Wednesday
Mar312010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Quote of the day
Mar 31, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Parliament Frank Furedi at Spiked
Investigations that are meant to serve as a ‘corrective’ to people’s misguided or immoral sentiments used to be called rituals. And that is what this the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s ‘limited inquiry’ was mostly about: a ritualised pseudo-investigation aimed at correcting people’s allegedly backward views.
Reader Comments (8)
The Spiked article is excellent.
I think the Spiked article neatly summarises the purpose of applying a good thick coat of whitewash.
They should just all let do Lord Monckton do the talking. I have yet to hear convincing "refutations of his refutations"!
Some good writing in linked articles as well:
Why climate-gate won't stop climate change alarmism
This is why it's going to be hard to dislodge the alarmists: the AGW story has just come along at the right time and provided a flag for these negative philosophies to rally round.
You see examples of this in discussion where AGW morphs into peak oil or the vague waffle about "it cannot be good to pump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere" - they easily drift away from the central AGW premise into something else. Like stopping believing in Jesus and drifting off to believe in Bagwan instead.
Strange.
Fiona Fox of the SMC organises the press briefing for the report and then Frank Furedi rubbishes it. Aren't they both key members of the sinister Living Marxism network?
http://www.lobbywatch.org/lm_watch.html
George Monbiot must be confused.
Good article.
One does wonder why they hold any sort of enquiry when they clearly only want to convince the convinced.
Imagine a trial held where only the defence could enter expert witnesses; where the prosecution’s only briefing was what they’ve read in the news; where the judge and jury was largely made up of people who are well known to be convinced of the accused’s innocence; where perjury is known to have been committed but is allowed to stand; where the media are encouraged from on high to claim the accused be released without conviction.
Would the public be right to question if justice had been done?
Climate science is on trial right now (not the CRU or Jones or Mann) and the corruption of the justice system is such that each show trial just condemns it further.
I’m not totally convinced that AGW theory is wrong but I am convinced that I don’t believe in the system and people that promote it.
Well said TinyCO2 - my opinions are similar; essentially, if the science supporting AGW is so 'settled' and 'robust', why do its proponents continually resort to transparent idiocy such as this pathetic charade and blindly supporting worthless hockey stick nonsense? All it does is reinforce the impression that we're seeing the best they've got.
Maybe I've come on this scene too late to see the rational phase from the alarmists (if such ever existed), but all I get from reading RealClimate (etc.) is an impression of a weasel nest of egomaniacs who are incapable of discussing issues without immmediately slipping into defensive/abusive mode. If there's a fundamental truth they'd like to communicate, this is a funy way to go about it.
I wish politicians had the stones to admit they intend to lie to use to get elected (both right and left) and then do what gets them the most power and money.
I hope the Evil days of Reagan and Thatcher aren't gone forever. I miss the days when America and England had a special relationship.
Me being a half English, half German American, there's issues. But still.