BA MA MEng; BA MA MSc etc.
159 I always liked the idea of a Maths BA/MA (maths ability not up to it unfortunately)! you Cambridge brainiacs get your MA for free though so having to work for a year to get your ‘proper’ Masters seems fair enough!
159/160 Likewise all get a BA at another place, from where living for four more years, and paying a negligible fe, allows you to double up and get two degrees at one sitting.
156 Danbar. Radnab “The Gold” ?!?
Or even Rabnad “The Gold” ?!?
153: In your rush to describe the scientific method, there is also the important element of data… …the data to support the thesis that a) the earth is warming up, b) temperature is highly correlated with CO_2 concentration and c) man is dumping lots of CO_2 out is beyond contention. Theories that don’t attribute warming to man are increasingly struggling to find *anomalous* data to support their cause (witness the sea temperature dropping fiasco that turned out to be dodgey buoys last month, that was grasped like a dying men by the refusniks last year…). No theory can ever be true of course, there is only ever the most likely…
Don’t forget too that politisation is a two-way thing. Good old fashioned science in this area has been ignored for decades because people didn’t want to hear it, this has partly *caused* the scienfic politisation…
Monbiot may not be to everyones taste but he does do his homework…
Johnson to the HO and Milliband to education perhaps? But can the deputy leader (if he indeed is) hold a senior cabinet job as well? The permutations of all this are mind bending……
67.
“I always though that the Flour of Scotland was McDougals”
You mean rancourous caber self-raisers?
I thought the white powder hounds were the all-at-sea blue-green brigade?
I’ve always had a sneaky suspicion that Monckton is more sensible than to fall for this stuff he spouts. My conspiracy theory is that he’s deliberately trying to give Gore a platform for the presidency as part of some elaborate pact. Perhaps the quid pro quo will be President Gore granting him exclusive rights to market clever puzzles in the US?
If you think that solar activity is causing global warming then you better tell the Met Office Will - “The bottom line is, even if cosmic rays have a detectable effect on climate (and this remains unproven), measured solar activity over the last few decades has not significantly changed and cannot explain the continued warming trend. In contrast, increases in CO2 are well measured and its warming effect is well quantified. It offers the most plausible explanation of most of the recent warming and future increases.”
graphs 2 and 3 are pretty convincing to me; unless of course the computers at the Hadley Centre are unreformed communists fearful of losing their jobs…
159 - the BA becomes promoted to an MA. First you are a BA and then an MA: never a BA MA.
164 - Since the ice core data (and yes for the record I have physically had my hands on some of those cores) shows that CO2 concentration rises follow rather than precede changs in atmospheric temperature, you might be as well going back and doing some more reading.
168 - Believe it or not the Met office people are not the only experts in solar activity and its effects on climate. In fact these days they are well behind the curve. As I said before, go look at the work by Henrik Svensmark – Director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Centre. The name gives a clue as to their area of expertise.