A Personal Appeal to Britain’s Politicians: Wake-Up From Your Warm Dreams! Fuel Poverty is Killing People

Posted: March 24, 2013 by tallbloke in atmosphere, Carbon cycle, climate, Clouds, government, Gravity, humour, Incompetence, Natural Variation, Ocean dynamics, Philosophy, Politics, Robber Barons, Shale gas, Solar physics, solar system dynamics, Tides

“The most revolutionary thing one can do always is to proclaim loudly what is happening.”
Rosa Luxemburg

There are times when I find it hard to speak politely. I left school at sixteen and worked on the shop-floor of a large engineering works for ten years, gaining a higher national qualification in mechanical and production engineering along the way before getting the chance to study for a degree in the History and Philosophy of Science. While I worked in heavy industry, I learned some choice ways of expressing myself which are basic, direct, and hurt the sensibilities of those who have spent their lives in polite company, although they got the job done effectively. So I sometimes struggle to find the right tone at those times when a message needs communicating forcefully to people in a position to influence policy, but without having them recoil and ignore things they don’t want to contemplate.

But the time for niceties has passed. Britain’s people face a looming disaster of epic proportion. Britain’s political class needs to act swiftly to minimise the damage which cannot be wholly averted at this late stage. Successive governments have set the stage for the impending denouement, so this is not a partisan rant, but a cross-party appeal to common sense. People are dying by the thousand as a direct result of botched energy policy and we must act to save lives. Now.

Let’s clear some of the undergrowth so we can see the shape of the problem. Firstly, we’ll deal with the climate scare.

The Climate Question

There is no ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’ from rising levels of co2 in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is an essential trace gas with little radiative effect compared with the enormous quantity of water vapour in the air. The hydrological cycle has massive redundant capacity to provide a negative feedback to any increase in radiative forcing from additional airborne co2. In any case it is by no means certain that the majority of the increase in airborne co2 is of human origin.

The real drivers of climatic change; the cyclically varying make-up of radiation from the Sun, the tidal effects on ocean circulation caused by the Moon’s declination cycle, and the Earth’s tectonic and seismic responses to the changing disposition of the rest of the solar system masses, induce near repeating cyclic patterns in Earth’s ever-changing climatic history. Through the decomposition of the complex signal into simpler sinusoidal components, we are able to better determine their origin, and predict future changes.

The indications are that the Sun is going into a phase of low activity levels. This is likely to increase cloudiness and reduce sunshine hours. That will induce surface cooling for several decades to come.

The Energy Issue

Supplying society’s need for high quality securely distributed energy is paramount to our well being. Clean water supply, food, health, education, and all of modern society’s benefits stem from our production of energy. Cleaner air is a desirable aspiration, but it cannot take priority over basic requirements on which peoples lives depend. The emissions from coal burning power stations are not particularly toxic at the levels they are ingested, and some of the by-products, such as sulphur are of direct benefit to agriculture. Acid rain destroying Scandinavian forest is a long debunked myth. Sulphur dioxide doesn’t make us ill. Hypothermia kills people, especially old people who have paid their dues to society and have the right to a warm home in retirement.

The Engineer’s Solution

Take a leaf out of Germany’s book and Commence building modern replacements for Britain’s aging coal fired generation capacity NOW, with whatever heavy industrial capacity we have left. Frack for gas NOW. Get the Americans in to do it if necessary, but don’t offer our tax money, we pay enough for gas as it is. Just cut the red tape and they will come to work willingly, without subsidy. Re-open any viable coal mines we still have, and start building some new ones.

The Political Situation

It’s time to encourage the British Government to grow some bollocks and tell the unelected incompetents in Brussels to FUCK OFF.  Then it won’t be able to use the excuse that the European Large Plant Directive prevents us from solving our URGENT energy crisis in the most time efficient and self reliant way. Repeal the Climate Change Act immediately, if not sooner. Use the money the European Union has been embezzling from us without providing audited accounts for the last two decades. Stop giving our tax money to thieves, NOW. If the British establishment doesn’t heed the warning, it will be brought down by cold, angry people voting for a populist party with no administrative experience. While it would be fun, it’s unlikely to solve the energy crisis which is upon us. The new Carbon Tax is an obvious ploy to steal more money from a cold population and will not be tolerated.

Summary for Policy Makers

Stop dicking around, the eyes of the people are upon you. If you don’t move fast to fix the mess you’ve created, their collective boot will be up your collective arse, and since the Labour and Conservative parties are the two cheeks of the same arse, pointing the finger at each other in parliament won’t appease the taxpayer.  You are our paid servants, not our masters, so shape up, or ship out.

I knew I wouldn’t be able to keep up the polite language once I started ‘the political bit’, oh well…

Queensbury West Yorkshire this morning. “Our children aren’t going to know what snow is” – Dr David Viner, Govt climate advisor 2002


  1. mitigatedsceptic says:

    That’s more like it!

  2. Eric Barnes says:

    Great post Tallbloke. Thanks!

  3. c777 says:

    I totally understand expressing yourself in no uncertain term TB, I did my apprenticeship in a steel works, though now I am a network administrator.
    I do not mince my words with green fools either, they deserve derision, as for politicians, what planet are they on?

  4. mitigatedsceptic says:

    I agree with all you said but there is a missing link – between the two arses there is the elusive Green/Liberal party – to whom both the others suck up to in order to command a majority. Were it not for them, I believe that the others would readily ditch the carbon folly.

    The next move by the powers that be will be to blame everyone but themselves – banks, oil/gas companies, you name it… and of course, the people themselves for being so selfish as to want to keep warm, fed and clean in this weather.

    The trouble is that the people will swallow all that and go to the polls again to ensure that their dear representative does not have to work for an honest living.

  5. Paul says:

    It’s not just the EU. It was We who allowed the government to pass the climate change act which is having far more of an impact than any legislation coming from Brussels. Repeal the act now.

  6. tgmccoy says:

    “Two cheeks of the same arse.” Tallbloke you owe me a Laptop. just sprayed coffee all over it, the
    lazyboy, myself and the Spinger. ..
    Agree with what you say. State of Oregon’s got the Green Death wish too. But it’s going to take the
    Willamette freezing over at Portland, before any one wakes up..

    [Reply] I can send you a dodgy laptop the climate cops have played with if you like. 😉

  7. A C Osborn says:

    Roger, stop beating about the bush and come out and say what you mean! /sarc

    That is a great mixture of articulate English and good old fashioned Anglo Saxon.
    Are you going to send it to Cameron and Co?

  8. edcaryl says:

    “Are you going to send it to Cameron and Co?”
    I think he just did.

  9. What we really need is a referendum.

    It is much too important an issue to leave up to politicians.

  10. mitigatedsceptic says:

    We have the constitutional means already at hand – threaten your sitting MP with exclusion next time and call for a general election now.

  11. tallbloke says:

    Mitigated: Now you’re talking!

    By the way the elusive Green/Liberal party isn’t between two arses, it’s between the two cheeks. The bumstain of British politics

  12. vukcevic says:

    TB:and given that the Labour and Conservative parties are the two cheeks of the same arse

    Does that makes lib-dems a….h…s ?

  13. Filbert Cobb says:

    “the Labour and Conservative parties are the two cheeks of the same arse,”

    And between them, Ed Davey

  14. michael hart says:

    I would be tempted to be less shy TB, and tell them what you really think.

    Reintroducing domestic coin-fed electricity meters would bring it home to people pretty quickly.

    If a cold shower on a winter’s day becomes the only option, politicians may start to get frightened by the prospect of civil unrest. They have been warned. Notice is served.

  15. Kon Dealer says:

    This needs to be repeated at every opportunity.

    A large part of the problem is Met Office “scientists”, like Richard Betts, who are constantly feeding the gullible no-brains in Government with alarmist rubbish, cooked up by their useless (but expensive) models.

    “ I stand by my comments of 4C or more global warming being possible by the end of this century, with local warming higher in some places, up to 15C in the Arctic an extreme but plausible case.”

  16. Stephen Wilde says:

    Well said, Rog.

    Things need to change NOW as Nigel Farage said in his conference speech yesterday.

    I speak as a lifelong Conservative (the other parties being just too appalling to consider) and find that Farage is the only one who has a clue.

  17. tallbloke says:

    And John Selwyn Gummer, Lord Deben, Chair of the CCC and undeclared member of the World Future Council is most definitely still the boil on the arse of British politics. His nose buried firmly in the pig trough as usual.

  18. Stephen Richards says:

    Like you Rog I started as an apprentise. Worked round the engineering industry, went off on my own a got 2 physics degrees but never learned the niceties of the english language. BUT, I have never seen the need to ameliorate my language in the presence of shisters, cheats and scum. I have encoutered, directly, Deben of (taxpayers should pay to kill the moles on my estate) suffolk. Never was there a politician so adept at finding a profitable bandwagon on which to climb. Yeo is no better.
    I despise the likes of the UK Met of staff who persist in their stupidity and more so the BBC who use and abuse their position in your society.

    For my money, Rog, you can say it any way you choose at it will be fine with me.


    I speak as a lifelong Conservative

    That party is no more. They are more liberal than the liberals, now.

  19. Phillip Bratby says:

    Well said Roger. Get the message out there.

  20. Morph says:

    TB – would you be comfortable with us sending this to our MPs ? Maybe if enough of us and anyone we know did this – maybe, just maybe something might give.

    [Reply] Fine by me, use your own judgement on blanking out un-genteel language.

  21. Stephen Richards says:

    “Two cheeks of the same arse

    Fortunately I was wearing my log range reading glasses when I read that. The coffee didn’t reach the keyboard.

    By the way, can I really piss you english off.

    I just went out to the local restaurant and had a really nice meal of haute cuisine, glass of pineau and a red wine. Came home and sat on the terrasse in sun and 32°C (full sun temp) admiring the scene over my neighbours lake. (19°C in the shade). Heh, Heh :)) .

  22. tallbloke says:

    Everyone over to Stephen Richards place for skinny dipping and beer!

  23. Stephen Wilde says:

    “That party (the Conservatives) is no more. They are more liberal than the liberals, now.”

    Agreed. There has been an absolute betrayal of the grass roots supporters.

    The term ‘liberal’ is misused too. It is really another word for ‘authoritarian’ in the sense that they think they know what is best for everyone else and are determined to ram it down everyone’s throats by any means available.

    On that basis all three major parties are identical and the only interest of each of them is in stopping the others from usurping their power and if that means the destruction of the nation they seem to be ‘cool’ with that.

    A point about Rog’s cv.

    He is a perfect example of how self education allied with an astute mind is superior to formal education.

    I have long believed that intelligent citizens improve their minds despite their teachers and not because of them (though there are some all too rare inspirational teachers). Despite that I went the conventional academic route (via Grammar School rather than Public School) and found myself amongst a huge number of the dummies who are now in positions of power. Their idiocy was apparent even 45 years ago.

    I have found Rog’s management of this blog to be exemplary.

  24. tallbloke says:

    I have found Rog’s management of this blog to be exemplary.

    Barring the occasional lapse into Anglo Saxon.
    Maybe I’m feeling crabby because of the UEA’s legal threats. I’m drafting my reply to them next – stay tuned.

  25. vukcevic says:

    In the early seventies, when I was a day time student at one of the most prominent London’s engineering colleges, now better known by the AGW disciple Ms Joanna Haig, and at nights and weekends repairing cheap faulty transistor sets, imported from Hong Kong, paid at a princely sum of £1 a day for 6 hours of work, I learned lot of Anglo-Saxon from my cockney boss, but unfortunately never caught up with the ‘Queen’s English’.

  26. nzrobin says:

    Well said Roger.

  27. wayne says:

    TB, you have the right to be crabby! Fantastic post. Now your talking the language of the general public, at least the language of nearly everyone here in OK that I come across. Bet you never knew you had a bit of cowpoke in you but I can see it in your words! Straight sensible talk.

  28. mitigatedsceptic says:

    Now is the time to reduce the deficit by cutting grants to Met office, UEA, Tyndall and Hadley, CCC and all the other freeloaders rinding the AGW bandwagon.

    Let us turn the tables on those who have seen in every weather event evidence of AGW and point at the snow on the ground and shout “see here – there’s Global Warming for you!”.

    Now is the time to ask our MPs what evidence or argument is needed to change their minds about AGW.

    Let us tell our MPs what we think are the real priorities – to prevent power cuts whether because of shortage of supplies or because the grid and local distribution systems are so rickety that a bit of snow cuts off thousands of homes, not just for a few hours, but for days and, who knows, even weeks! How does keeping the lights on compare as a project with connecting windmills miles from anywhere to the grid?

    Let us bombard our MPs with stuff like this and tell them to get on to Yeo and hold him to account too. Let us follow the advice in the film ‘Network’ and yell at them “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this any more!”.

    Let us agitate Nigel Farage to take this on board NOW while the weather is rotten and power cuts on the cards. This could be his big chance to shame the other three conspirators on the AGW scam.

    Let us try to stiffen the line taken by GWPF and try to persuade them to remind everyone that the causes of the discomfort and deaths are the present policies of the three main parties.

    Let us seize on such nonsense as the conversion of Drax to burn imported wood and point to the effects on the balance of trade. Let us make sure that every windmill that blows down, or goes on fire, is well reported in the press. Let us show windmills feathered in gales and standing still in cold calm weather.

    And again – let us remind our MPs that unless they change their ways, they will soon be looking for a real job of work.

    There’s nothing like a bit of snow to prompt a paradigm shift! Now is the time to nag, nag nag!

    Now excuse me – I’ve some writing to do!

  29. katabasis1 says:

    I left London on Friday to visit friends in Sheffield. A few of us attended a meeting on energy poverty.

    At the meeting were representatives of: The Green Party, Labour (including MP Clive Betts), Lib Dems, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and “Sheffield Campaign Against Climate Change” (the latter being the chairs(!)) for the subsequent discussion.

    None of these people would accept any responsibility for the current parlous state of energy in the UK and were fully behind the country’s currently insane policies. Worse, they were pushing for everyone to demand that their MP support Tim Yeo’s amendment to the Energy Bill that would make the targets even more insane. Yeo was referred to as a “brave hero” and no mention was made regarding the bungs he receives from the renewables industry.

    I couldn’t remain quiet and suffice to say, was asked to leave.

  30. tallbloke says:

    Katabasis: Welcome, and thanks for the report. Yes, the usual suspects have infiltrated the fuel poverty debate, and dominate it with their mendacious self serving illogical twaddle. I have exclusive footage the Green party leader speaking at a London demo in my camera. I’ll put it up on youtube for you tomorrow.

  31. Green Sand says:

    Well said TB!

    I have concerns re NH Land temps:-

    10yr rolling trend (rate of change) for HadCRUT4 and its Ocean element – HadSST3 have been negative (cooling) since Jan 2011.

    CRUTEM4 – the land element only turned negative when the northern hemisphere land turned negative in Dec 2012. Southern hemisphere land 10yr had already turned negative in May 2011.

    The conventional thinking is that land warms and cools quicker than the oceans?

    As the NH land 30yr rate of warming is at present nearly 3 times that of the SH land and HadSST3 there would therefore appear to be plenty of scope for a downturn in NH land surface temps. Will it happen, don’t know, nobody does. As always only time will tell.

  32. Zeke says:

    “…people voting for a populist party with no administrational experience. While it would be fun, it’s unlikely to solve the energy crisis which is upon us.”

    Has anyone noticed the language around here can be teeeerrible! (; (:

    [Reply] I never learned to speak fluent Bureaucrat

  33. Stephen Richards says:

    All it would take to bring down your UK goverment and perhaps the EU would be one respected journal finally listing all the corruption within the environmental institutions and goverments around the global warming scam. Now is the moment. With the whole of central and eastern europe frozen to the core and covered in snow, with people dying on the streets and in their houses. Now is the time.

    I wish I had won that huge lotto last year. There would be billboards springer up everywhere each with a different fact on it.

  34. Roger Dewhurst says:

    Between the two cheeks of the same arse is the noxious Clegg.

  35. Stephen Richards says:

    tallbloke says:

    March 24, 2013 at 4:45 pm

    Everyone over to Stephen Richards place for skinny dipping and beer!

    Now that would be fun but with loads of nubile and naked girls leaping in and out of the pool my poor old heart would give out and I would miss my wine and sunshine. :))

  36. tallbloke says:

    It will be done at the ballot box with due decorum. Time to Beppe Grillo-ise British Politics!
    Then the victorious ordinary peoples party can make use of the computer system devised to select people for jury service to select representatives to stand in future elections. Engineers with experience and expertise in grid-wide strategic planning will be employed at double rate. We need small scale localised power generation from efficient and relatively clean pyro combustors. I visited a facility 20 years ago which could produce a megawatt from 40 worn out truck tyres an hour and still stay within (the then more reasonable) emission standards. It was killed off by the Greens and Euro directives.

    Distributed local power generation = more robust grid + less line losses.

  37. Zeke says:

    “[Reply] I never learned to speak fluent Bureaucrat (:”

    Long may you use the handiest epithet for your own purposes.

    However you got a Rated R strong advisory from me for using the four-letter term “populist” to describe the UKIP! Where do I complain? (:

  38. J Martin says:

    Stephen Richards. 32°C.

    OK, I’m jealous. Australia ?

  39. Stephen Fox says:

    I agree completely with all this, and an excellent post TB.
    I have (mostly) managed to keep my temper so far when discussing AGW with my acquaintances who believe the mantra, but it’s getting harder and harder. Most of them profess to be ‘compassionate’ people whlst supporting the policies that throw the poor and elderly into fuel poverty.
    I can’t stand that kind of hypocrisy.

  40. Sparks says:

    It’s arse kicking time, lucky I’m still wearing my winter boots. they are idiots, they are behaving like idiots. man it makes me angry. and I’m not an angry person,

  41. tallbloke says:

    Stephen Fox: It is now clear that there is no hurry. We can let nature take its course and let us know how things really work with the climate system. During the C20th he Sun was above average activity levels for 70 years to 2003, co2 rose and temperature rose. Now; the Sun has gone sleepy (no spots today at ‘solar max’ for example), co2 is rising faster than ever, and temperature has been stable for 15 years.

    It’s not looking good for the co2 hypothesis.

    So while we wait for the definite outcome of the crucial experiment nature is performing for us, we can use what fuels we need to in order to keep our senior citizens in the dignity they’ve earned, and the rest of us in the comfort we pay through the nose for.

    Anyone who doesn’t think that is a reasonable approach is irrational and callous IMO.

  42. mitigatedsceptic says:

    I’m not so sure that we can wait – not for nature to validate the anti-AGW hypothesis, but for minds to change as a result. So many have invested so much in the AGW myth that some will never change their minds whatever the evidence. So although as scientists we may know beyond reasonable doubt what is going on, those in power may not want to know. Just look at the resilience of the Church of Rome and the myriad other patently false belief systems.

  43. J Martin says:

    According to your new co2 meter, the rate at which co2 is increasing is accelerating.

    A sample of 2 or 3 items is of course statistically sound when discussing naughty mankinds co2 increase. /sarc

  44. J Martin says:

    We can only wait. But look at this winter in both Europe and the US, maybe it’s just weather, but it’s at the height of the solar high, things can only get colder from here.

  45. tallbloke says:

    Cold snaps at solar maximum are actually quite common. Not that this is any kind of normal solar maximum. Usually it happens because a big El Nino starts at solar minimum, and is followed by a La Nina a couple of years later around solar max. ENSO is neutral at the moment, but a triple dip is on the cards in my opinion.

  46. Steve T says:

    Please think carefully before replying to the UEA. I have had legal letters sent to me sounding very threatening and warning of prosecution for theft and other crimes. I knew I had done nothing wrong and totally ignored them – heard nothing further. Believe me, if they had any case you would have received a writ or summons, not a scare letter. If i any doubt, get an opinion from someone qualified, but don’t get involved without legal advice.

    Steve T

  47. Green Sand says:

    “ENSO is neutral at the moment, but a triple dip is on the cards in my opinion.”

    Interesting, OLR at the dateline was in “re-charge” mode between May 10 and March 12 and all it produced was a short lived slight increase in 3.4 region temps from July to Nov last year which had only a minor effect on global sea surface temps .

    So it is not out of the question that another re-charge – La Nina will be required before a viable warm pool can be established.

    As always only time will tell!

  48. Sparks says:

    “Cold snaps at solar maximum are actually quite common”

    Rog, My thoughts on that subject. http://thetempestspark.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/the-sun-blank-again-at-solar-maximum/

  49. james griffin says:

    Thanks mate….very well said.

  50. chris y says:

    You missed the obvious. Between the cheeks of the same arse oozes massive piles of CACC (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change)…
    Hopefully it will soon be swirling in the bowl.

  51. I count my ability to be able to offend as a super-power. Like levitation, it moves people.

    Like every other super-hero, I only use my super-powers for good; not evil. While I still can. Others are not so lucky, with their super-powers nullified by Vegemite in the land of Thou Shall Not Offend in the Press.

    P.S. I shared this article on Facebook with the comment:

    So hard to be polite …. when it seems that people are using one’s politeness so that they can screw you.

  52. I left my snow shovel back in Kansas for my daughter to use when I moved to Mesa Az. two years ago, the back yard is starting be comfortable now that I have been here two years.
    My relaxation spot in the back yard is in the mid to upper 80’s F most of the day.

  53. Hasbeen says:

    Sometimes you just have to call a spade a bloody shovel.

  54. johnrm says:

    Look at all the polos’ with their snouts buried deep in the green commercial industries…in some cases it is the entire family.
    Then say they are stupid.
    They are not stupid, we are.
    Coming soon, smart meters. then your power costs will depend on demand….your charges will change by the time of day.

  55. Stephen Richards says:

    J Martin says:

    March 24, 2013 at 9:22 pm

    Stephen Richards. 32°C.

    OK, I’m jealous. Australia ?

    No, J SW France. We very often see 16 – 18°C for the last week of Feb and into the 20°Cs in Mars. However, the last 3-4 years have not been so consisitent.

  56. Ed says:

    Well done, I agree with every word you said, Tallbloke, even the cuss ones. Sock it to ’em!

  57. tallbloke says:

    It looks like the govt. has responded by going nuclear. 80% of energy to come from American designed small modular reactors by 2050.

    Government launches long-term #nuclear energy strategy.

    That’ll get Natalie Bennett wailing and hooting. Where are they going to build all these?

  58. mitigatedsceptic says:

    More paper but very little substantial action. Their hearts’ are not in it and they will continue to drag their feet until we freeze to death. Look at Scotland – used to be a major nuclear producer and has set her face against anything nuclear at any price. If they go independent and 80% renewable where are they going to get their power in cold still weather?

    I suspect this paper has been slipped out to divert attention from the real here and now energy crisis that has arisen simply because all parties have been asleep at the wheel for decades.

  59. tallbloke says:

    CBI climate change ‏@CBI_CC 1h

    UK government commits more than £20m towards R&D in nuclear power as part of an industrial strategy http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a76d27d2-9568-11e2-a4fa-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2OddDhmCG … (via @FT ) ^TB

    BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21937186

    Kirstygogan ‏@kirstygogan 29m

    Press Release: Long term partnership to help UK compete in global £1trillion #nuclear industry https://www.gov.uk/government/news/long-term-partnership-to-help-uk-compete-in-1-trillion-global-nuclear-industry

  60. Roy Martin says:

    All academics and politicians should be required to spend a sizable stint in manufacturing early in their lives to learn where a good slice of the real work of a country gets done. And learn clear expression in their language – this applies to all languages, not only English.

  61. mitigatedsceptic says:

    Thanks TB – this looks like a panic PR job in the midst of an energy crisis rather than a genuine effort to energise the nuclear industry. “All’s well – jam coming in 2050!”

    It’s peanuts – Hutton’s ‘you’ve got to start somewhere’ sound like a despairing whimper.

    The real hurdle is public opinion that, fostered by the greenies and Liberals, is absolutely hysterical No nuclear entrepreneur in his right mind would dare stir up that hornet’s nest.

    All the talk about R&D and training is just whitewash; but I smell panic and fear in all this! Perhaps they don’t like it up ’em!

  62. AlecM says:

    What ypu must realise Roger is that we people who have worked in real engineering/power industries are a rare commodity. We’re even rarer in Westminster where policy is dreamt up by dilettantes whose family money plus Masonic or other contacts got the job for their elite offspring.

    So, it’s a bit like Marie Antoinette. When the windmills can’t deliver Cameron will say something like ‘Why can’t they use the batteries in their car to run the cooker?’. They haven’t a clue and imagine that engineers are like Morlochs, living underground and doing things whilst they swan around, ruling etc.

    Indeed, the high priest of this windmill religion, soon perhaps to be top Eloi,is known to talk to plants, convinced that this makes them feel better.

    The only way that our EU quisling Establishment will learn is when the blacked out inner cities rob the middle classes at knife-point.

    As for Beddington, Gawd help us, not trained as a scientist he hadn’t a clue about how the Climate Alchemy physics was faked and now that we are heading to the new LIA, yet power is running out so millions will die, neither he or his equally green replacement knew/know what to do.

  63. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/climate-change-deaths_n_1915365.htmlClimate Change “Deaths Could Total 100 Million By 2030 If World Fails To Act
    LONDON, Sept 26 (Reuters) – More than 100 million people will die and the global economy will miss out on as much as 3.2 percent of its potential output annually by 2030 if the world fails to tackle climate change, a report commissioned by 20 governments said on Wednesday.
    It calculated that five million deaths occur each year from air pollution, hunger and disease as a result of climate change and carbon-intensive economies, and that toll would likely rise to six million a year by 2030 if current patterns of fossil fuel use continue.
    Temperatures have already risen by about 0.8 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times. Almost 200 nations agreed in 2010 to limit the global average temperature rise to below 2C (3.6 Fahrenheit) to avoid dangerous impacts from climate change.”

    Are we seriously expected to believe that a rise of just 0.8 C since when? the 1700s? when probably lots of people died from cold and poverty, have resulted in 5 million deaths a year.

    If we take the excess death rates for England and Wales at an average recently of around 25,000 deaths per year when generally people have better heated homes than in pre 1800, thats just over 5 million deaths in just over 200 years from the climate being too cold in Winter.

    I would have thought the rise in CO2 and modest rise in temperatures would have been beneficial to agriculture and health over the last 200 years and actually reduced deaths. At the moment, despite Beddington’s pronouncement that there is a link between excess weather events and climate change the consensus seems to be we can’t prove it as the facts just don’t support it. We know the global climate hasn’t warmed for the last 15 years so how can they link any deaths over the last 15 years to an increase in temperature?

  64. tallbloke says:

    John Morgan ‏@JohnDPMorgan 9h

    “Actual Expert Too Boring For TV”.Why its so easy for the antinuclear lobby to dominate the narrative http://www.theonion.com/articles/actual-expert-too-boring-for-tv,1764/ …@BraveNewClimate


  65. mitigatedsceptic says:

    Look at this “new’ industrial strategy – it comes in many flavours out all today. Someone at DECC has emptied his pending basket – papers all over the place – confetti – panic!

    Much sound and fury – signifying what?

    Economic Benefit of Improving the UK’s Nuclear Supply Chain Capabilities

    Civil Nuclear Research and Development Landscape in the UK: a review

    Nuclear Industrial Vision Statement

    Ad Hoc Nuclear Research and Development Advisory Board: Summary of Recommendations and Work

    Long-term Nuclear Energy Strategy

    Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap: Future Pathways

    Nuclear Industrial Strategy: The UK’s Nuclear Future

    Publication of the Nuclear Industrial Strategy
    Statement to Parliament

  66. tallbloke says:


    Energy bills are set to jump by as much as £200 over the next year as a result of continuing gas shortages, potentially forcing more than a third of households to switch off their heating entirely, energy consultants warn.

    As emergency deliveries of liquefied natural gas from Qatar brought some relief to Britain’s rapidly diminishing gas reserves, specialists cautioned that supplies remained strained and would lead utility companies to raise gas and electricity bills.

    “It’s probably inevitable that the energy price is going to go up this coming winter and customers better fasten their seatbelts. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the rise is in double-digits which would push many families close to the edge,”

  67. tallbloke says:

    I think that along with the late spring we’ve got the govt. rattled.
    Six new publications today:

    However, it doesn’t address the immediate issue, because Nuclear developments are always double the price stated and take twice as long to build and commission as stated.
    I’d also like to know how much Westinghouse or whoever, are going to shaft us for too.

  68. tallbloke says:

    Paul Hudson ‏@Hudsonweather 30s

    Afraid not @PJSanderson current indications are that this cold easterly block could be with us….wait for it…into SECOND week of April!

  69. tallbloke says:

    I’ve just been informed by WordPress that they like this post and will be featuring it on their ‘Freshly Pressed’ page imminently. A warm welcome to new visitors, please bear with us while new comments are queued for approval.

  70. tallbloke says:

    Sunny Hundal ‏@sunny_hundal 21m

    Charity Shelter say over five million British families with children have cut back on buying food last year in a bid to stay in their homes

    Sunny Hundal ‏@sunny_hundal 8m

    Shelter say welfare cuts and higher cost of living mean a third of Britons (31%) have cut spending on food, 20% on household fuel

    Emily Gosden ‏@emilygosden 2h

    New fleet of nuclear power stations faces five-year delay, as ministers confirm first plant will cost up to £14bn: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/9954515/UK-nuclear-power-station-given-green-light-Hinkley-Point.html

    Joanne Nova ‏@JoanneNova 26m

    Upgrade coal power and cut 15% of emissions. Where is the Green applause? China is doing it already. 15%! @JoanneNova http://tinyurl.com/c5y5xjd

  71. ferdberple says:

    tallbloke says:
    March 24, 2013 at 4:51 pm
    Maybe I’m feeling crabby because of the UEA’s legal threats.
    It would seem that Britain’s pensioners that are under threat of freezing to death due to fuel poverty might have a class action style claim against the UEA. Agenda based science has led to faulty political decisions and the evidence is in the emails. Exhibit A, B, C ….

    One wonders what might be revealed by a skilled lawyer questioning Phil and the gang in front of a jury. This would certainly force the issue out into the open before both the courts and the press and remove the very large burden that is imposed so long as the password is secret.

    It is the continued secrecy that perpetuates the status quo. Once everything is in the open there is no advantage to be gained by threats. The deed is done, the die is cast and events will move forward as they must. Perhaps a retired lawyer might take on the task on behalf of his/her fellow pensioners?

    One wonders where the church would stand on this. Would a minister feel compelled to withhold the key to discovering the facts, weighing the unnecessary deaths of the elderly against the economic and privacy interests of a University? For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?

    A difficult problem. What would Winston Churchill have done?

  72. Brownedoff says:

    Tallbloke, March 26, 2013 at 12:48 pm

    Lest we forget, Gordon Brown sold Westinghouse to Toshiba in 2006.

  73. mitigatedsceptic says:

    ferdberple asks what would WSC have done? A priori, the contributors to the ‘consensus’ cannot be ‘real’ scientists because they do not believe in scientific dialog nor in the inevitability of a paradigm shift in the light of new evidence. They are proclaiming unequivocal truth. No scientist would dream of doing such a thing. If they are not what they say they are, they must be untrustworthy and possibly subversives, perhaps agents of a foreign power sent here to undermine the economy and the morale of the people.

    WSC in wartime believed in the precautionary principle. He created the SOE ‘to set Europe alight’ and would have instructed MI5 to raid all the residences and workplaces of the suspects. He locked up all aliens and let them back into the community only after being satisfied of their loyalty. This resulted in every German spy being arrested, shot or converted to mislead their masters (Operation Bodyguard etc.).

    Above all, he would have regarded people who wantonly kill the elderly and vulnerable in the same light as the bombers that wantonly destroyed London, Coventry etc. and, as then, he would have retaliated ‘in spades’. If they could not prove the truth of the alarming assertions that have led us into this parlous state then he would have sent them to a camp in the Isle of Man to await justice..

  74. mkelly says:

    I read about what is happening in England. I understand what is happening. But I don’t want to believe that it is happening. It is sad what a great country has done to itself. Drill, baby, drill.

  75. Craig M says:

    fluent Bureaucrat – having worked for local govt and a FTSE 1000 company I can say both are advocates on DoubleThink and NewSpeak adept at saying many words devoid of content giving the maximum wriggle room or using the latest buzz words to bamboozle your client/customer base. I am reminded of the wise words said to me far back that any profession exists to protect its own interests.

    Is Climate Science like our banks – too much invested and too big to fail regardless of fraud and death that ensues?

  76. oldbrew says:

    ‘the unelected incompetents in Brussels’

    If you want to see someone put the boot into the hopeless EU, look no further.

  77. hunter says:

    Best wishes on the reply tot he alleged demands from UEA’s alleged representatives.
    I hope you have loaded both barrels, as we are still allowed to say in the USA.
    I hope you do not acknowledge at all any of the implied or open claims of authority.
    And I seriouslyhope the receiving group will disseminate the CG3 files as widely as possible as quickly as possible.

  78. segmation says:

    So sad on what is happening in the world! That is such a picture you have on Global Warning!

  79. Tim Shey says:

    The enviro-pagan mentality that wants to shut down coal, oil and gas production because of so-called carbon emissions is really modern Baal Worship.

    “Guns Don’t Kill People; Liberals Kill People”

  80. Arfur Bryant says:

    Great post Rog… Worthy words indeed.

    ps did you catch the nonsense the outgoing Govt Chief Scientific Officer sprouted on Breakfast time the other day?

    One thing you have to admit is that the politicians do politics pretty well. Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story!

  81. cartoonmick says:

    Politicians, a common factor to many problems (and solutions).

    Regardless, they give me great material for my cartoons.

    And maybe this particular cartoon will explain the overall problem with politicians……………




    [Reply] Good going Mick. Check out Josh’s cartoons on this blog and other climate science sites.

  82. mitigatedsceptic says:

    Thank you mick. We need lots of that stuff to remain sane,

  83. william wallace says:

    The problems with climate change should have been a priority
    understanding there no human life if damage to planet severe

    The damage has been allowed to continue with the plunder as
    abuse of the planet /the destruction as slaughter of human life.

    Thus the power that creates now brings an temporary end unto
    human life in knowing /fully understanding the injustice brought
    by humanity must not will not be allowed continue unchallenged.

    Thus it a situation of learning the hardest lesson /where it being
    not one’s toys being taken away / but such means of sustaining
    human life / the human race is given the red card and be asked
    to leave the field / the referee’s decision being final / no debate.

    Climate change will end present chapter in human development
    we can’t continue with the appalling injustice /as slaughtering of
    human life / there’s little purpose pointing at those most guilty it
    serving no purpose / greed & corruption / having blinded govt’s.

    Will human life return ?. Answer to that question is in time yes.

    The planet will heal itself thus able once again in supporting life
    thus another chapter begins. Lets hope we don’t waste another
    given opportunity in brain development not that of brainwashing
    thus open hearted understanding be balanced with experience
    the gift of the ultimate aim of life via experience / be understood
    all questions answered knowing understanding creation creator.

  84. Ulric Lyons says:

    We need new gas power generators within 2 years maximum. 2015 won’t be warm, and 2016 and 2017 are going to be full on LIA conditions, with hard late winters extending all the way to June.

  85. Oh my goodness, “two cheeks of the same arse” is entering my vocabulary now. Love it!

  86. kadja1 says:

    Very interesting!

  87. A.D. Everard says:

    Brilliant, Tallbloke. This should be sent to every politician in the UK – and to quite a few in other countries as well.

    I so hope they heed the warning, and do what should be done. Good luck to all of you.

    Cheers, from Australia.

  88. mitigatedsceptic says:

    Thanks, TB, for the link to Booker’s excellent piece.
    It is a sign of the craziness that in the midst of a deep freeze http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9137846/Richborough-power-station-demolished-in-controlled-explosion.html

  89. Outstanding and generated by brainpower. The politicians will never like you.

  90. hunter says:

    William wallace,
    Who put you up to posting such ignorant sci-fi movie swill?

  91. tallbloke says:

    George: I don’t expect them to like being told they have failed to act with due diligence on behalf of the people who pay their salaries. I do expect them to get on with sorting out the mess though, or they won’t be getting a vote from me.

    If enough people tell them that, things will change.

  92. tallbloke says:

    Kirstygogan ‏@kirstygogan

    Brrrritish summertime officially starts this weekend.

    Nigel Farage ‏@Nigel_Farage 8m

    EU Budget new demand for EXTRA 11.2 billion euro this years, decided by QMV. Could cost British taxpayers an extra 1.4 billion euro.

  93. ferdberple says:

    For that end I opened a bitcoin address: 1HHQ36qbsgGZWLPmiUjYHxQUPJ6EQXVJFS.
    Mr. FOIA
    Did FOIA hide a second copy of the password in plain sight within the text of the message itself?

  94. […] By contrast those looking at solar factors see a very different story wmerging. Ulric Lyons commented over at Tallblokes Talkshop […]

  95. william wallace says:

    Hunter / I understand your comment it is justified / a few words in reply.

    People’s experience of life is very limited due being fed a diet of fiction
    rather than that of reality. Reality comes with a growing experience as
    understanding / however reality did not suit those in holding power for
    reasons I can’t go into in depth /as I wish to limit my words and not tax
    your patience as your limit of concentration / thus I’ll limit my wording..

    The average concentration for a american being just above a minute
    thus it’s a very small window one is allowed in reaching as in entering
    centuries of media brainwashing that greatly damaged human ability
    sci-fi as fantasy were as used as a means in bringing reality into that
    of ficfion / but the powers that be in seeing the threat unto them have
    now made fantasy a crime /in that it used as a cover revealing reality.

    A example of fiction be ( religion ) the obvious as most profit making
    in such reality of all western nations that of their enforced christianity.


    [Moderation note] This is a science and science-policy website. Many sites discuss religion as their main emphasis. But this one doesn’t. Thanks for your cooperation -TB.

  96. The European Parliament is not unelected.
    If you don’t participate in the election, that’s your fault.
    Also, your elected MPs have formed the UK governments who have always had to ratify any European treaty before it could become law.

    [Reply] I’m talking about the Unelected E.U. Commission, not it’s rubber stamp, the E.U. parliament.

  97. william wallace says:

    TB / Because your being very limited in your understanding does
    not mean you should deprive others from thei gain of knowledge
    your removing my comment was very iill mannered on your part.

    [Reply] Sorry you feel that way about it. Feel free to link a site where those interested in talking about a topic completely different to this one can join you for further conversation.

  98. not to worry tall bloke, once the bedroom tax has fully kicked in the gov are relying on the climate outside to meet the heating needs of all the people who will be living on the streets…

  99. Julian Flood says:

    If the British establishment doesn’t heed the warning, it will be brought down by cold, angry people voting for a populist party with no administrative experience.

    You say that like it’s a bad thing. No administrative experience? Do you really think that any of the mainstream parties could make a worse job if they tried? I’d rather trust someone with a clearly stated anti-EU, anti-AGW, anti-Green, pro-UK, anti-open borders, pro-nuke, pro-armed services, pro-fracking… sorry, lost the thread there. The mainstream parties have failed. If you don’t vote against them in the upcoming local and European elections they will convince themselves they’ve got away with it again, they’ll put their snouts back in the trough and we’ll go to hell in a handbasket.

    I saw that Farage bloke (definitely a bloke, not a chap or ‘one of us’) at Brandon on Monday. The hall was so full there wasn’t even standing room, with half the audience not even members of UKIP. When he spoke about the way the Eurozone was taking money from bank accounts in Cyprus the hall went dead silent. Climate change doesn’t, yet, have the same impact, but it will come.

    I spent two days distributing leaflets in a blizzard, purple leaflets, purple face and purple fingers. Why me? There’s nobody else and if not me then who? Things have to change.

    We can’t go on like this.


  100. tallbloke says:

    Julian: Good for you. I went to a UKIP meeting a week ago up north. I had a chat with an MEP there, and found him to be a sterling chap. And the local branch members were sound thinkers too. Farage himself seems to talk in terms of forcing policy change rather than forming a govt. Time will tell. For now, they have my vote, but they’d better stop bending their own selection rules if they want to maintain grass roots support in my opinion.

  101. oldbrew says:

    Some of the Danish media is catching on.

    Notrickszone says: ‘The Jyllands-Posten piece represents another major step by important elements of the European media in taking a tougher and more critical look at climate science. Prominent climate scientists are speaking out, and the media is handing them the megaphone.’

  102. mrgnome says:

    Great post fellow blogger

  103. cyrusquick says:

    Bravo! I feel that the witch-hunt is nearly over. It is thanks to people such as yourself for speaking out against the human-caused climate-variation delusion. The Real Global Warming Disaster, by Christopher Booker, is in my top ten on the bookshelf. Thanks again.

  104. This blog post and all the comments I’ve read so far seems to ignore the fact that every climate scientist, every expert, in fact, anyone with the appropriate technical knowhow, appears to speak with one voice in concluding that climate change is happening, and that we are responsible. All the wishful thinking in the world can’t wish that away.

  105. cyrusquick says:

    Every priest, every ‘expert’, in fact, anyone with the appropriate pious knowhow, appeared to speak with one voice concluding that witchcraft was happening, and that unconventional ladies and gentlemen were responsible. All the rational objection in the world could not wash that away. (Until the Protestant sect liberated Science and swept away the bullshit.)

  106. I agree, the Catholic Church in the middle ages was barbaric and oppressive. In fact is still is. What that has to do with a global scientific consensus formed by open, intelectual inquiry, based upon mountains of freely available data, I have no idea, but yes, bastard Catholic Church! I agree!

  107. J Martin says:

    @ adaminberlinio

    Before posting your lack of knowledge which you have been brainwashed into thinking is reality by the popular press, you should read more extensively about the subject. It takes months and hundreds of hours.

    The most basic fact that you quote, namely that every expert thinks global warming is real is utter nonsense, the newspapers tell you and their readership that it is real, but it isn’t remotely true. Indeed it is increasingly likely that those scientists and experts that think that global warming is happening are in the minority, it is a vocal minority that currently hold the newspapers and politicians in their sway. That grip, however, shows signs of weakening.

    Temperatures haven’t risen in over 16 years, 23 years, by some data sets, and in the meantime co2 has increased by 8%. Also all your so called experts have totally ignored the three biggest factors because they didn’t know enough about them or they were too complex to model, the oceans, the clouds and the sun.

    The sun is at a solar high at present, but one which is unprecedented in modern science namely only half the height of previous solar highs, sunspots are widely expected to disappear by 2020 or so leading to steadily falling temperatures, until at least 2030 possibly much much longer.

    Sorry, but co2 has not had a dramatic effect on temperature and due to it’s inbuilt logarithmic effect cannot cause any significant further increase.

    I suggest that a better slogan for you to adopt, even worship, if you like would be;

    co2 is dead, long live the sun. Go and do a lot more reading.

  108. tallbloke says:

    Perhaps Adam might consider visiting a few of the links in the original post and having a read. There is much that is unsettled in ‘the science’.

    When I was invited to the Royal Society conference on uncertainty in weather and climate prediction last year I found that the scientists doing the work are a lot less gung ho about the ‘consensus’ than the spokespeople are.

  109. glt3011 says:

    Here in the States we’re lead to believe that all you English have accepted this “man made global climate change” as gospel. Glad to see it’s, as you would say, rubbish.

  110. cyrusquick says:

    As an ordinary bloke who struggled free from childhood indoctrination in a monotheist salvation package deal, I recognise the fanaticism of the believers in anthropogenic global warming.

    The “scientific consensus formed by open, intellectual inquiry, based upon mountains of freely available data” is, in fact, a trusting acceptance, by the mass, of a COMPUTER MODEL.

    I think I am correct in saying that Computer Modelling was invented for predicting the performance of jet engines, without have to build too many test rigs. It is NOT suited to the study of climate behaviour. The priests of the Anthropogenic Global Warming doctrine put their faith in a contrived selection of whatever data suits their guilt-ridden self-hatred and general misanthropic prejudice. I repeat: it is a COMPUTER MODEL.

    The vote-seeking politicians, and the well-intentioned environmentalists, accept the implications of the COMPUTER MODEL, but it is NOT revealed truth, it is a prejudiced COMPUTER MODEL.

    In UK, as everywhere, a semi-educated citizen of planet Earth like me, has to choose which case to believe. I reject the AGW case in which I recognise the zeal that trapped my dear, misled, parents.

  111. tallbloke says:

    £16m pay bonanza for five British Gas bosses just weeks after big energy price increases. Even Daily Mail furious bit.ly/16ZaeUW

  112. I think we’re mixing things up a little here. The description of the global warming crisis in the general media is ripe for criticism, and there are clearly foolish decisions made after pressure from environmental groups who take little interest in the actual science (such as Merkel’s stupid decision to close all German nuclear power stations).
    I think perhaps we can all agree on that.
    Te problem arises when you include the scientific consensus for the existence of anthropogenic climate change along with the kookier green lobby and the popularist politicians. That’s a simplification.
    I’m not grinding any ideological axe here, I’m simply going where the data is pointing, according to huge numbers of climate scientists. To me that’s a stronger argument than a few self-appointed experts, a number of industries with vested interests, and those of you who allow your libertarian values or conspiracy theories to reject sound, logical reasoning.

  113. If you’re all so sure of the scientific evidence that you have at hand, why not simply write a properly researched paper, send it in to some reputable scientific journals, and win yourself a Nobel prize?
    My guess is that you’ll claim that they wouldn’t publish because they’re scared of the truth. Or perhaps Al Gore owns all of the journals. Or there’s a secret green police that control all journalistic outlets. Have you tried this though? Any scientist who has hard evidence that we need not concern ourselves about emissions and the rising temperature would become a superstar overnight. I’d personally welcome such news. The vast majority of the data, thus far, is pointing the other way though, I’m afraid.

  114. tallbloke says:

    BREAKING: Changes afoot at No10: John Hayes to become PM’s senior parly adviser; Michael Fallon takes over energy brief

    Guardian spin:

  115. cyrusquick says:

    Useful link. So there IS a sane represenative man to be found at Westminster, Brian Donohoe, MP, Ayrshire Central, Labour, who said:

    “Climate has always changed year on year and is unstoppable as a phenomenon. I am sceptical of the ‘evidence’ being presented as fact and do NOT believe that the interference by Government will have much affect on changing temperatures or rainfall…”

  116. mitigatedsceptic says:

    Yes, adaminberlinio, things are getting muddled.

    Let us be clear about what the scientific tradition demands of us as scientists. We must make accurate observations without prejudice and publish them to be reviewed by our peers. What we must not do is be partial in seeking evidence and to deliberately exclude evidence if it does not fit with what we have observed. We must not extend our explanations beyond what the evidence tells us (hypotheses non fingo) and we must disregard the numbers of our peers who agree/disagree with our theses and we must be ready to defend our theses against critical examination by our peers.

    The notions of ‘consensus’ and a ‘settled scientific opinion’ are entirely alien to the scientific tradition and have no place as evidence as to the plausibility of any thesis. Scientists must be modest and honest and must dismiss claims to certain knowledge out of hand because no experiment or argument can embrace all the possible causes of any effects and uncertainty must always be admitted. Induction is fallible and deduction is tautologous and these truths must be acknowledged. In delivering our arguments we must avoid the classical fallacies – ad hominem, ad baculum and ad vericundiam.

    Here I am grinding an ideological axe – the belief that until and unless we respect principles such as i offer above, science will have departed from the road laid down for us by Locke, Hume and others in the long tradition of critical science. It is an unfortunate fact that as scientific endeavour has become ever more specialised what passes for critical examination of theses, the quality of the arguments and evidence demanded varies widely across the spectrum of scientific effort. Although science is a human activity that is held in high regard in our society, it is no different from many other human activities in that it is exposed to abuse and corruption by selfish and self interested parties who seek fame and fortune rather more than new insights into the ways of nature. Happy days when science was so simple that a single institution, the Royal Society of London, patronised by Charles II, could provide a forum for testing scientific assertions without prejudice. As science specialised and diversified adherence to the traditional path has become ever more difficult.

    Science has always depended on patronage and as she has grown, so too have her demands on society for people and resources, labs, computers etc. As states and industries saw in science a weapon that could be wielded to serve their interests, so these institutions served science well, but almost never without conditions. Universities to saw more mileage in science than in many other less practical fields and put great emphasis on producing research scholars. Although they have had many desirable outcomes, both these developments have had a detrimental effect on the mores of science in all its forms. Just one example – recently I read with horror a note in the preamble of a PhD thesis in which the candidate admitted, not quite in so many words, that his viva had not really tested his thesis critically and he actually thanked his examiners for that! What might one say as to the quality of that ‘scientific’ work?

    The undue pressure on schools and universities to produce ‘scientists’ may have increased the quantity but may have reduced the quality of the work being done. I have read that there is evidence to this effect, but do not have it to hand. Research is a highly competitive activity and the avalanche of papers and the multiplicity of their authors testify to the earnestness with which that is engaged. Is it really the case that all this stuff is properly reviewed, that all editors and referees are open-minded and that all journals are strictly non-partisan? The fact that a thesis is published in hard copy in a reputable scientific journal and that it has to be bought to be read, is no longer a guarantee that it contains good sense. Even less confidence can be placed in the journals that claim to interpret ‘science’ for public (and political) consumption.

    Another aspect of research that has yet to be examined with critical eyes is that role being played by mathematical modelling in many fields. Here indeed we may find cases of the hypotheses being extended beyond the observations. ‘Prediction’, projections’ ‘forecasts’ and what you will, all fall into this pit. It is nearly three hundred years since many eminent philosophers (NB my use of fallacious arguments here) asserted that there cannot be any evidence that the future will be like the past and that, therefore, all forecasts are implausible.

    I invite you to test your understanding of the claims of climate science in the light of this little summary. I apologise for any typos in this hastily composed note.

  117. A C Osborn says:

    adaminberlinio says: March 28, 2013 at 10:10 am
    It is not a good idea to come on this Forum and push Consensus or Appeals to Authority.
    Unless you present some of this data when you say “I’m simply going where the data is pointing” you will either be dismissed or eaten alive.
    They have heard it all before.

  118. tallbloke says:

    Great comment from ‘mitigatedsceptic’

    I’d just add in answer to Adam that there are already many hundreds of peer reviewed papers in the scientific literature whose finding s are at odds with the so called’ consensus position’ on climate science. In order to get published, many of these are written with careful wording, and a nod to the co2 driven theory included in the abstract and conclusion in order to get the paper past the gatekeepers. You have to ‘read between the lines’ in order to see that the authors are actually contradicting the co2 driven climate theory.

    My degree is in the history and philosophy of science, and so I’m trained to spot this sort of stuff. I suggest that rather than reiterating the talking points and facile arguments fed to you by others, that you instead apply yourself to ACTUALLY STUDYING the science.

    Here’s a list you could start with:

  119. mitigatedsceptic says:

    Thanks TB – and that’s a great list I’d never seen before. Do you know if it’s active or just a one?off?

    [Reply] Maintained by commenter ‘poptech’

  120. michaelox says:

    Great post as usual. Here is the letter that I have sent to my MP. No response yet.

    Dear Mr Hoban

    As a constituent of yours, I am attaching a link to a post by Roger Tattersall. Being a Minister in the Government, I know you have extensive demands on your time. However, may I urge you to read this well-founded post, together with all the comments, some of which are from around the world. My particular feelings totally mirror those expressed by Steven Wilde. https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/a-personal-appeal-to-britains-politicians-wake-up-from-your-warm-dreams-fuel-poverty-is-killing-people/#more-11842

    I have been a lifelong Conservative supporter, which is now sadly at an end. The only Party which espouses policies with which I agree is UKIP.
    I know you are in a safe seat and have to toe the Party line so you probably couldn’t care less about these views. Unless the Party changes its policies, it will be virtually wiped out in 2015.

    Yours sincerely
    Michael Oxenham

    PS Sorry about the angry language in the post – but having done abattoir work as a vet, I am used to it!
    PPS I notice that “Laws on Climate Change” come last on your list of 23 key issues – enough said.

  121. tallbloke says:


    LONDON, March 28 (Reuters) – Britain is currently paying some of the world’s highest wholesale gas prices, rivalling those in energy-hungry Asia and reflecting annual winter spikes for which government and industry offer no short-term fix.

    The Department of Energy and Climate Change has been quick to point out the market is operating as normal, which is good news for those selling gas, but cold comfort for wholesale buyers who on March 22 faced prices up 50 percent from a day earlier.

    “The UK gas market is functioning well and our gas needs are continuing to be met,” was DECC’s reply.

    Yet spot prices are more than 70 percent higher than normal, at around $15.66 per million British thermal units (mmBtu) versus a long-term average of around $9 at the National Balancing Point gas hub.

    That means Britain is paying almost as much as Japan pays for imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to power its highly industrialised economy.

    It also underscores the competitive disadvantage faced by British firms as North American spot gas prices, helped by plentiful shale gas, now trade at a mere $4 per mmBtu.

    British spot prices are close to the usually higher oil-linked long-term deals which continental buyers have with Russia’s Gazprom.


    Britain is suffering winter price spikes while Asia’s sustained high prices reflect the demand from their growing economies and Japan’s need to offset nuclear output halted since 2011’s Fukushima disaster.

    Yet Britain’s “temporary” spikes have now happened for two winters in a row and are worse than those on the continent where more gas storage and access to Russian imports have helped.

  122. Mitigatedskeptic, thank you for your reply. I found it very interesting. I’m also in broad agreement with you about your description of science, although I cannot comment on the any current problems with science education at the moment. My time at Uni seemed fairly rigorous, but that’s just anecdotal of course.
    I don’t actually feel qualified to argue specific points involving climate science, I leave that up to the scientists, but I’m still left with this question. Why are climate “skeptics” not accepted by those who call themselves scientific skeptics? The is a global network of thinkers, activists, scientists and assorted bloggers who cast a skeptical eye at paranormal activity, alt medicine, myths and folk tales, ghosts, monsters and every kind of pseudoscience imaginable. If there is a pseudoscientific conspiracy, why aren’t these champions of scientific rationalism right behind you?
    Phil Plait, Steven Novella, Simon Singh, Bill Neigh, just get ONE of these guys on your side and away. What’s wrong with all these people? Why do they systematically search out the best possible data on every topic but somehow fall down on the wrong side on this one issue?
    This is not an argument from authority. As I said, I must filter scientific information the best way I know how, and when my sources are well known for picking through comix data and fighting for unpopular positions, it makes perfect logical sense to take their positions into consideration.
    If you believe that your online research cannot possibly fall foul of confirmation bias, and the gathering of links above cannot be affected by cherry picking, well, I can’t call that very skeptical from my understanding of what scientific skepticism is about.
    I’m sorry this reply is a little unstructured, but I’m a little short of time. Please excuse any rambling, perhaps I’ll try to be clearer and more concise later.

  123. A C Osborn, thanks for the advice. I’m not a climate scientist so I’m in no position to argue the data. I do feel I have a broader point to make. You appear to have dismissed it already, that’s just fine, and I’m sure many others will too, but I’m here in good faith to discuss an interesting issue.
    As far as being eaten alive, I have quite thick skin, and any ad hominem attacks I receive only make me stronger! 😉

  124. Thanks Tallbloke, I’m interested about the idea of gatekeepers. Having to write papers with hidden messages in order to get it published seems like a ridiculous situation to me. If that’s the case surely we should be going after these gatekeepers! And there’s never been a whistleblower among the staff of any science journal?
    Any more information on these gatekeepers would be most gratefully received. I believe that would be a good starting point. If there’s a conspiracy to suppress solid scientific conclusions I think the focus should be on exposing that conspiracy, not trying to slip by it!

  125. cyrusquick says:

    Just (in CB radio speak) on the side here…

    Having taken Adam for ‘the opposition’ as it were, I now respect him as an honest and open seeker after truth and very much “here in good faith to discuss an interesting issue” as he declares.

    Yes, I was bemused when I realised for the first time when I was young, that I had been misled into tentatively espousing a cause, only to find that I favoured the alternative view after all. And the Gatekeeper issue (which I think came to my attention recently thru Christopher Booker’s book) is a major bad smell.

    As I say, I am just on the side. I will back out now. Oh, hi Tall Bloke. Sorry. Carry on, chaps…

  126. Thanks cyrusquick. One quick aside, you mentioned Christopher Booker’s book so I looked him up on wiki. Now, like I say, I’m no climate scientist. I am however fairly well qualified when it comes to evolutionary biology, and Brooker appears to favour intelligent design. I don’t wish to attack him for other views he holds, but I believe it cannot reflect well on someone’s scientific judgement if they’re not only unable to understand the process of evolution through natural selection, but also to actively support a pseudoscientific position.
    I dunno, maybe wiki is misquoting him. If so maybe someone should alert him to it because it looks pretty bad on a page of a man who wants to be taken seriously for his scientific views.
    There’s also a thing about asbestos on there that looks a little strange, but that’s not at all my area, and as you all tell me, maybe the consensus on asbestos is wrong. Not about evolution though.

  127. A C Osborn says:

    adaminberlinio says:
    March 28, 2013 at 4:06 pm
    Can I ask you in all seriousness what Internet Forums on Climate you have visited up till now?
    I have been visiting all the major sites for the last 6 years and if you want some contradictory Scientific evidence I and many others on here can point you to it, just reading the depth of topics of those papers that Tallbloke pointed you to should make you think again.
    Have you read the various blogs like Donna Laframboise (http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/) and Andrew Montford (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/) that have written books that completely demolish the validity of most of the supposed science issued by the IPCC?
    Have you read the Climategate emails to see how devious and underhand those Climate Scientists that you believe in really are?
    Have read the HockeySchtick site, which lists contrary peer reviewed paper after peer reviewed paper.
    Or Real Science where Steven Goddard debunks all the claims of unprecedented this and Record breaking this with real historical data?
    I could go on and on, but I think you might get the idea by now.

  128. Hi A C,
    As I’ve already explained, I’m not qualified to review the data myself so I’ve gone to scientists who I trust and who have very strong reputations for thorough analysis of technical data, and a willingness to stand up against public opinion, specifically Dr Steven Novella and Dr Phil Plait. I know there is a big collection of “experts” out there that would tell me something different, but my question is, how do you go about choosing an expert?
    My approach is to choose someone who I know to be skilled at analyzing data, has no vested interest, and who shows no sign of following the herd. Also, I try and find someone who hasn’t decided what they’re going to find before they start looking.
    How do you chose your expert?

  129. The point is, I’m not questioning your evidence (not qualified), I’m questioning your methodology (slightly more qualified). Hope that makes it clearer.

  130. mitigatedsceptic says:

    Adam, yours of 1.56 –

    I don’t think we should pay much attention to who is on what side nor should we infer anything from numbers. Excuse me for mentioning this – an hypothesis cannot be confirmed with any certainty however much evidence accumulates in its favour – but just one piece of evidence that falsifies it is enough to bring to the ground. The classic example is the discovery of the Australian black swan that falsified the thesis that ‘all swans are white’. It sounds trivial these days, but at the time that the discovery was made, I believe it was common among workers in London to use the phrase “that’s a black swan!” to signify that an assertion was not plausible, i.e. was tall story that should be told to the (supposedly gullible) Marines! The discovery of just one black swan was enough to bring about what we now pompously call a paradigm shift in Covent Garden at least!

    Allow me to go on a bit – often the notion that Earth is the centre of the Universe is dismissed out of hand along with the notion that Earth is flat – yet both these theses are supported by the evidence of our own eyes; while the contrary assertions require special conditions for their justification. E.g. I observe the Sun to ‘rise’ above the horizon in the morning, traverse the sky and ‘set’ in the West; when I leave my house to post a letter I do not set a Great Circle course to get there – I take it for granted that for that practical purpose Earth really is more or less flat (allowing for the occasional mountain range and so on). So, as I am a rigorous scientist and wield Occam’s famous razor to real effect, I live in an anthropocentric universe and on a flat Earth – indisputably!

    The history of climate change is interesting in that, at the time, the Little Ice Age which was so severe that not only did it ruin crops, slaughtered livestock and decimated populations, it actually delayed a campaign in the War of the Spanish Succession by almost four months, was attributed to the absence of Sun spots to the quiet Sun – easily observed and recorded over decades if not centuries.

    Some believe that the warming observed in the last century was simply the recovery from two periods of solar inactivity (the Maunder and the Dalton minima). The Sun has been quiet for quite a long time recently and some anticipate that another Little Ice Age (LIA) is on the way and that the response to global warming may really be amplifying cooling and possibly making for an even more ghastly Ice Age than the last two events. If there was any ‘settled scientific opinion’ that was it until an alternative mechanism was suggested by Hansen and Tickle and taken up by Thatcher to enhance her international reputation and quell the troublesome miners who objected to her closing almost all the coal pits in UK to make way for her favourite energy source – nuclear.

    Unfortunately, there are serious problems in establishing causal relations in this fiekd – simply because climate is chaotic (i.e.infested with many ‘tipping points’) and so, although it is state determined, it is inherently unpredictable. Of course this prompts massive computer power to be thrown at the problem. Many theses have emerged as to the causes of climate change and as each emerges so auxiliary hypotheses have been coined to provide plausible explanations. As the gap between model inferences and actual measure has closed so the significance of the residual causes has diminished even to the point at which human activity as a main driver of climate change may be brought into question.

    The rest of the tragedy is being played out in front of us now. The fear of anthropogenic global warming is killing people now just as the actual LIAs killed them two centuries ago

    I am grateful to you, Adam, for prompting me to put together this little note and to TB for his encouraging remarks.

  131. A C Osborn says:

    I am not a scientist or even a PHD Engineer, just from a lowly engineering background, but I do have an inquiring mind and was also extensively trained in problem solving.

    So my methodology is to read as much information as I can and then make up my own mind.

    Which is why I visit over 25 Climate sites every day, most of them usually 4 to 5 times a day to read the comments as well as the posts.
    I find this particular site is very good for new and alternative science theories as well as good discussions on main stream Climate Science & Politics.

    But of course if you are not prepared to dig in to the contradictory evidence you will never change your mind about anything.

  132. A C, that’s a good point, but I need a filter for my evidence, and I don’t believe anonymous commentary on a blog that explicitly takes either side of an argument would be a rigorous enough filter for me.
    I’m not trying to insult your intelligence or your ability to solve problems, I’m just concerned about confirmation bias on both sides of this argument.

  133. tallbloke says:

    Adam: Info on gatekeeping later, family occasion to go to.

  134. Thank you mitigatedsceptic, for such a well thought out and detailed post. I’m actually reasonably well versed in scientific methodology, so I enjoyed your nice explanation of Karl Popper’s falsificationism (I’m a big Popper fan), and any post that references Occam’s Razor is a good post in my book.
    Regarding your elegant description of the history and current misunderstandings to do with climate change, again, sadly, I have nothing to offer in response, as I’m just not qualified.
    My question remains though. Why, when the arguments are there, and the data is there, are good scientists who actively seem to enjoy a fight against mainstream attitudes fighting for the other side? I’m not making any criticism of anyone here. All your replies to me seem measured, reasonable and intelligent.

  135. A C Osborn says:

    adaminberlinio says: March 28, 2013 at 5:43 pm
    ” Why, when the arguments are there, and the data is there, are good scientists who actively seem to enjoy a fight against mainstream attitudes fighting for the other side?”

    I will offer just a small list of reasons.
    1. Cash, in the form of Grant money and expenses.
    2. Job security, do not question the orthodoxy if you value your job.
    3. Herd mentality, they must go with the Consensus.
    4. Peer Pressure.
    5. Fame.

    If you don’t think any of them apply then I am afraid you may be rather naive.

  136. A C Osborn says:

    adaminberlinio says: March 28, 2013 at 5:43 pm of course there are many, many Scientists who do go against the flow, which is why Tallbloke pointed you to all those peer reviewed papers.
    You will also notice a lot of Skeptical Scientists are those who have retired.

  137. J Martin says:

    @ adaminberlinio “Why are climate “skeptics” not accepted by those who call themselves scientific skeptics? The is a global network of thinkers, activists, scientists and assorted bloggers who cast a skeptical eye at paranormal activity, alt medicine, myths and folk tales, ghosts, monsters and every kind of pseudoscience imaginable. If there is a pseudoscientific conspiracy, why aren’t these champions of scientific rationalism right behind you?”

    For fear of their jobs. In the USA there are cases of University professors who have lost their jobs as a result of voicing a sceptic opinion. Going with herd and keeping your head down is safer. Group think, as the American’s call it.

    “I’m not grinding any ideological axe here, I’m simply going where the data is pointing, according to huge numbers of climate scientists.”

    Unless you make an effort yourself to look at the data, which in many cases on these blogs and others is laid out with sufficient clarity for the layman to understand, then you are effectively grinding an ideological axe, your views are being dictated by others, and in this case by those who subscribe to the belief that co2 is a problem.

    But if you look at the facts and graphs yourself, you will see that whilst they once had a good case for co2, albeit submerged within the normal bounds of variability, it has in recent years become clear that their model no longer works, and even the top most scientists in the field amongst those who have led this belief are now themselves pointing out that their own models have failed. Namely James Hanson and Phil Jones.

    Also the IPCC draft report ‘released’ a year early, contains a graph showing that temperatures are trending below the widest error bars of all their models. And the IPCC is effectively an assembly of a very large number of the primary scientists in climate science. They also admitted that they would now have to adjust their models to suit the fact that temperatures were not climbing as they had predicted and they would also look at factors they had previously dismissed (unscientifically) out of hand.

    You seem to cling to the belief that most climate scientists remain of the belief that co2 represents a danger for mankind. It doesn’t. Cooling however, does. And it is cooling, quite likely for tens of years and possibly quite severe that seems like the most plausible future climate that we can expect. Yes, the very opposite of what you have been told to believe.

    Sorry but your belief in the ignorance of a so called consensus of scientists immersed in group think and fear for their jobs is not a good excuse for pretending that you won’t be able to understand a few simple graphs of today’s temperature reality, or the straight line decline of the sun’s magnetic field and it’s potential implications for life on Earth. Behave like an Ostrich if you wish and form your views over a designer coffee and whatever front page alarmist nonsense rocks your boat. You won’t be alone in that, it’s the intellectual limit of most UK Members of Parliament.

    In nearly every post you make you express the view that we should believe a bunch of misguided and self deluded idiots, even though many of them have doctorates and are university professors. They are wrong and it’s easy to see on some very simple graphs. And as I mentioned above, 2 of the 3 highest priests of the co2 faith have now publicly expressed acknowledgement that temperatures have stalled and the models have failed. I’m afraid your view of co2 is out of date.

  138. mitigatedsceptic says:

    Adam- we should not try to guess what motivates people to take a position on some contentious topic. It really does not matter very much because in the end facts speak for themselves.

    Please dismiss the question with the answer – we are all human; not just scientists. In 19th century science was often a rich man’s hobby and patronage from the state or academe almost inconsequential. Now patrons often have axes to grind and pay scientists to put a gloss of respectability on their affairs.

    Imagine yourself as a post grad seeking a doctorate. You are beholden to your supervisor, your colleagues and chief, even to your institution, not to undermine their work, even though you may be able to falsify some of it. Do you risk going it alone and blowing up their work, perhaps destroying their careers for the sake of your own or do you go with the crowd and seek the comfort of a happy family. And talking about families – are you the breadwinner and are the life styles of your own family at stake too/?

    As in any walk of life, only when self-sufficiency has been reached can one afford to depart from the herd. That is why people who value society above the individual would try to undermine the self-sufficient independent scientist who might stand up and rock their boat.

  139. So, perhaps I’m being too simplistic here, but the best answers I have so far can be characterized as:
    1. Scientists are scared to tell the truth, in fear of losing their jobs.
    2. Herd mentality/peer pressure.

    If I may, I’d like to take a couple of examples here:
    1. Dr Ben Goldacre. As some of you know, he’s a physician and author who’s latest book is called “Bad Pharma”, a detailed and systematic attack on the pharmaceutical industry, the very industry he works for. He exposes the hypocracy, corruption and incompetence that is rife within Pharma. Combined with his previous best seller, I’d call him a fearless champion of science, an impressive epidemiologist, and an all round good guy.
    So, what does he make of climate change (spoiler alert, you may not like it)?


    I’m not convinced that Dr Goldacre is scared of losing his job, or gives a shit what his peers think.

    2. Dr Steven Novella. I would highly recommend this neuroscientist’s work. His systematic breakdown of data, whether it’s about evolution, medical trials or paranormal claims, is wonderfully detailed and, to me, absorbing. As an employee of Harvard University he attacked the decision to allow pseudoscientific treatments to be taught within the Uni. He fought and won, but he could have easily lost his job. It seems to me that this guy will fight for what’s true, and what’s right.
    So, what’s his take on climate change? Well, it’s a more subtle than Dr Goldacre’s:

    I do know what you mean about the potential dangers of corrupting influences within science, but here are two examples where I don’t believe these arguments stand up.

    Thank you all sincerely for your indulgence of my barging in here with my impertinent questions.

  140. […] by the thousand as a direct result of botched energy policy and we must act to save lives. Now. https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/a-personal-appeal-to-britains-politicians-wake-up-from-you… (ed’s note: warning, the above article contains offensive language) from NZCSC […]

  141. BTW, J Martin, I read your message out loud to my wife, and she forbade me from replying to you. Make of that what you will 🙂
    Goodnight all, and Happy Easter!

  142. jshewett says:

    Most of this went right over my head. (I’m not ashamed to admit that.) I don’t even LIVE in the UK! But people that I love do. I know that they have been struggling within fixed incomes to carve out more and more money for their gas and electric bills. I visited over the Christmas holidays, and it was COLD! I think that it is insane that in a global power like the UK, its most vulnerable citizens are forced to choose between starving to death or freezing to death.

  143. cyrusquick says:

    Hi, Adam

    I checked Christopher Booker’s THE REAL GLOBAL WARMING DISASTER and read large chunks of his history of the battle. I was once again greatly impressed. Then I checked Wiki and I have now concluded that the man is an eccentric in much of his beliefs and ventures, but capable of disciplined analysis also. In the area of AGW I trust him fully. His book rings completely true.

    I am certain that the predicted warming is a myth. As for the carbon credit system, the promotion of the near useless and highly expensive windmills, and the run-down of power stations, I am certain that these things are insanity. I am so lucky not to be young. It will be almost as bad as wartime.

    The fact that UK and to a large extent USA have only a short while until we have a return of the power cuts that I remember from just after the War, and that this is all caused by what I call the Green FASCIST movement and its stranglehold on politicians and news media, reminds me of the Ground Nut Scheme but write very large (and religion).

    I call myself a GENUINE green: We should continue the technological improvements to reduce pollution of air, water, and soil, via recycling, and with clean coal, oil, and nuclear power stations. I say unto the Green Party, and other sackcloth-and-ashes style fanatics, humans are tool users. Get used to it.

    Cheers, Cy

  144. cyrusquick says:

    Cy butting in…

    I am amazed and delighted to hear that the AGW nutcases have admitted they were wrong. But have they apologised for being nutcases, hysterically bad-mouthing, and trying to wreck the careers of, those who dared to point out deliberate deceit?

  145. Hi Cy,
    Booker’s evolution denial is, for me, a deal-breaker. I don’t feel qualified to judge him on his knowledge of climate science, so I’m forced to look elsewhere. He just happens to give an opinion in an area I do know about, biological evolution through natural selection.
    Here’s an analogy: if I met a mechanic who told me he believed that planes fly on magic dust, and that there’s no such thing as gravity, I wouldn’t let him look at the brakes on my car. Maybe he’s a good mechanic, but I have to question his judgment.
    I’m not questioning your sincerity here, only your methodology. For example, when you say “his book rings completely true” I suspect that what you mean is, “his book completely agrees with what I thought before I read it”. If so, this may be a case of confirmation bias.

    Anyway, I’m sure you’re all starting to get a little annoyed by this stranger butting in with loads of stupid questions, so I’ll leave it at that, but thank you all for your patients and tolerance. I’ve really enjoyed this discussion. It’s really helped me get to understand your position a little better.

  146. J Martin says:

    @ adaminberlinio

    “It’s really helped me get to understand your position a little better.”

    I doubt that you do understand or ever wanted to understand. My entire impression of you is that as far as you’re concerned you consider the science of co2 driven global warming as being beyond all doubt.

    You name Dr Ben Goldacre who’s use of the term “denialist” proclaims his views as religious rather than scientific, clearly he has never actually examined the sceptics evidence. And Dr Steven Novella, who casually and uncritically examines an out of date paper that has been extensively criticised even by some of it’s own authors and has yet to get through peer review. Also Novella seems happy to use the word “deny” which again shows that he has not examined a cross section of evidence. Clearly neither of the two people you mention are sufficiently versed in the vast amount of science that justifies the sceptics views and as such are not truly able to give a neutral or balanced point of view. You should not sacrifice your integrity on their alter.

    No, you have to look at the science yourself, then you will come to understand that scepticism is founded on a dispassionate examination of the scientific evidence. And that examination finds contradictions, holes, even fraud in the warmist argument. It also finds persuasive evidence that points in the opposite direction, namely that long term cooling is a far more likely outcome than any further warming.

    The sceptics position is not a matter of belief, it is a position founded on dispassionate rigorous scientific method, one that encompasses a wider range of disciplines than current mainstream co2 warmist beliefs.

    It is hardly surprising that the co2 warmists are now having to back peddle since they built a tenuous theory on one simplistic factor, co2, and in doing so completely ignored not only the 3 biggest factors in climate, the sun, the clouds, the oceans, but also the entire historic record of billions of years. There is only one simplistic factor at play and it is not co2, it is the sun. If the sun becomes more active the Earth will get warmer, if the sun becomes less active, the Earth will get cooler.

    It is right that you visit Tallbloke’s Talkshop and also WUWT where you will will be able to learn that, yes mankind does face a climate crisis, but it is not co2, nor warming, but the ever growing probability of prolonged (most expect until 2030, perhaps up to 2100) cooling and possibly severe cooling (most expect a Dalton 1810, but could go to a Maunder, 1645 to 175).

    Your unquestioning acceptance of the simplistic and therefore religious views of herd scientists is a mistake which over the coming years will become all too obvious to both you and much of the population of the Northern hemisphere.

    Stick with the herd view and that herd will change it’s viewpoint to fear of the next ice age within a few years, possibly as early as 2014, though I think that’s too early, yes we have had some prolonged cold, but it hasn’t yet been deep cold, somewhere between 2020 and 2030 is when the cold should start to become impressive.

    And as for the ice age or glaciation which is about due, no amount of co2 in the past has ever prevented the arrival of a glaciation.

    Now there’s a sceptics view for you, the World isn’t getting warmer, it has instead started on a process of getting a lot cooler which will eventually lead to a full blown ice age.

    Reading between the lines your wife and perhaps also yourself found my previous post offensive ? If views that contradict your own strongly held views cause offence, doesn’t that suggest that your minds are made up, ie. you have closed your minds and abandoned reason ?

    Temperatures have stagnated, and are being held up both by ocean buffers of previous hot cycles, and the current solar high, such as it is. But one of the primary ocean cycles has moved into a negative phase, and the other in the Atlantic will do so shortly, the current solar cycle will move into a period of decline towards 2020 and the World will cool, certainly over the course of the latter part of this solar cycle and probably through the entirety of the next solar cycle, which may even go missing, cooling may even continue all the way to 2100.


  147. tallbloke says:

    From commenter Wolgrumpfy elsewhere:

    Bellamy upset the Beeb long before his AGW scepticism.

    Remember the panic about dying forests and acid rain? Well Bellamy screwed that lot! He used his Botanical knowledge to show that inappropriate Dendroculture was the problem.

    In harvesting the pine forests, the waterside zones of Birch and other deciduoud trees were uprooted and not replaced. Bellamy pointed out that this had removed the leaf mould from the watersides, which previously filtered and neutralised the acidic run-off from decomposing pine needles!

    Somebody checked this out and he was found to be 100% correct! That blew a hole in the ambitions of those pursuing monetary gain from the panic!

    Meanwhile, previous to his opinion on these deciduous filters, the Germans had already sussed their dying forests. They, along with other countries had been using too much salt to keep their winter roads clear. Their problems were down to salination of the countryside.

  148. A C Osborn says:

    @ adaminberlinio he came, he spoke, he was warned, he was challenged, he says he learned and he left????

  149. J Martin, “Reading between the lines your wife and perhaps also yourself found my previous post offensive?”
    No J, neither of us were in any way offended, don’t worry.

    I thought it was obvious that I had no interest in engaging with you because, despite my obvious skepticism about your the position of this blog, I was interested in an honest and thoughtful dialog about evaluating methodology and the issues of spreading of this position to a broader scientific activist group. You obviously weren’t.
    I like a rigorous debate as much as anyone, but I sort of took your post to be heckling from the back, including ad hominem attacks on scientists without the slightest suggestion of evidence. I’m sorry if this was a mischaracterization, but I’m confident that if you read your post back, you’ll realize how I may have drawn that conclusion. I’m not interested in fighting, or trying to change anyone’s position, merely to refine my own. I don’t know what words I can use in order to spell that out more clearly.
    I’m sorry that my posts appear to have caused you some irritation. Not intended.

    A C Osborn, I’m back!
    No, not really, that was it, I think we’re pretty much finished here aren’t we?

  150. […] least someone has written a decent appeal for sense, we shall see otherwise as the posting suggests we will elect a set of politicians who have no idea […]

  151. A C Osborn says:

    adaminberlinio says:
    March 29, 2013 at 10:36 pm That is up to you.

  152. J Martin says:

    @ adaminberlinio

    I was interested in an honest and thoughtful dialog about evaluating methodology and the issues of spreading of this position to a broader scientific activist group. You obviously weren’t.


    without the slightest suggestion of evidence.

    ? There is no shortage of evidence, though I didn’t provide any links.

    I think that refining your own position is pointless without a more thorough examination of the scientific evidence that the sceptics base their position on.

    Irritated ? You identified yourself as an acolyte of the co2 religion and as such I felt it was my duty to convert you to a more balanced viewpoint.

    I have given up trying to convert you and shall leave you to discuss methodology in peace with AC Osborn, Tallbloke Jerome Ravetz et al.

    If you ever change your mind about co2 in a few years time perhaps, drop by and let us know.

    For what it’s worth about two years ago I believed all the newspapers and thought that we had to reduce co2 by any means possible. But I looked on the internet and discovered that there were such things as sceptics, and that to my incredulity they didn’t think that co2 was a problem and that in fact things were likely to get very much colder, not warmer. After many many hours examining their arguments I realised I had been wrong about global warming and changed sides and am now a sceptic. But I hope the World will get warmer.

  153. J Martin says:

    Adam, one final point on ad hominems, if a scientist uses the the term “denier” or any variation thereof, then that is most definitely an ad hominem. Both the scientists you gave links to used that term.

  154. J, I happen to agree that “denier” is not a helpful label, but I suspect if you want your viewpoint to gain any more traction among scientists you may have to take that one on the chin. And, strictly speaking, it’s not an ad hominem btw.

    [Reply] I see from your own blog that you say you like to have a good old internet argument. Having failed to get a rise out of people here so far, it appears that you now descending to the lowest of the low in an attempt to spark off anger and heated debate. The history of the use of the term ‘denier’ in the context of the climate debate started with its use by some heavily biased journalists and politicians and subsequently by some ‘climate scientists’ to explicitly link ‘climate-denial’ (whatever that is?), with ‘holocaust-denial’ (James Hansen’s – “Death Trains”). Given that there are no uses of the phrase [subject]-denial other than ‘holocaust-denial’ (a criminal offence in many countries) in common use, there is no doubt what association the user of such a phrase is trying to create in the minds of others. It is a disgusting smear and it is ad hominem, no matter how you might try to spin the semantics. Now, Adam, having attracted my attention by scraping the bottom of the barrel, you have two options. You can take my having the final word on this particular issue on the chin and move on to discuss the subject of this thread, and the matters arising from it raised by others, or you can naff off.

    Your call.


  155. J Martin says:

    Adam. If you are looking for non-confrontational discussion about methodology then probably the pre-eminent individual in that area is Jerome Ravetz, who has had articles on both this blog and WUWT.

    From Wikepedia, Jerome Ravetz is an environmental consultant and academic. He has written on the philosophy of science. He is best known for his books challenging the assumptions of scientific objectivity, discussing the science wars and post-normal science.

    and from the University of Oxford’s website, he has developed the theory of ‘post-normal science’, which applies when facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent

    He has his own website,


    I would suggest however, that no amount of methodology is of any use if one is seeking a pre determined outcome.

  156. […] exact point for me. Many thanks to the good people of Tallbloke’s Talkshop for allowing me to drill them for a bit on this subject without getting all […]

  157. Thanks for that J. I’ll take a look. In the meantime, I’ve just written this, which sort of sums up my current position. – http://thingstemporarilyhidden.wordpress.com/2013/03/30/im-not-a-climate-scientist/

  158. A C Osborn says:

    Tallbloke, Adam had no intention of discussing the actual Science when he came here, that was obvious from the start.
    What was not obvious was his motive, which is now clear. He wanted to be able to put together some reasonable sounding but snarky words about contrarian web sites, with his superior intelect.
    I would not be surprised if he removes the reference to this site because as I pointed out there it is free advertising for you and it might just attract the right person here who will be persuaded to delve a bit deeper.
    What is very disappointing, is if he really is a student, is his lack of real interest in the truth, it does not bode well for his personal development, but then I have never, ever wanted to be one of the herded Sheep.

  159. A C, “Adam had no intention of discussing the actual Science when he came here” – this is true. It’s because I’m not a climate scientist. I don’t feel I’m

  160. …qualified. (accidental post there, sorry!). It’s a shame you think I lack a real interest in the truth. I have no idea what I’ve said to suggest that other than tentatively drawing a conclusion that you don’t agree with. I’m also sorry that you considered my post in any way snarky. If you could be more specific, I’d be happy to address it.

  161. I’m also more than happy to send clicks your way, as I believe everyone should judge for themselves, and certainly nobody should take my word for it, what we me not even being a climate scientist.

  162. A C Osborn says:

    What has not being a Climate Scientist to do with finding out how the world works, I am not any kind of scientist, but I am interested in many subjects.
    It is called having an Enquiring Mind”.

    The adjective snarky is first recorded in 1906. It is from dialectal British snark, meaning ‘to nag, find fault with'”
    You came here and asked why we did not believe in AGW and then used your Blog to “find fault” with the reason that we gave, while promoting your own belief that asking a few Scientists was the best way.

    The interesting part is that your points 2. and 4. both talk about Confirmation bias and yet many many posters on this and most blogs admit to starting out believing in AGW and CAGW, but when they actually look at the data they have changed their minds.

    I can’t say that about myself, because you see since I was born we have been through this all before and I can remember it, we have been through the global warming, then global cooling and now again global warming again.
    But the big difference this time is the UN and other bodies pushing Wealth Distribution SCAMS based on the bad science of CAGW. But as you have not done any research you probably are not aware of it. It also explains some of the anger shown by sceptics.

  163. digordon says:

    “Two cheeks of the same arse”. “Populist party with no administrative experience”. For a minute I thought you were referring to the USA! ;). Well said, I’m forwarding link to my college age son and his buddies … Our young generation needs this kind of discussion!

  164. I do not feel I’m qualified to evaluate the available data because I’m not a climate scientist (I may just start copying and pasting that sentence).
    You may feel that you are, that’s great. I have some scientific training and I’m attempting to apply it the best way I know how, in good faith, without making any judgments on anyone else.
    You do bring up a good point. I don’t know how people have arrived at their current position, and I don’t know about their histories, but as you suggest, perhaps it had little to do with confirmation bias. I don’t know.
    My dictionary says “sharply critical” under snarky. I don’t feel the suggestion of confirmation bias, which I admit may not be applicable to all, could be seen as “sharply critical”, considering confirmation bias is something I think we can agree that we all routinely suffer from at some time to one degree of another.

  165. A C Osborn says:

    I suffer with confirmation bias all the time now, but at my age I think I am allowed to.
    I am just saddened that because you are not a Climate Scientist you feel you can’t learn about it.
    It is a bit like saying because you are not a musician you can’t appreciate or have an opinion on music, art because you are not an artist yourself.
    I agree maybe snarky was not the best description of your writings, but I would rather not go in to alternatives.

  166. Roger Andrews says:


    Before you finalize your position you might take a look at the Bray & von Storch 2010 poll. Yes, another poll, but different to the others in that a) it polls – as far as I can tell – scientists who are actively involved in climate research and not economists, ecologists, biologists etc. masquerading as climate scientists, b) was conducted by “warmists” (von Storch is “convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere”) and c) asks a large number of specific and often highly technical questions that generate some interesting responses, for example questions 15, 20, 35, 37, 39, 41, 45, 47, 49, 51, 60, and 69.

    The link to the pdf is here. (Hope it works, if not I’ll post the bit torrent version.)

  167. Roger Andrews says:

    Didn’t work. Okay, try this:


  168. Roger Andrews says:

    Not my day. Do a web search and click on the link that says
    CliSci2008: A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate … – NCSE

  169. tallbloke says:

    My philosophy of mind tutor told me that the philosophy of language was a bit like going to a good restaurant

    And eating the menu…

  170. Thanks Roger. I have no intention of finalizing my position, in fact, that’s the last thing I plan to do. From my understanding of the scientific process, all conclusions are provisional.

  171. all together now…

    all scientific conclusions are provisional

    absolutely true – well almost!

  172. For me they are, but of course I can only speak for myself. Some people on here appear extremely certain about their position. I’m not.
    I don’t really get the “all together now..” bit. A Beatles quote?

    [Reply] Adam, The Beatles were quoting a common British idiom, learned at a young age in school music classes. We are “all together now” on the provisional nature of scientific knowledge because it’s a basic precept of the scientific method. The sceptics book of certain knowledge is a remarkably slim volume. 😉 – TB

  173. tallbloke says:

    Comment left at Adam’s blog:

    March 31st, 2013 at 12:35 am

    Adam says in the top post:
    “Each of them have used the term “deniers” or something similar to describe those who claim that AGW is a myth.
    Worse, the implication is that the very people who are arguing so passionately for a reappraisal of the science are victims of exactly those fallacies that I’ve described above.”

    I won’t attempt a full taxonomy of climate-scepticism here Adam, but just to give you a flavour of the complexity you have wandered into, I’ll give you a few of examples of the many different reasons people are sceptical of the claims of (C)AGW proponents. I appreciate your disclosure and recognition of your non-expertise with the subject area, and assure you that if you take the trouble to check out the facts presented, you’ll find they check out.

    1) Some ‘lukewarm’ sceptics say AGW is real, but inconsequential, due to the lack of a positive water vapour feedback in the real world as opposed to computer models.

    2) Some ‘measrement sceptics’ point out that since the error term on the measuement of top of atmosphere energy balance is around 3-5 times bigger than the claimed signal from increased co2, we’re not in a position to make a judgement on the reality of the ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’.

    3) ‘Theory sceptics’ are correct in saying that while there is no doubt co2 in a bell jar will absorb heat, this does not mean the free atmosphere behaves like a bell jar in a lab, because water vapour acts as both warming agent and refrigerant, and is dominant.

    4) ‘Solar sceptics’ point out the fact that AGW proponents rely on the sun to explain climate change prior to the 1950′s, and there is no good reason to suppose the strong late C20th Sun suddenly gave up it’s ability to affect climate.

    5) ‘Uncertainty sceptics’ are correct in saying that since the IPCC cheerfully admits that there is a “low level of scientific understanding” of many photo-chemical processes in the upper atmosphere affected by Solar spectral variation (which is much greater than variation in overall solar energy), the IPCC is in no position to start bandying around 95% certainties regarding human culpability for most of the late C20th warming.

    6) ‘Emission sceptics’ point out that since we know little about the carbon cycle, attribution of the increase in co2 to human induustrial emission is highly questionable.

    7) ‘Logic sceptics’ are fond of pointing out that changes in co2 levels always follow and never precede changes in temperature. Cause and effect is a very basic ontological level knowledge precept…

    8) ‘Attribution sceptics’ point out that since the surface of the Moon has an average temperature of around 208 Kelvin, and the Earth’s is around 288K, there is a lot more to explain than the 33C the radiative theorists claim for the ‘greenhouse effect’

    9) ‘Convection sceptics’ know that downwelling radiation from greenhouse gases is absorbed not far below and that the absorbing gas molecules soon share the energy with the bul of the atmosphere. That atmosphere conveys heat upwards, not downwards.

    10) ‘Ocean sceptics’ point out that since any downwelling radiation from greenhouse gases has a wavelength which is absobed in the top 0.008mm of the ocean surface, it is more likely the absorbed energy will promoote evaporation (thus cooling the surface) rather than being ‘mixed down’ (against convection) to the bulk of the ocean.

    Over at the talkshop, we have a better explanation for the historical facts. I hope you find some extra time to take an interest in this fascinating and important subject.



  174. Nicely put TB – thanks!

  175. A C Osborn says:

    It now appears that the whole point of Adams visit was to do a hatchet job on sceptics, which he has now printed.

  176. tallbloke says:

    ACO: I saw that coming right from the off. Here’s the comment from me I put on his blog this morning in response to some whining. He has now edited his own comment and deleted mine. He did some similar whining here here last night which I binned. To avoid peoples time bing wasted further I have now chucked him off this blog.

    If Adam will permit, I’d like to make a couple of off topic points for the record.

    1) He has not been “blocked from commenting further”, although his off topic comment was removed.

    2) The talkshop is a busy blog run by two people, as well as the thread Adam was commenting on, another 900+ comment thread on radiative physics is raging and demanding a lot of input from the moderator, me. To save time I frequently place responses inline rather than requoting. These responses bolded to clearly separate it from the original comment.

    3) The two comments Adam is referring to are here:
    and here:

    I’ll leave it to others to decide whether they represent ‘BULLYING’ or ‘INTIMIDATION’. The climate debate does get unpleasant at times, which is probably why few sceptics will bother to find the time to study and respond to Adam’s chosen climate experts, since they compare those who disagree with their viewpoint to deniers of the holocaust which cost untold numbers of innocent lives in the second world war. We’re more interested in dealing with the scientific aspects than trash talk.

  177. Roger Andrews says:

    Adam began his participation on this thread by stating: “This blog post and all the comments I’ve read so far seems to ignore the fact that every climate scientist, every expert, in fact, anyone with the appropriate technical knowhow, appears to speak with one voice in concluding that climate change is happening, and that we are responsible.”

    Well, as we know that’s not exactly true, so earlier I suggested to Adam that he read the 2010 Bray and von Storch poll to get an idea of what the climate scientists who were actually working as climate scientists thought. Had he done so he would have found that they’re somewhat less than enthusiastic about their results and that their position isn’t far removed from outright skepticism on a number of key issues. Below are some examples which readers may find of interest.

    A disclaimer before proceeding. Respondents were asked to rank answers from 1 (very inadequate, very poor, strongly disagree etc) to 7 (very adequate, very good, strongly agree etc). To simplify things I treat the non-committal “4” responses as “don’t knows” and sum the 1s, 2s and 3s into “inadequate”, “poor”, “unconvinced” etc. categories and the 5s, 6s and 7s into “adequate”, “good”, “convinced” etc. categories.

    The respondents are on board only with the “is global warming real?” stuff

    Q56: “How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?” Convinced 94%, unconvinced 2%, don’t know 4%.

    Q57: “How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a
    result of anthropogenic causes?” Convinced 84%, unconvinced 11%, don’t know 5%.

    But many of them think the available data aren’t good enough:

    Q13. “Data availability for climate change analysis is”: Adequate 41%, inadequate 41%, don’t know 18%.

    And many think we don’t have an adequate theoretical understanding of climate change:

    Q15. “The state of theoretical understanding of climate change phenomena is”: Adequate 40%, inadequate 42%, don’t know 18%.

    And that climate models are nowhere near as reliable as the IPCC and others claim:

    “How well do you think atmospheric models can deal with

    Q18: radiation?” Adequate 63%, inadequate 21%, don’t know 16%
    Q19: vapor in the atmosphere?” Adequate 33%, inadequate 41%, don’t know 26%
    Q20: the influence of clouds?” Adequate 8%, inadequate 76%, don’t know 16%
    Q21: precipitation?” Adequate 13%, inadequate 71%, don’t know 16%
    Q22: atmospheric convection?” Adequate 17%, inadequate 61%, don’t know 22%

    “How would you rate the ability of global climate models to:

    Q32: reproduce temperature observations?” Good 73%, poor 14%, don’t know 13%
    Q32: reproduce precipitation observations?” Good 15%, poor 60%, don’t know 25%

    “How would you rate the ability of global climate models to:

    Q35: model temperature values for the next 50 years?” Good 33%, poor 40%, don’t know 27%
    Q37: model precipitation values for the next 50 years?” Good 9%, poor 76%, don’t know 15%
    Q39: model sea level rise for the next 50 years?” Good 19%, poor 57%, don’t know 24%
    Q41: model extreme events for the next 50 years?” Good 7%, poor 82%, don’t know 11%

    The Bray and von Storch poll is five years old now but I doubt that much will have changed in the meantime.

  178. Great blog post!

    We are getting way to far ahead of Science. And our leaders just continue to plod ahead answering to the latest call for action.


  179. tallbloke says:

    Adam has done a one day survey of climate science and looked at some NASA GISS data and reached some conclusions here:

    I left a comment:

    To understand the buildup of solar derived heat in the oceans on multidecadal timescales, you need to integrate the sunspot number as a proxy for ocean heat content, rather than merely look at the decline of peak amplitudes since 1960 and conclude erroneously that the Sun couldn’t be responsible for a large proportion of the post 1980 warming.

    This is because oceans have a lot of thermal inertia, the top two metres has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above it. If you put a big pot of water on a stove, and put a low flame under it, it will after a while reach an equilibrium temperature where it is losing as much energy out of the pan sides and top water surface as is coming in from below.

    Then if you turn the flame up to max the water will start getting hotter. Then if you turn it down, but not as far as it was to start with, the water will still keep getting hotter.

    The average monthly sunspot number that equates to a global ocean that is neither warming nor cooling is around 40SSN.

    The average SSN from 1980 to 2000 was nearly double that. So although the peak amplitudes of the solar cycles had been falling gently from the highest ever cycle we know of in 1958, the average from then until the sun started going quiet in 2003 was still well above the long term average of 40.

    When you integrate the sunspot number as a cumulative total departing from the long term average (which happens to be the same as the equilibrium value, and factor in the detrended Atlantic multidecadal oscillation and Southern oscillation index, and add a factor for co2 equivalent to a sensitivity of around 1C per doubling, you can replicate the changes in sea surface temperature (which drives land temperatures) with a simple model to an accuracy of around 90% like I did here:

    No co2 driven model can achieve anything like this, not even with fudge factors for aerosols and volcanic eruptions included.

  180. A C Osborn says:

    Rog, you are completely wasting your time.
    Adam is obviously not interested in really “looking at the data”, my original summary of him stands and is now re-inforced.
    He is someone who really thinks he is clever with words, I get the feeling he started his blog just to do what he is doing, appearing reasonable when in actual fact he is just pushing the Concensus.

  181. tallbloke says:

    You’re probably right ACO, but others looking at his blog might pause for thought.

  182. The ‘anthropogenic global warming’ scam is notable : faux ‘environmental’ concerns are promoted as ‘overriding necessity’ regardless of validity of premise, Talking Points are used to ‘rebut’ potential argument, discussion is ‘framed’ around overarching action of a driver of mythical proportions, and ‘disagreement’ is channeled into recognizing fictional concerns via Strawman Argumentation and a ‘Denier’ psyops meme. There are any number of people who have been irritated by this yet fail to make the connection, although some see the process as furthering a global tax on energy payable to the United Nations : a regressive tax rejected by small and underdeveloped nations at Copenhagen when the Danes revealed the ‘position papers’ for matters under discussion had been switched ; to policy which would have penalized developing nations, given rebates to polluters for ‘carbon credits’, and set up tariffs and laid aside independence on issues affecting
    ‘carbon sequestration’ and water, for example.
    The Australians have been run over by their bipartisan tyranny already.
    I am in the habit of surfing political issues. The Denier meme is a staple pejorative affecting not merely the Holocaust but energy politics. It is used to channel acceptable discourse into a racetrack of finger pointing futility. Certainly when I had a weird Search result back on November 30 2009 I never dreamed of the constant vilification heaped on those who chose to resist what I characterized as a basic assault on humanity : an International Tax on the Use of Fire.
    Roger Pielke Jr. – son of a climatologist – has become quite the resource regarding the use of fake ‘science’ to affect policy. Christopher Monckton is constantly reviled : his sarcasm is devastating. Lubos Motly at his Reference Frame takes time out from theoretical physics to snipe at the climate scourge. John von Kampen at My Hiding Place has been kind enough to provide any number of links re: YouTube videos assaulting ‘climate policy.’
    The rot is deep. Even farm policy in Australia pays farmers for land to lie fallow. Also there and the USA have quietly instituted policies which remove routine firebreaks around cottages and communities in fire prone areas causing predictable devastation – and loss of forest health.
    My trademark practice is using others’ content to better illustrate points better than I can myself. Some of my collections and notes : http://my.opera.com/oldephartte/blog/2013/03/24/denier http://my.opera.com/oldephartte/blog/2013/03/08/climate-of-obfuscation Dec 1 and 4 2009 are my first entries. A webpage of extensive contention is locked under a DMCA allegation which is unavailable for perusal/challenge/modification under a failure of Chilling Effects Search. I have provided some links on my sidebar and in posts made when I first switched to oldephartte.blogspot.ca from opitslinkfest.blogspot.ca The gang at climategate.com provide a roster of fellow contenders against infamy. ActivistTeacher Denis Rancourt is only one of those harassed for his opposition. Even blogger Roger Pielke Jr. has his suspicions he has been affected.

  183. tallbloke says:

    Over on Adam’s blog
    April 2nd, 2013 at 7:42 am

    Adam says:
    “However, there’s been a “misunderstanding”. I find the word “denier” in reference to those who are skeptical about the current climate change consensus to be unfair, often inaccurate, too simplistic, and worst of all, horribly loaded!”

    Yet despite admitting you know almost nothing about the subject, you trust the climate science judgement of three people you go out of your way to point out use the term. Were you being playfully provocative or being ever so pc in choosing to promote the views of people who use a term you find “unfair, often inaccurate, too simplistic, and worst of all, horribly loaded!”?

    “I also believe that it’s not an ad hominem attack because I know what “ad hominem” means.”

    Worthless sophistry Adam. Likening someone to a holocaust denier is an attack on them, (ad hominem) whichever way you try to spin the definition of terms.

    “I never called anyone a denier, as i presume you are aware, and so to leave your blogpost with that impression is either intellectually dishonest, or you can’t be bothered to read back the posts before making such inferences, which is pretty sloppy.”

    I’m neither, though I don’t always have the time to read everyones comments in full on my busy, award winning blog, so I’ve just reviewed the comments, and no-one has left anyone with the impression you called anyone a denier. The reason you got excluded from the talkshop was explicitly stated in the comment I made at 5.24pm yesterday. Would you like me to post the comment I characterised as “whining” so people can be sure it didn’t include the term ‘denier’?

  184. bpmoving says:

    Reblogged this on bpmoving and commented:
    {you are our paid servants,not our masters shape up, or ship out}

  185. Reblogged this on Ozepool and commented:
    Thank you for laying out this subject so well, here in Australia we follow most things done in the UK, well it figures, we have the Queen(who I admire and embrace security it has brought)which shows where we sit in the scheme of things. Anyhow all the climate stuff has been followed with the move to “clean” energy(which actually is far from it)There is a growing revolt as the opposition has vowed to wind back carbon taxes and stop the 300 billion $ debt

  186. Unbelievably ignorant of science you are, that is I wouldn’t believe it unless you had first told me you were an engineer, and in the same paragraph clued me in that you were an arrogant engineer to boot.

    The hydrologic cycle is buffered and has zero effect on climate changes. It effects weather on daily bases, but water vapor’s effects are completely buffered. The deep carbon cycle (that is, including the oceans and solid earth) is incompletely buffered and only over longer timescales. Thus you have imbalances, especially when stored carbon is released into the atmosphere over short timescales. You learn this in high school if you take meteorology, or in first year college if your high school was short on science electives.

    The sun has no effect on climate change over the medium term, with few POSSIBLE exceptions. The Maunder Minimum might have been one of those exceptions, but that was small potatoes and short term compared to what we’re facing right now. Over billions of years, the sun is warming and that will eventually begin to exert control. But it is the atmosphere not the sun that drives climate on this and any other planet with a significant atmosphere. Again, this is basic earth science.

    It is certain that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is of human origin. The isotopes don’t lie, and this is one of the strongest, most incontrovertible pieces of evidence in the whole story. In addition, going back through geologic time (I know, you’re an engineer but bear with me) there is one gas and one gas only that has by far the biggest effect on climate change, and that is CO2. Again, the evidence for this is overwhelming. Methane is also an important player, but this is oxidized to CO2 quickly, and besides the initial climate forcing that melts frozen deposits of methane is CO2-driven warming.

    You lost me completely when you started spouting off about the tectonic plates and planetary movements. As a geologist, I always get a chuckle when people begin to talk like they are happily combining their understandings from the “rocks for jocks” class they took to get an easy science credit and the late-night a.m. radio shows they listen to.

    The climate is changing as we speak. If humans weren’t so detached from the natural world we would have all noticed this. As it is, only farmers, inuit hunters and others close to the land know it. It’s become very apparent that if we burn even a significant proportion of the remaining fossil fuels in the ground, we will lose much of the stable foundation on which human society is built. Drowned cities could indeed be the least of our problems. Massive migration like the world has never seen will mean deep, prolonged war. And if we let the CO2 get to extreme levels, we might end up with Earth’s biggest or second biggest mass extinction. Sadly, it will probably be your grandchildren who choke and die when the H2S comes belching out of the oceans. You will be dead, but perhaps you’ll be able to hear them cursing you and your quasi-astrological notions, your gross ignorance and misconceptions.

    Pollution is pollution and if it did not matter that much why is China (which is as blindly pro-growth as a country can get) scrambling to solve their pollution problems. No economy in the world can grow if the people get sick and die (but not before they threaten to topple the government).

    [Reply] Heh, and Mr mflahertyphoto thinks I’m the arrogant one.

  187. mitigatedsceptic says:

    This a very interesting post. Ad hominum & ad baculum all over the place.

    There is evidence that there is only one gas that that has had by far the biggest effect on climate over geologic time? Overwhelming? Show me!

    Humans so detached from the natural world? How come? I always thought that we were part of the natural world but if we are not – what evidence do you offer to substantiate the difference? Unique Creation perhaps?

    The hyrdologic cycle is buffered and has no effect on climate change – clouds, ice caps, El Nino, Gulf Stream – no effect? Of course I must believe you if you tell me you are expert in such matters.

    The sun has no effect on climate change, except when it might have – seems to beg a question or two?

    So far as I know, China has never been concerned with CO2 & AGW etc. but they do have pressing air pollution problems, smog, particulates, etc. in their cities. They are so concerned about AGW that they are building coal fired power stations all over the place.

    Are we really so certain that AGW is such a threat to future generations and who said that humans need to keep up their increase in numbers anyway? Would our extinction not make the world a better place – naturally?

    Not just AGW but an anthropocentric obsession to boot.

    One thing is certain, I shall never know what future generations will think about me. Should I care?

  188. A C Osborn says:

    mflahertyphoto says: April 13, 2013 at 9:15 am His bio says he has been a Science Teacher in the past, well God help his students if he has been spouting that Propaganda Rubbish.
    He also says he has been a “Geologist” as well?

    He comes across more like an 18 year school girl that has drunk the cool aid, obviously someone we shall not mention emailed him to post on here.

    He actually considers CO2 a pollutant and yet he says “I’m curious and excited about most things around me, especially people, natural science”

    You can’t get any more natural science than CO2.

    Lot’s of flowery (I’m a writer) words and no actual Science at all. Major Fail.

  189. Not HAS been a geologist, AM a geologist. Now I have to ask people, are you more likely to listen to an engineer’s musings on earth science, or an earth scientist? The answer would be easy for me, but please don’t take my word for any of this. Do your own research. Find out where the evidence for global warming and the role of greenhouse gases like CO2 actually comes from. Do not form an opinion based on somebody’s politically-inspired opinion. Actually the evidence for human-caused global warming has been strong for decades and decades. It’s not new. I myself became convinced of it well before it became politicized (in the mid-80s) while working on the problem in graduate school.

    I have no idea who you speak of emailing me. I simply came across this blog while browsing the Freshly Pressed posts. Also, I never said CO2 was a pollutant; be careful how you read between the lines. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that can either keep life alive or make it impossible by being either not abundant enough or too abundant (see Mars and Venus for living proof of this). Did my comments sound flowery to you? Wow! People never cease to amaze me.

  190. MITIGATED SCEPTIC: I agree there is a disconnect in China. I was merely speaking of their emerging concern with the air and water pollution in the eastern industrial area, not global warming. Thought that was pretty clear.

    There is absolutely no way I am going to aid you in learning about the evidence for the anthropogenic global warming that is happening as we speak. Get up off your butt and do your own research!

    Human history over the past several centuries has been one of becoming detached from nature and the sources of our survival. That has accelerated with the urbanization of the past 100 years or so. That results in our not being able to simply look to the natural world’s current response to ongoing climate change for evidence of the same. How come we urbanized? That’s another question altogether. I don’t understand the rest of your comment on that subject, sorry.

    Yes you really must believe those who know more about meteorology than you do. The only other alternative is to go learn it with an open mind.

    The sun is a stable star that provides energy to this planet. But the weather and climate changes on this planet are driven by the atmosphere. End of story.

    Of course I’m concerned about the future of the human species (call that anthropocentric if you wish). Anybody who thinks that mass extinction is a good thing is insane or ignorant or both.

    Your last point speaks volumes. You don’t care about future generations. You only care that the party continues long enough for you to live and die. That is the ultimate selfishness, and speaks to a very shallow mind.

    [Moderation note] You’re new here, so I’ll let you know that we avoid making presumptions about the inside of other peoples minds. We also encourage people to back up their arguments with verifiable facts, providing links to publications where appropriate. Argument by assertion and attribution of motive lead to comments getting tossed in the trash.

  191. J Martin says:

    @ Mflahertyphoto.

    ” In addition, going back through geologic time (I know, you’re an engineer but bear with me) there is one gas and one gas only that has by far the biggest effect on climate change, and that is CO2. ~ And if we let the CO2 get to extreme levels, we might end up with Earth’s biggest or second biggest mass extinction”

    Then perhaps you’d like to explain how it was at the end of the Ordovician period when co2 was at 7000ppm we entered a full blown glaciation (ice age), which carried on into the subsequent Silurian period with co2 never falling below 4000 ppm.

    The Sun is the driver and co2 is essentially irrelevant.

  192. mitigatedsceptic says:

    Future generations – Simply using abusive terms does not justify your position. I tried dying for my country but did not quite make it, despite the efforts of others similarly unselfish.

    After that I came to see that I have only one life and it would be irrational not to make the most of it. I believe that future generations will have to face different problems and that, if they are sufficiently wise, they will make the best of their condition.

    It is beyond my comprehension how some people are so arrogant as to believe that they can solve not only their own problems but those of future generations as well!

    That is my argument for self-preservation, self-interest and, yes, selfishness – now – by what moral criteria do you criticise my position? Let me see the depth of your mind please.

    And tell me when are you going to put your own life on the line for others and who deserves that sacrifice, your family, friends, relations, countrymen, people of the same faith, who speak the same language or would you prefer to save humanity at large by dying for it?

  193. J Martin says:

    The bedroom tax. I foresee a significant increase in the sales of sledge hammers as newly redundant people spend some of their spare time knocking multiple rooms into one larger room.

  194. Hahahahaha! Now you’re trying to argue geology with a geologist? Hahahaha! The end-Ordovician was a long time ago, and the sun put out significantly less heat. That has slowly (and I mean slowly) ramped up to today, when it takes much less CO2 to lead to global warming episodes. That doesn’t mean the sun is the driver of medium-long term global climate change. It is simply a background level of energy that does not change over shorter timescales. CO2 is the thing that does change over shorter periods, leading to climate change on those timescales. The end-Ordovician saw tectonic plate changes that likely precipitated a severe drop in CO2 levels (because of increased weathering rates). This was all coincident with severe cooling and mass extinction at that time (though it’s uncertain what actually caused the extinction). Since it was so long ago we have significantly less precise knowledge of the event than we do of more recent ones (such as the Eocene). The sun is not the driver of climate change on planet Earth, unless you only care about billion-year timescales). You’re going to have to go to school to argue effectively with me.

  195. tallbloke says:

    mflahertyphoto: [The Sun] is simply a background level of energy that does not change over shorter timescales.

    It increases the amount of energy arriving at the surface quite a lot when the cloud cover diminishes though. ~1.6-2.5W/m^2 per decade between 1980 and 2000.

  196. Now we’re back to talking about weather. So the cloud cover on average has been decreasing? Who says? Actually it might even be increasing because of air traffic. But there is no documented long-term decrease in cloud cover. Sorry, try again. Better yet, why don’t you just accept the overwhelming science that has been accumulating for over 50 years now! Okay, I’m done. I don’t have to have the last word, knock yourself out, I just can’t keep helping you knock your head against the wall.

    [Reply] Heh. Mr mflahertyphoto doesn’t want to engage with peer reviewed science which contradicts his unsupported assertions. What a surprise.

  197. A C Osborn says:

    mflahertyphoto, your arrogance is only equaled by your stupidity.
    You come on to a long established Forum and insult the intelligence of not only the Host but most of the Readers, Lurkers and Posters as well with your Hansenian/Mannian hyped up pseudoscience.