Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Dellers on Reason | Main | In which I catch a Turner »
Tuesday
Sep272011

Guilty men and guilty women

I've just been sent this video and transcript of Baroness Worthington speaking at an seminar called the CDKN Action Lab (H/T Barry Woods). In it she explains the roles she, David Cameron and David Milliband played in bringing the UK's Climate Change Act into being. When the time comes to point the finger of blame this will be a good place to start.

I started out in climate change, possibly like other people. My main passion after leaving university was environmental protection and biodiversity and habitats protection and species conservation.

I think it was around the mid-90s when I realised that all the work I had been doing to try and conserve species and habitats was about to be hit by this massive tidal wave of a problem which was global climate change. And, it was quite soon after that I tried to shift from the work I had been doing on legal protection of species and habitats to working on climate change, and I was fortunate enough to be employed by Friends of the Earth as their UK climate change campaigner. So that was my very first job that was specifically looking at climate change.

And after joining... I started to get very interested in the data...so I’m a little bit of a data geek I’m afraid. I like spread sheets and numbers. And I feel safe knowing the number tell you something and you can rely on them hopefully. So I looked at what was going on in the UK’s emissions history...of its record. And I realised that although we had been doing reasonably well in reducing our emissions. It had nothing to do with government policy. It was almost an accident, and it was largely down to the shift to gas. We discovered North Sea gas, we exploited it and built a lot of gas fired powered stations and those replaced pretty filthy old coal powered stations and we had a double benefit. So not only is gas a much cleaner fuel, but the stations themselves were newer and more efficient. So the government was very happy telling everyone, “We’ve got climate change licked, you know, were are doing very well". But actually it was an accident of economic policy. Nothing to do with the environment really.

And, so what then happened was in 1997 we had a Labour Government come into power. And their view of the world was slightly different to the preceding government and they actually brought in a moratorium on the building of gas fire powered stations, because they could see what was happening, which was essentially our coal base was being destroyed. Our miners were being put out of work and our power stations were shutting down. So they stopped the building of gas.

And pretty much things stood still for a while and what then happened was emissions started bouncing around a bit. So global commodity prices started shifting and you would see that if coal was particularly cheap, and gas was very expensive you would see these sudden spikes in our emissions when everyone switched back to coal. Those power stations that had been there since the 60’s were turned back on re-powered and started producing electricity again and this meant that really as a country we had no real control over our admissions.

We like to think we have this very sophisticated handle on the mitigation of climate change, but actually we were really at the mercy of global commodity prices. And, I felt that this was something that needed to be addressed if we were going to really seriously track down our emissions steadily over several decades we needed levers and tools which would enable us to control these forces...these uncontrollable economic impacts.

So, it was also slightly coloured by my background which I had been working on a campaign for new laws for biodiversity and I felt a legal solution for climate change was needed. The government policy at the time was to have policy documents. Every five years they would produce, a very nicely produced, very well written, very well meaning, but actually full of tiny, little policies. You know, a little bit of energy efficiency here, possibly a little bit of support for renewables over here, but no comprehensive view of: What are the big drivers of the economy? How do we get a handle on making these go in the right direction?

So we had two of these lovely looking climate change programmes, which did nothing really to drive emissions down and we at Friends of the Earth wrote a submission in the review before the third one to say, “Look guys are going to have to stop doing this and start a new approach, because this bottom up kind of tinkering with bits of policy is not delivering." And so we wrote a document which called for the introduction of carbon budgets, which is not a new idea, anyone who knows how the Kyoto Protocol works knows that, that sets the world’s carbon budgets. It says this is the amount we should be emitting as developed countries. And over this five year period you developed countries have to stay within that carbon budget - you can trade, but you know there’s a limit on how much you can emit.

So we thought take that idea and make it a national policy, so we will create a legal framework, with the UK Government is not just facing one five year budget created by the UN, but a succession of five year budgets leading out all the way to 2050. So that you have a line of emissions that’s known in advance, that is reducing over that period of time and everyone will...that will be a legally binding commitment. So that was Friends of the Earth’s suggestion.

And as with anything, when you are an NGO and you’re on the outside lobbying...you kind of hope that you are going to have an impact, you’re never really very sure. So we sent this document off. We had some signs that it was being well received, Elliot Morley who was environment minister at the time invited us in, and you know, he is a lovely man and said, “This is the sort of thing we should be doing”, but we never really thought he’d have the power to do it.

But, then something changed, we then had a newly elected leader of the opposition. So David Cameron came in and wanted to reinvent the Conservative Party. And he decided to take an environmental theme. He changed the logo to a tree and he’d obviously listened to the focus groups. He’d realised that the environment was actually an issue for the electorate. So he was lobbied by the Friends of the Earth and he said, “Yeah, I’ll deliver you a Climate Change Act. If you vote me in I’ll give you the bill you want that will bring in this legal framework.” And that was hugely important, that Friends of the Earth campaign that enabled that got the opposition to take up this policy was really important.

At the same time David Miliband had just been made secretary of state for the Department of Food and the Environment and Rural Affairs I think it was then, the bit of government that did climate change. And he was also a young very powerful, dynamic character and he wanted to make his mark and I think initially he was quite sceptical about needing legislation, but there was David Cameron saying he would deliver a bill. So very quickly it became Government policy that they would also deliver a bill.

So already you can see that this process for change was dependent on things that you could not have predicted. That you needed certain characters in certain positions to really take this agenda forward. And, the degree of luck really involved was really quite astounding. And, it did really come down to these personalities these big people who wanted to make a difference.

So by the time David Miliband joined DEFRA, I had left Friends of the Earth, having set up the campaign, I spent some time in a power company learning how things work there, which was very interesting and they had then seconded me into DEFRA. So when David Miliband arrived and said, “Right it looks like we are going to have to have a Climate Change Bill, who do we know in the department who can help us with this?

Then someone said, “Well, Byrony wrote the document that Friends of the Earth, that kicked this whole thing off. Why don’t we get her in and see if she can help?” So I got shifted off my...I was doing some work on public awareness and a campaign about educating about climate change and told, “Right, you’re going to be part of a team of civil servants. We want you to draft a bill.”

And I mean it was quite a challenge. We were a team of I think about eight of us working full time - tasked with preparing a draft bill, and not just a fairly large bill but also in a quite short period of time David Miliband was convinced he was going to be reshuffled off to another department. So he wanted action fast. So he said,”I want this bill in three months”. So the lawyers all said,”No, no, no... you can’t get a bill done in three months. It will take six or may be a year”. And we said, “Well, we’ve only got three months so let’s try it.

And that speed was another key factor, that looking back on it was really important, because one thing that Whitehall is very good at doing is producing huge amounts of documents, and papers, and concepts, and notes, but if you are moving fast often if you bombard people with huge amounts of information they will usually find a couple of things that they object to and then you have to have a process of negotiation on those one or two issues as opposed to the minute of every single clause, every single policy.

So we were fortunate in away that, because.. Let’s not pretend that the Government was united in wanting this. The Department of the Environment was very in favour, DFID was in favour, FCO was pretty much in favour, but certainly the Treasury thought this was a terrible idea and the Department of Business thought it was a terrible idea and largely because they felt the UK acting alone would be really detrimental to our competitiveness. And here we were proposing a self-imposed target that was going to last until 2050. And it would introduce costs and force businesses to move overseas...and the world was going to end, according to the Treasury. And we kept saying, “We don’t think that’s true. It’s all very moderate, very manageable and it’s important, because we have got to show leadership”, and it was.

So we ended up arguing with the Treasury more on the principle than on the detail. Because we were moving so fast that they had may be one or two policy people covering our brief, whereas we had a team of lawyers and us and all our special advisors and we were - basically, were able to outwit them a little bit by moving quickly so that was another element that led to it being successful.

And the draft bill come out with I think elements that were true to the Friends of the Earth concept. Friends of the Earth always wanted it to be more ambitious, or slightly different in its format, but it had the basic premise there which that was a legally binding cap, that would make the whole government responsible for delivering emissions reductions.

It had adaptation clauses in there. It had enabling powers that meant that in the future if the government wanted to introduce policies to constrain emissions they could do so easily.

And importantly it created an independent body called the Committee on Climate Change who would advise the government on how the budgets should be set and met over time. And those elements, those sort of key elements are what are now in the bill today.

And I think, where are we now? 2011. It was finally signed off by parliament in 2008. And has it made a difference? Well, I think the major difference it’s achieved is it’s made government take this issue more seriously. I don’t think it’s necessarily driving down emissions exactly the way we wanted it to, but every department now has a responsibility towards meeting the requirements of this bill.

There is an independent body - the Committee on Climate Change - who are able to talk to the media and create a sense of pressure on government to do the right thing. And we will know in the next few months, the fourth carbon budget is going to be set. Now the proposals from the committee are quite impressive they are quite tight, they are quite challenging and we are going to be seeing now how government is going to respond when that goes through parliament in terms of, will government stay true to its ideas of being a green government? And back a tight fourth carbon budget. So we will see what happens in the next few months. And actually, I should say my role since doing all this - I’ve just been made a baroness so... in the House of Lords and so my role having being involved in this, in quite a number of ways, my final role will be seeing how it goes through in the House of Lords and I’m hoping to be able to use my position to make sure it is as tight as it possibly can be.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (172)

GLOBE was mentioned earlier in the comments in connection with Elliot Morley. I'm mentioning it in connection with Ron Oxburgh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTqFQqSEP48

Sep 28, 2011 at 7:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

This was a shockingly revealing artcicle, reminiscent of overhearing a conversation from which you would normally be excluded. I hope this is given full vent at next week's Tory conference, since they realised many months ago that they had been sold a pup in David Cameron. In effect the political class be it the European Commission or the chummy Spads are pushing an agenda which has little or no democratic mandate. Having been involved in politics over a long time this in itself is not surprising but the wicked way in which as this so called baroness admits to the pulling of wool over people's eyes is characteristic of the age. Oborne had it completely right in his recent pamphlet on guilty people who are wrecking our collective lives.

Sep 28, 2011 at 9:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterTrefor Jones

There wouldn't be any point Snotrocket, in asking Baroness Worthington to read "The Hockey Stick Illusion". Her qualifications are in English Literature, climate activism and politics. She would not have the maths.

In any event it wouldn't matter if she did. Climate Change is now a political programme for re-ordering the world so as to keep all of the animals on the farm (except for the pigs) very poor. Science has had nothing whatsoever to do with it for years.

Sep 28, 2011 at 9:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave

loves the way the science folk jump on arts qualifications....i did O-level maths and physics and what is more I can spot a lack of rhetorical rigour in arguments that only mention qualifications! The subjects you study at school do not matter as much as the intellectual rigour you bring to debate.

Sep 28, 2011 at 9:37 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Thanks Diogenes for that burst of sweet reason. I know of a couple of arts graduates on this very thread who have done as much as anyone to counter the folly of CAGW.
It’s not just the science. It’s the politics, journalism, psychology and sociology - the whole culture of western society which has been infected by this mass hysteria. The idea that all we need is one good measurement of cloud feedback effects and the world will see reason is as shallow and naive as the warmist philosophy we oppose.

Sep 28, 2011 at 10:21 PM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

Can we find out her A levels ? Must be English, French and ?

Sep 29, 2011 at 12:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterFay Kelly-Tuncay

loves the way the science folk jump on arts qualifications....i did O-level maths and physics and what is more I can spot a lack of rhetorical rigour in arguments that only mention qualifications! The subjects you study at school do not matter as much as the intellectual rigour you bring to debate.
Sep 28, 2011 at 9:37 PM | diogenes

True - DG.

We engineers like to think of ourselves as the horny-handed, grease stained bedrock of practicality and scepticism - but there's nothing in the evolution of climate insanity that can't be found in the pages of Orwell, Kafka or Shakespeare.

It's just a classic tale of human credulousness, vanity, greed and political ambition - it just hasn't happened on a global scale before.

Sep 29, 2011 at 10:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterFoxgoose

... but there's nothing in the evolution of climate insanity that can't be found in the pages of Orwell, Kafka or Shakespeare.
Quite so, Foxgoose. And one could add "et al"
I'm conceited enough to suggest that those of us with a background in English, history and journalism are every bit as competent to pass comment on the arguments as anyone. Perhaps more so, since while we might not altogether understand the science, this isn't about science, is it? It's about PR, politics, and being a control freak. And standing outside the science we have no particular axe to grind.

Sep 29, 2011 at 12:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

'...The Treasury thought it was a terrible idea and the Department of Industry thought it was a terrible idea...
You know why..? It IS a terrible idea..!

Sep 29, 2011 at 2:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid

Diogenes, I agree. It is not simply a matter of the apparent lack of relevant qualifications here, rather the lack of intellectual rigour that classifies Baroness Worthington as a pontificating lightweight.

Sep 29, 2011 at 3:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

Mike Jackson

I'm conceited enough to suggest that those of us with a background in English, history and journalism are every bit as competent to pass comment on the arguments as anyone. Perhaps more so, since while we might not altogether understand the science, this isn't about science, is it? It's about PR, politics, and being a control freak. And standing outside the science we have no particular axe to grind.

Wow. And no way.

AGW scepticism is first and foremost a scientific (or anti-scientific) position.

So to say that you don't understand the science but that doesn't matter 'because it's not about science' is entirely incorrect.

You cannot claim to 'stand outside the science' while often vehemently criticising both the science and the scientists themselves.

You cannot be a 'sceptic' critical of the science and the scientists and claim to have 'no particular axe to grind'.

Once more, wow, and no way.

Sep 29, 2011 at 7:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD,
My take on what Mike Jackson says is this:
The AGW movement is not about science.It is a social mania that uses science-y terms and claims to impose a social order. This social mania demands policies that in fact do not do what the AGW community claims they do: Not one AGW promoted policy will change the climate in any predictable or meaningful fashion.
Not one AGW demanded treaty, law of regulation ahs lessened the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in any measurable way.

Sep 29, 2011 at 7:43 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

hunter

Then why not accept the science on AGW and become a climate policy sceptic?

The activists and politicians f***ed everything else up by forcing the world down the Kyoto route, and by insisting that renewables, and not nuclear, are the energy policy solution to decarbonising electricity supply.

Kyoto is dead, and renewables are never going to do what is claimed, but neither of these problems has anything to do with climate science.

However, unless my memory is failing, you don't accept the majority view of climate scientists on the seriousness of the AGW problem.

So while you point (correctly) to the social and political constructs arising from the science, you (like Mike) also strongly disagree with that same science.

Sep 29, 2011 at 8:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Thankyou, hunter.
Unfortunately since BBD's final conversion to the Dark Side he has lost sight of the difference between Global Warming and Anthoprogenic Global Warming. I have said it time and again: the IPCC is not a scientific body; it's a political body.Its remit from the beginning was to investigate human-caused global warming. No anthropogenic input, not interested.
The marketing of AGW from Hansen/Wirth through Gore and with the connivance of Greenpeace, WWF, and a range of other environmental and pseudo-environmental groups (not excluding the BBC and that newly-invented breed the "enviromental correspondent") to the "science is settled" concept which has effectively shut out any alternative hypotheses has been overtly political.
The science is secondary and like it or not you do not need to be a scientist to identify a lack of intellectual rigour (as diogenes pointed out) or, as foxgoose pointed out, that "there's nothing in the evolution of climate insanity that can't be found in the pages of Orwell, Kafka or Shakespeare." which was my starting point.
When the only response to justifiable criticism is to accuse your critics of being shills or "deniers"; when you are so insecure in your beliefs that you cannot tolerate different points of view and feel the need to censor them; when any view, no matter how moderate, has to be suppressed and the organs which may be tempted to convey those views subverted; when scientists are prepared to lie, to obfuscate, to obstruct legal process, to destroy data (whether they actually did or not) then science is no longer part of the equation. You have become an advocate, an activist, a politician.
And it does not take a scientist to pick holes in the argument. And if the scientists (which ones? there is not the consensus the activist scientists claim) are right then they have only themselves to blame for refusing to engage (Richard Betts an honourable exception on this blog) and for a stubborn resistance to answer the very simple request to provide empirical evidence of their stance.
And that is my stance and not mine alone.

Sep 29, 2011 at 8:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

Mike

Unfortunately since BBD's final conversion to the Dark Side he has lost sight of the difference between Global Warming and Anthoprogenic Global Warming.

;-)

The science is secondary and like it or not you do not need to be a scientist to identify a lack of intellectual rigour (as diogenes pointed out) or, as foxgoose pointed out, that "there's nothing in the evolution of climate insanity that can't be found in the pages of Orwell, Kafka or Shakespeare." which was my starting point.

What lack of intellectual rigour? This kind, perhaps?* Foxgoose names appropriate authors, but not for the reasons he supposes.


*This is not a joke. Can you force yourself to read the link, despite the source and rebarbative tone? It's from back in 2008, but highly relevant to the SB11 scrap.

Sep 29, 2011 at 11:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

oldtimer,

It was said there was a "call from the Palace" highly recommending him? If true, who could that have been? Surely not HRH Prince Charles?

I have often wondered whether the environmentalism taken up in government, learned societies etc, in the UK is in some way in deference to the future king.

Sep 30, 2011 at 1:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterBilly Liar

What lack of intellectual rigour? This kind, perhaps?* Foxgoose names appropriate authors, but not for the reasons he supposes.

Sep 29, 2011 at 11:27 PM BBD

Logical and ehtical fail there I'm afraid BBD.

I named the authors to illustrate a point - my reasons for doing so are known only to me.

In fact I can now reveal that my reasons were based on my covert, psychopathic, big-oil funded, subversive campaign to condemn future generations to be burnt alive by runaway warming - but you still aren't allowed to attribute motives to others.

I followed your link and I simply can't understand why you expect anyone to be convinced by the unsupported claims of an activist scientist in a public forum where no-one is allowed to put the alternative case.

For the interested layman , trying to follow the argument, it's like going to an Oxford Union debate - and being ushered out after hearing the proposers motion.

Convincing only to closed minds.

Sep 30, 2011 at 9:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterFoxgoose

BBD
And your point is?
I refer you to my last paragraph ... "...if the scientists (which ones? there is not the consensus the activist scientists claim) are right ..."
So realclimate disagrees with Spencer. So what? You have decided to side with The Team; I have an instinctive aversion to people who behave in the way they do. I am therefore inclined to be more critical of their pronouncements (and assertions and statements of near-religious belief and disdainful dismissals of anyone who disagrees with them) than those who present a more reasoned case especially one which appears to rely more on people poking their noses outside into the real world than sitting nursing their piles in front of a computer screen.
This does not make me right and them wrong. It does mean that I am more inclined to demand something that resembles proof before I (and the rest of mankind, unfortunately) am forced to change my entire lifestyle and that of generations to come purely on their say-so.
Incidentally, I find Jones' plaintive cry of "why should I give you my data when all you want to do is to find something wrong with them?" a bit ironic when The Team is at least as dedicated to ripping to shreds everybody else's research as it is to doing any original research of its own while apparently claiming that all their stuff is beyond reproach.
So I am not siding with Spencer any more than I am siding with realclimate. I have no evidence that he is right or that they are right. I do know that in recent weeks there have been hypotheses advanced that have tended to cast doubt on the pre-eminence of CO2 as the main driver of global warming and that The Team has been moving heaven and earth to debunk any such findings, to the extent that Dessler appears to have made a fool of himself by going off half-cocked.
(By the way your comment that the link you provided is "highly relevant to the SB11 scrap" is true only insofar as it acts as a smokescreen. Even Dessler has admitted to errors in his rather hasty riposte.)
I simply don't know who has the right of it and it would be refreshing of a few climate scientists would admit they simply don't know either. Climatology is an infant science but has become a political bandwagon.
Look at Andrew's post this morning (How policy is made). "Scientific" advisors picking what was always a fairly arbitrary figure from the outpourings of a highly politicised organisation without any caveats and no mention of the possible benefits to accrue from a 2C temperature increase and feeding that to the government as a policy recommendation!
Do you really need to be a scientist to see the holes in all this?

Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

E-petition is a very very bad idea and should be withdrawn immediately. If hundreds of thousands sign, it will be ignored. If a few thousand sign it will be used as ammunition to show people do not consider it an issue. The only two things politicians understand - spending our money like drunken sailors and votes. So let your MP know that he/she had better deliver or you won't give them a 'X'

Sep 30, 2011 at 4:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterSpen

BBD,
What seriousness? The climate crisis is a bs metaphor.
When you seperate out the faux scientists who are using sciencey talk to push their politics from real scientists actually studying things based ni reality, the crisis evaporates.
When you look at the history of weather events, the crisis evaporates.
The AGW movement has never been about the radiative physics of CO2 in the same way that eugenics was never really about evolutionary science.
Eugenics was always about elite bigots imposing their will on the public square and AGW is not any different.

Sep 30, 2011 at 4:36 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Very few of the epetitions on the government site have as many as a few thousand votes so I doubt if alarmists could make much hay if it doesn't do better than that. particularly since the repeal the CC Act has 601 votes and the best on their side "take CC seriously" has 10.

I think that if it got to 100,000 the government would be unwise to refuse the promised debate, after all nobody forced them to make the offer and it would just make them look both stupid and dishonest.

Sep 30, 2011 at 4:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterNeil Craig

Foxgoose

I followed your link and I simply can't understand why you expect anyone to be convinced by the unsupported claims of an activist scientist in a public forum where no-one is allowed to put the alternative case.

If you didn't understand the explanation of Spencer's ahem, 'lack of intellectual rigour', then you shouldn't be engaging in further debate about climate science. I'm serious. You are clearly well out of your depth.

Logical and ehtical fail there I'm afraid BBD.

You provide evidence for neither and engage in a defence of the indefensible. And yet my ethics are being called into question.

Sep 30, 2011 at 6:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

hunter

When you look at the history of weather events, the crisis evaporates.
The AGW movement has never been about the radiative physics of CO2 in the same way that eugenics was never really about evolutionary science.

You cannot simply dismiss the scientific case by saying stuff like this. It's not just weak; it doesn't actually constitute a counter-argument at all. And dragging eugenics in is sewer debate. Conversation over.

Sep 30, 2011 at 6:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Mike

(By the way your comment that the link you provided is "highly relevant to the SB11 scrap" is true only insofar as it acts as a smokescreen. Even Dessler has admitted to errors in his rather hasty riposte.)

No, it shows that Spencer has been developing the same essentially unsupported argument by the most questionable means since before 2008. Thus SB11 exists in a continuum. Those puzzling the strong reaction by Dessler and Trenberth have their explanation right there.

Sep 30, 2011 at 6:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

I disagree.
Spencer has already picked holes in Dessler's response arguing inter alia that he has rebutted a claim that Spencer didn't even make. Dessler has had the good grace to admit to at least one error.
But that is a minor point anyway.
The Team disagree with Spencer who has never claimed to be perfect. Many of the "errors" he has made he is picked up himself or has had pointed out to him and he has then corrected. That's how science is done, no?
Better than dancing about like five-year-olds pointing their fingers and chanting "Spencer made an error. Spencer made an error".
They, of course, have never made one in their lives. At least by their own account.
Remember the old adage, "The man who never made a mistake never made anything worthwhile."

Oh, and I don't know whether Foxgoose understood Spencer's "lack of intellectual rigour" or not but what I saw was simply yet another disagreement between The Team and Spencer. I suspect, though they aren't about to tell me, that they hate the fact that he controls one of the recognised data sets and are desperate to discredit him at all costs for that reason.
I could be wrong, of course, but that is certainly one interpretation of their somewhat irrational opposition to someone who quite probably knows as much about climate science as most of the rest of them put together.

Sep 30, 2011 at 7:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

Mike

From 2008:

Roy does have a handful of peer-reviewed publications, some of which have quite decent and interesting results in them. However, the thing you have to understand is that what he gets through peer-review is far less threatening to the mainstream picture of anthropogenic global warming than you’d think from the spin he puts on it in press releases, presentations and the blogosphere.

The explosion of hysterical BS surrounding SB11 (which makes no claim to overturning the models etc etc etc) is just the latest, greatest iteration of this process. Seasoned observers suggest that Spencer has an extra-scientific agenda which causes him to allow (even encourage) his work to be misrepresented by sceptics as far more significant than it actually is. These days I can only agree with them.

He fooled me for years, but not any more.

Sep 30, 2011 at 7:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Seasoned observers
Now I doubt you'd let me get away with that, so I must call you on it ;-)
Sources, please.

The trouble with this is that the quote you give (which I read) can just as easily be dismissed as part of the ongoing war between The Team and Spencer. We are in effect arguing in circles (and not addressing my main point which is that my scepticism is based as much as anything on the behaviour of the "establishment" faction. — I take it you'd prefer me not to use the word 'warmist').
They refuse to engage and I have never ever seen anything resembling proper evidence from observation that their hypotheses are sufficiently strong to justify the conclusions they reach.
I will accept that in a lot of instances it is not the climate scientists who are making some of the outlandish claims that the media pick up on but most of them are doing precious little to make the more moderate case.
And they are certainly not open to alternative ideas. Given that there are alternative hypotheses in existence; that some of the methods they use and the conclusions they have drawn have been shown to be statistically unsound; and that their general demeanour is "I'm right, so if you don't agree with me f*** you" why should I trust them or believe a word they say?

Sep 30, 2011 at 8:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

Forgot to say ...
I'm not commenting on "hysterical BS". I read the summary and took the view that this is a useful contribution to the debate. Most of the sceptics whose views I find trustworthy appear to take much the same line.
I've heard no "hysterical BS" coming from them.

Sep 30, 2011 at 8:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

Mike

I'm not commenting on "hysterical BS". I read the summary and took the view that this is a useful contribution to the debate. Most of the sceptics whose views I find trustworthy appear to take much the same line.
I've heard no "hysterical BS" coming from them.

Fair enough. This is too strong.

BH blogged on Zeke Hausfather's piece at Yale Climate Forum which makes the point better than I did and in more moderate language (emphasis added):

“New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism” was the breathless headline in Forbes, referring to a paper published in a relatively new but reputable academic journal, Remote Sensing.

The paper posted in late July was written by climate scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell. The story was subsequently picked up by the Drudge report and Fox News, warning that “new findings throw the entire global warming theory into question.”

What is interesting is that the actual paper by Spencer and Braswell, while considered by a number of sympathetic and unsympathetic critics as having some flaws, makes relatively modest claims that bear little relation to the subsequent headlines appearing on conservative-leaning media outlets.

[...]

Their paper contains no statements that are particularly exceptionable, and certainly nothing to justify the misleading headlines that followed. The University of Alabama in Huntsville press release accompanying their paper, however, was titled “Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming” and contained a number of statements critical of climate models that were not contained in their paper.

From there, the story exploded, and the editor of the journal Remote Sensing resigned to “personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate skeptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements.”

Other climate scientists had similar reactions to the affair, with MIT’s Kerry Emanuel remarking that “I have seldom seen such a degree of disconnect between the substance of a paper and what has been said about it.”

[...]

The back-and-forth in the scientific literature will likely continue for some time on this subject, and our understanding of the processes involved will likely be better for it. In the mean time, to paraphrase the late Carl Sagan, be skeptical of any extraordinary results that are claimed in the absence of extraordinary evidence.

Sep 30, 2011 at 9:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Harking back to the original topic - here's a touching little human interest story about the noble lady who thought it was a jolly wheeze to condemn a few million OAP's to a freezing Xmas.

She seems to have an enormous sense of entitlement.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8527850/Breastfeeding-baroness-launches-quiet-modernisation-of-House-of-Lords.html

Sep 30, 2011 at 10:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterFoxgoose

@Foxgoose

That baby looks remarkably like Ed Milliband?

Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterChris S

Foxgoose

She seems to have an enormous sense of entitlement.

On this, I have to agree.

And ennobled, at 38?

'Moral leadership' by the UK in decarbonisation will continue to disadvantage the nation until the decision is made to replace coal with nuclear for baseload.

Forcing many pensioners into sometimes lethal fuel poverty is not the hallmark of effective energy policy.

This sounds flat, I know. But my unedited view would be (correctly) snipped.

Sep 30, 2011 at 11:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKiAz6ndUbU&feature=related

On the issue of the Baroness possibly suffering from a bipolar disorder. Just watch the hand gestures of Steven Fry. Put the sound down on the video. I have only seen these kind of movements in people with this condition. Fry's big hand gestures are the same as the Baroness.

As far as I know, one cannot be a member of the House of Lords if you have such a condition. Why shouldn't we take up this issue as there appears to be some physical evidence?

Two people commenting on this blog with some experience and knowledge of mental disorders have spotted some clinical symptoms.

Oct 1, 2011 at 9:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterFay Kelly-Tuncay

Don Pablo's Bi-polar Subject

With audio turned off, seems to be a young person explaining why they ( or she) did (or were/was part of) the things that were not quite right.

Oct 1, 2011 at 10:52 AM | Unregistered Commentercorporate message

Fay Kelly-Tuncay
I hope you were joking about getting Briony out of the House of Lords because of her mental condition. I already spend half my time on blogs defending my “enemies” from accusations of Stalinism. If I have to spend the other half defending them from the Stalinist tactics of “our” side, I’m giving up.
It’s an interesting point though. I think we all have these extreme reactions, due to our extreme weakness and the bullying tactics of the opposition. Giving vent to these feelings by shouting “ecofascist” or whatever is a natural reaction, and each wave of new recruits tends to go through this phase.
Let’s just get used to the fact that we face a future of possibly several decades of being ruled by nerds with a morbid fear of thermometers. Nazism and Stalinism had their drawbacks, but there is nothing in the history of twentieth century totalitarianism to prepare us for that. We’ll have to be inventive.

Oct 1, 2011 at 10:54 AM | Unregistered Commentergeoff chambers

Saynotofearm,ongering I suspect her belief thatb she is a "numbers geek" despite studying engloit is because she only mixes with the same sort and she is more competent, numerically literate and self aware than the average ecofascist and has never interactelistened to somebody numerically competent..

Ignorance is no crime. Acting out of ignorance because you refuse to recognise the depth of your ignorance is..

Oct 1, 2011 at 11:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterNeil Craig

BBD
We seem to have some common ground here. (As we do about the need for nuclear generation and the idiocy of excessive reliance on wind, incidentally!)
I had read the quote from Zeke Hausfather and it is pretty much in line with my own view. Nice to know it's not only great minds that sometimes think alike. I have enough postings around the place in which I say that those who leap on anything that appears to differ from the mainstream as "the beginning of the end" or "the final nail in the coffin" are doing themselves and the sceptical arguments no favours. For all I think the posts on WUWT are usually pretty sound scientifically (as far as I can tell), Anthony does attract some fairly weird hangers-on.
But I'm speaking from the point of view of a Brit and I believe that the Americans generally tend to take that sort of extrovert approach so maybe I'm being hypercritical. Certainly there are some UK blogs which are populated by commenters who appear to be sharing a communal brain cell! But I digress.
The Forbes headline made me cringe. The paper is fairly modest and it is probably unfair to blame Spencer and Braswell for the press release. But my initial, and primary, point remains. This paper (and others) casts some small doubt on the "settled science". The immediate reaction of Trenberth is not to say "we need to look at this" but to bluster along the lines of "what idiot allowed this to see the light of day?"
A bit like our friend Zed, his first reaction, like the rest of The Team, is not just to go on the offensive but to be offensive with it.
I think you would find that a majority of the scientists who post here would agree that examining the paper in detail, trying to replicate its results, and pointing out the errors (if any) is the correct way forward.
If you are saying "I wouldn't have used those figures" then explain why not. If you claim that equations in the paper don't make sense then ask why the researcher used them, and so on, and so on.
I return to my main theme. I do not trust mainstream climate scientists; their assocation with the IPCC is incestuous; their association with NGOs — WWF in particular (see Donna's last five posts at http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/) — makes their supposed scientific reports for the IPCC highly suspect; and I shan't bother repeating (again!) my other reasons for treating them with considerable scepticism.
I don't trust them and I am unlikely to trust their pronouncements as a result.

Oct 1, 2011 at 11:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

Please don't start questioning people mental health (ie Bryony's) or their appearance, or as your Bishop Hill comment, wondering who was pulling Bryony's strings!

If she looks/sounds a bit frazzled or has bad hair, well that is what having a NEW baby does to people, her 1st child was 5 months old when that video was taken!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8527850/Breastfeeding-baroness-launches-quiet-modernisation-of-House-of-Lords.html

Please no silliness about personality disorders(even if true), you will come across as conspiracy theorists, and people wanting to smear people for a political campaign (repeal the act)
The only person pulling Bryony's strings is most probably her child.

Think of Bryony as nothing more than she appears, ie left university with an English degree,
got concerned with the environment, and the rest is exactly (in all its banal glory) is how she describes it.

Oct 1, 2011 at 5:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Mike

Thanks for your response. I know you see the energy debate in much the same terms as I do (which is encouraging), and your remarks on the responses to SB11 are not without foundation.

However, you highlight a very sad phenomenon, namely that there is a minority which actively distrusts climate science - all of it - and suspects that the fix is in.

It's always worth considering things in the round. For example, were you a 'mainstream climate scientist' you would be keenly aware of the danger presented by human CO2 emissions. You would be anxious to communicate this to others. You would be beset by angry sceptics. You would witness other scientists 'going too far' in their efforts to 'get the message across', driven in part by the perceived need to 'rebut' the sceptics. You would have watched the whole thing spiral out of control over the last two decades and you might now consider keeping your mouth shut and your head down.

Only the firebrands are carrying the 'fight' forward, and firebrands do tend to over-react. Especially when they are trying to suppress what they perceive as intentional damage to the scientific consensus being done by others with (assumed) political motives.

That's how we get to Dessler and Trenberth & Fasullo playing whack-a-mole with SB11. Not a pretty sight, and not one likely to inspire confidence in observers such as yourself.

But you can - I hope - still understand why things are as they now are.

What with Barry Woods calling for restraint too, this thread has degenerated into reasoned calls for dialogue and understanding. Time comments were locked! ;-)

Oct 1, 2011 at 7:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

"Please no silliness about personality disorders(even if true), you will come across as conspiracy theorists, and people wanting to smear people..."

We obviously see different things Barry.

I see an ambitious, ruthless, emotionless woman who is in a manic state, who is uninhibited with a total lack of insight into what she is saying. And you see a breastfeeding hippy.

Oct 1, 2011 at 10:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterFay Kelly-Tuncay

Fay Kelly-Tuncay
There is no logical contradiction between what you see and what Barry sees. What Barry also sees is that attributing mental disorders to one’s opponents can only backfire. We’ve all done it, but it’s still not a good tactic.
Furthermore, the really interesting question is not “what’s wrong with this person’s mind?” but “How did it come about that people like this took over the political apparatus of the country?” You gave an interesting, though lighthearted answer to this question on a thread at Climate Resistance. There’s a sociologist called Robert E Phelan who comments here occasionally who thinks along the same lines.
Most of the commenters here are rightwing libertarians of the “no such thing as society” school. I’m not being rude. They’re the canaries in the mine who were the first to spot the danger of authoritarian environmentalism. But they tend to think that the world will be put to rights once everyone’s become aware of WUWT and read His Grace’s learned sermons. Barry and many others try and point out that it’s not that simple.

Oct 2, 2011 at 6:05 AM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

FAY - please, please drop this

Surely it is enough that the Climate Change Bill was rushed through in 3 months, because David Milliband wanted to make a mark, and David Cameron wanted to out green the Labour Party, and de-nastify the conesrvative party..

This, is something EVERYONE can instatntly recognise, a flawed bill rushed through for short term political gain. with no thoughts (beyond green FoE wishful thinking) about the economics or engineering realities and the consequences to the country (acting alone as a country with ruinous targets.

You seem fixated on Bryony.

WHY..

If it wasn't her doing the work, it would have just have been someone else at FOE,
the The Climate Change Act was Tony Junipers idea (campaigning since Rio92)

Are you going to question his mental state as well.
At the time Bryony was just a minion working at the FOE and then in SSE. Under Tony Juniper's leadership. Tony pushed for the Bill, Tony ran the Big Ask campaign, Tony lobbied parliament, Tony lobbied Cameron, the Millibands, he is good mates with Franny (blow up the kids) Armstrong.

Bryony was 'instrumental in writing the act' she was doing the paperwork, the donkey work at drafting Tony Juniper's vision - I am totally convinced he genuinely sees AGW as a problem at it is pretty much now his lifes work.

Some background reading:
The Big Ask campaign, was Friends of The Earth, led by Tony Juniper (whose been fighting climate change since RIO92) he believes!
http://www.tonyjuniper.com/?q=node/1

Tony Juniper's FOE - Big Ask Campaign
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/media_briefing/brief_history_the_big_ask.pdf

A better Big Ask history, David Cameron's support, lobbying MP's, etc
http://www.foe.co.uk/news/big_ask_history_15798.html

Tony Juniper's - Friends of the Earth Secure a Climate Change Bill:
http://www.foe.co.uk/news/gov_climate_bill.html

Tony Juniper, (with Thom Yorke - Radiohead -who co-fronted Big Ask) speaking passionately after Copenhagen
(campaigning against CC since Rio 92) -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3A2N_VTp2c&feature=player_embedded

Somequotes to show what he thinks of 'us', do you really want to start claiming Bryony's mental health is a problem with a friend like Tony.

Thom Yorke quote: @f***ng monkeys being paid by the oil industry,
Tony Juniper quote: "and talking about climate change deniers'
Tony Juniper quote : "some arguments you don't put the other side because it is socially damaging'
Thom York quote:'ignore the motherf**ers'

The interviewer was Franny Arnstrong- Age of Stupid, 10:10 founder (no pressure video)

Franny is part of the insular political/media/social/culture network that just evolved over the last 20 years

Pity Ed Milliband as Franny Armstrong interviews Ed Milliband - whilst standing on her head
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vej21RhXmdc&feature=related

Pity Ed Milliband, as she ask at the end how many times have we done this - 8 or 9 he says ;-)

We appear to have a climate change courtesy of the environmentally and intellectually shallow.

Fay, Please take a step back about how you will be perceived, someone that noone has ecerv heard of, sounding like a conspiracy theorist, who want to make a major political change (repeal the act) but has only mmanaged to secure less that a 1000 signatures on a petition, not even other known sceptics have signed up to it, and now, by the diagnosis of a 10 minute video, are questioing a peer of thge realsm mental health. Someone that has impeccable political connections, young and a new mother aboot, and you even pick fault because she has a bad hair day..

Think how OTHERS, that know nothing about Bishop Hill, or any of all this will perceive you?

Bryony did the paper work.. (Churchill suffered maor depression, he did quite well overall)

Why on earth are we not focussing on David Cameron's and David Millibands (and Ed and Gordon) egos and short term jockeying for political advantage, and the 600 climate fools (MP's that ) marched through the lobby and voted for it.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/02/who-are-the-climate-fools-climate-fools-day/
( text went all wrong, I sent it to Anthony in a word doc, did not transfer into Wordpress to well)

With Only Peter Lilley (MP) questioning the cost of it all....

Focus on the process, the failing of government, the politicians..

Bryony just did the paper work (and got thanked with enoblement) and for the record I am NOT in anyway questioing Bryony's health in anyway, she appears a sincere, passionate, non scientifically educated young woman, who believes in what she is doing.

Please drop this...

Oct 2, 2011 at 10:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

For example, were you a 'mainstream climate scientist' you would be keenly aware of the danger presented by human CO2 emissions.
Well, not necessarily, old son!
Isn't this precisely the debate we are having? You have come round to the view that CO2 is a dangerous substance that will (presumably) cause runaway global warming at some as yet undetermined time in the future.
Others disagree, arguing that if that were the case such runaway global warming ought to have happened when CO2 levels were a lot higher than they are today. Also that the MWP and other warm periods were at least as warm as today (hence the desperation on certain quarters to "get rid of the MWP") and that given that there appears to be a sort of 60-year cycle which we would seem to be currently at the apex of it might be a good idea to be a little more cautious for a few years to see what actually happens. And I'm sure you don't need me to go through all the other possibilities that have been promulgated some of which (I agree) are unlikely though not impossible.
And none of which The Team and their acolytes are prepared to even consider as valid arguments for further research. They're not doing science, BBD; they're doing religion! "Believe what I tell you or you are doomed."
As for being "beset by angry sceptics", I'm afraid that cuts both ways. Scepticism is an honourable position to take and one which is integral to science. "Take no-one's word for it" used to be somebody's motto in the days when ... I am angry as are better qualified men than me when scientists assert something and angrily refuse to provide me with evidence or when university professors doing research with my money think they are above the law and use every trick in the book not to release data the public are entitled to access to and then bleat piteously about being besieged by FoIA requests.
What do they expect? "Oh, all right then, if you don't want to tell me, I'll just go quietly."? In their dreams!
And it's not simply sceptics they are rebutting, BBD.They are (I'm in danger of repeating myself here) rebutting other well-qualified scientists in disciplines relevant to climate science, including physics, geology and, perhaps most importantly statistics (about which they appear largely to be woefully ignorant) because they refuse to countenance any hypothesis other than their own!
And — just to prove that I am when roused capable of a little bit of conspiracy theory — it just so happens, quite coincidentally of course, that the substance they have decided on is the very one which the enviro-extremists want us all to stop emitting for reasons which have nothing at all to do with global warming and everything to do with their philosophy of the pre-industrial simple life in Arcadia (or Erewhon or Cloud-Cuckoo Land or wherever). Somewhere in the Climategate files there is at least a hint of a connection between climate scientists and activist NGOs. When I can dig it out again, I'll post it. There is certainly evidence of a connection between WWF and the IPCC as I posted earlier so I'm not quite paranoid.
Yet.

Oct 2, 2011 at 10:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

Mike Jackson
You don’t have to dig out a quote to demonstrate the parasitic relation between activist NGOs and climate scientists. They can get on perfectly well without exchanging a word, like worms in an itchy bottom.

Oct 2, 2011 at 11:12 AM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

Barry and Geoff

Points taken re: "attributing mental disorders to one’s opponents can only backfire. We’ve all done it, but it’s still not a good tactic." I will put my suspicions on the back burner for now and await further evidence.

Oct 2, 2011 at 12:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterFay Kelly-Tuncay

Mike

I said nothing about 'runaway' global warming. We've known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas for over a century. Increase it and the climate will warm. The Earth will not turn into Venus but whether it will be capable of supporting 9bn people becomes increasingly moot as GAT rises.

Everything you say about natural variation (the putative 60 year cycle; the MWP etc) does not explain recent warming. Since the start of the satellite era (1979), GAT has risen by 0.5C. No coherent, supported explanation for this other than the increasingly dominant radiative forcing from CO2 has emerged.

And it's not simply sceptics they are rebutting, BBD.They are (I'm in danger of repeating myself here) rebutting other well-qualified scientists in disciplines relevant to climate science, including physics, geology and, perhaps most importantly statistics (about which they appear largely to be woefully ignorant) because they refuse to countenance any hypothesis other than their own!

My understanding is that no scientific rebuttal of AGW exists. There are dissident views, but no coherent, properly supported alternative hypothesis has been advanced. I think you are going too far here.

Let's be a bit brutal here. What if you are wrong? What if the majority expert opinion is in fact correct? Which is more likely?

You need a coherent, well-supported counter-hypothesis that explains both why RF from CO2 is having very little effect and what the actual cause or causes of recent warming are. And there isn't one.

Oct 2, 2011 at 8:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

"Everything you say about natural variation (the putative 60 year cycle; the MWP etc) does not explain recent warming. Since the start of the satellite era (1979), GAT has risen by 0.5C. No coherent, supported explanation for this other than the increasingly dominant radiative forcing from CO2 has emerged."

BBD, surely you can see that this statement is self contradiciory? The MWP was at least 2-3 degrees warmer (to farm Geenland and produce red wine in northern England), the LIA was 2-3 degress colder. Historical evidence tells us this. The Vikings did not have SUVs - anthropogenic CO2 had nothing to do with it. Which bit of this do you not understand?

Oct 2, 2011 at 9:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoger Longstaff

Roger Longstaff

BBD, surely you can see that this statement is self contradiciory? The MWP was at least 2-3 degrees warmer (to farm Geenland and produce red wine in northern England), the LIA was 2-3 degress colder. Historical evidence tells us this.

I understand what you say but I think you are over-stating the case. Was England really 2 - 3C warmer during the MWP? For example, can you link to historical evidence for red wine production in northern England during the MWP? I thought the vinyards were all in the south.

What evidence is there that Greenland was 2 - 3C warmer than the mid-C20th?

The Norse settlements were confined to the southwest, which was habitable during the C20th. However, deforestation and soil erosion dating back to the Norse settlement means that the SE coastal strip is now less amenable to agriculture than it once was.

The onset of the LIA most certainly played a part in the demise of the Norse settlement of SE Greenland, but there were other factors too.

What evidence can you provide that the MWP was 2 - 3C warmer than the present in Greenland or the UK? Or anywhere else?

Oct 2, 2011 at 10:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Before this thread becomes yet another of far too many of late that seem to get dragged into unrelated realms ... I thought I'd do my bit to try and get it back on track, now that I've finally gotten around to viewing this video ... and I must say that I find Worthington to be incredibly naïve - albeit quite driven by an ideology in which she, no doubt, fervently believes.

As one who has a habit of "talking with her hands" (sometimes I catch myself doing this even when I'm on the phone!), I do take exception to those who draw from her gestures the possibility of a mental health problem. But then my hands aren't as big as hers ;-) however, one should not rule out the possibility that a camera distortion has contributed to some enlargement - which adds to the distracting nature of her gestures.

And as an English (and psych) major, I also take exception to those who claim that we have nothing to contribute to the debate! Common sense (a quality I've noticed is often lacking in those driven by ideology) is, IMHO, a valid (albeit perhaps not important) contribution!

Despite her naiveté, though, I do give her credit for observing that:

"if you are moving fast often if you bombard people with huge amounts of information they will usually find a couple of things that they object to and then you have to have a process of negotiation on those one or two issues as opposed to the minut[iae] of every single clause, every single policy."

I've often observed something similar to this myself in my previous incarnations! Having worked with many boards and committees in my time, I've noticed that the indication of any board member having read beyond the executive summary – regardless of the advance time in which to do so – is inversely proportional to the number of pages in the entire draft (and often it is the low-cost items that generate the most heated and prolonged discussions).

But that aside, I find it appalling that one so taken with the aims and objectives of FoTE should have "lucked" into the process of drafting this (by her own astonishing admission) "rushed" bill with which you folks in the UK are now saddled.

Mind you, here in BC, we have our own legislated environmental crosses to bear - in no small measure, thanks to the influence and interventions of modellers (and IPCC insiders), Andrew Weaver and Francis Zweirs. And nationally, the CBC is still carrying water for any and all alarmist prognostications, the most recent of which is the 4th in a series of "Climate Prosperity" tracts put out by a (regrettably) government-funded "Think-Tank". (Details are here, for those who might be interested)

Thank goodness for the excellent James Dellingpole and Matt Ridley videos that followed on the heels of this one - otherwise I would have found this to be a very depressing day of Sunday screening!

Oct 3, 2011 at 6:29 AM | Unregistered Commenterhro001

Chris S.

"That baby looks an awful lot like Ed Milliband".
I checked it out side by side.


Chip off the old block. Absolutely.
That's pretty brazen stuff.

Oct 3, 2011 at 6:55 AM | Unregistered Commentercorporate message

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>