Tuesday
Nov192013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Thought for the Day starts thinking
Nov 19, 2013 BBC Climate: Sceptics Energy: grid Energy: wind 
Thought for the Day, the BBC Today Programme's faith spot is usually characterised by a lot of faith and not a lot of thought, particularly where matters of global warming are concerned. It was therefore particularly interesting this morning to hear someone put forward the radical idea that when projects turn out to be foolish or misguided it mightn't be a bad idea to put a stop to them. Indeed there was praise for the Japanese retreat from renewables.
Environmentalists will not be amused.
The audio file is below.
(H/T Roddy Campbell)
Reader Comments (39)
... to hear someone put forward the radical idea that when projects turn out to be foolish or misguided it mightn't be a bad idea to put a stop to them.
That's eco-terrorism thinking; or is it eco-criminality, I forget.
Green => Graft
Carbon => Cartoon
Climate => Careerism
I am baffled on several grounds by anyone who can claim both to be a Christian and a global warming believer.
Firstly there is the obvious point that warmism is itself a competing religion. Worse, it's modelled not on reforming, ascetic and thoughtful reengagement with the basic tenets. Instead it's based on a corrupt sixteenth-century Italian model, complete with a rentier clergy tithing the poor to death but getting away with it because it all feels like such a lovely idea.
Secondly there's the small matter of God's having given a covenant after Noah's flood that there would never be another such flood to destroy the earth. CAGW loonies insist that this covenant is about to be broken. Now God may be an American lawyer, who will argue that technically it's not God but people doing the inundating; or that it's not the whole world that's going to be destroyed, so the covenant is intact. I don't see how a Christian can entertain this bullshit though. The simpler explanation is that the competing religion wants and needs to undermine the tenets of the existing one so they've made it all up.
Thirdly, there's the fact that if CAGW is real, then we have discovered it just in time. Either this is dumb luck - the serendipitous development of science that's never wrong and can see 100 years into the future - or it's Providence. In which case, see 1 and 2.
The fact that none of this is exactly common currency tells one quite reliably that there very little thought behind Thought of the Day.
Sunday 24th Stirling, The Cost of Wind Power – major conference @ScotAgainstSpin
– Stirling 24 @The Albert Halls (in the Republic of Scotland)
Register now for a compelling day Details
10am-3:30pm ..registration & coffee from 9am
Speakers
Professor Anthony Trewavas
Professor Gordon Hughes (Economics)
Jeremy Nicholson (director of the Energy Intensive Users Group )
Dr Mike Hall ..Chemistry and Biology.
Mike Stigwood ..leading expert on wind turbine noise
Mike Haseler ..Industrial Engineer ..former Green Party candidate !
Well it makes a very refreshing change to that religious carbon crusader, John Bell, from the Iona Community who the BBC have been wheeling on to that spot who has been trying to claim the world is doomed if we don't follow his alarmist drivel.
Unfortunately I still remain to be convinced the BBC is repentant for their years of preaching the warmist religion but we'll see. Its a start anyway.
so is that 1 skeptical in 50 shows ? or in 100 or in 300 ?
- even the mythical 97% would mean there should have been 3 in 100 skeptical
..yet this one is the first one ever in 15+ years of alarmists
"Japan is on the naughty step". Lucky Japan. If you are a member of the English speaking peoples you get to be called a denier, even though it is rarely explained in detail what accused deniers are supposedly denying.
Humour aside, thought for the day now just needs to go on thinking. Everyday.
"I am baffled on several grounds by anyone who can claim both to be a Christian and a global warming believer."
I'm baffled by anyone who claims to be a Christian!
"I am baffled on several grounds by anyone who can claim both to be a Christian and a global warming believer."
Why? They are both religions. ;)
stewgreen
That conference could be interesting. The presence of Tony Trewavas ought to provide a certain amount of common sense. He is no lover of eco-fascists being a supporter of GM crops, a loud opponent of at least one local wind farm, and the loser (worse luck) in a libel action brought by Lord Melchett and Greenpeace over a letter to the Glasgow Herald about 12 years ago. I believe he expressed (shall we say) trenchant remarks about organic food!
(We'll forgive his post-doctoral fellowship at UEA!)
Distance prevents my attendance I'm afraid.
I thought I had only dreamed this, since I was only half awake at this point. Turns out it had actually occurred, hip, hip , hooray.
listened to an hilarious programme on BBC radio4 last night.
Called 'Shared planet', it was conducted by someone called Monty Python, or possibly Don.
From beginning to end it mentioned Mann Made Global Warming (or as they call it Climate Change), so many times, I lost count. It was mainly devoted to the magnificent Sequoias in California and their imminent demise due to - you know what.
I can only surmise that our old friend Hairapin must have scripted the programme.
If anyone can be bothered to listen it is available on the iplayer thingie
On a connected issue I have been trying find out who was the numptie in the Climategate emails who said we needed a real climate catastrophe to convince the gullible sheepel to believe in Global Warming. This is particularly important in view of the tragedy in the Philippines.
Thanks in advance.
Don't forget Platitude of the Day
POTD
This seems just as good a place as Unthreaded to mention it.
After the BBC reporting of the Philippines typhoon I wrote and complained about the reporting on their website. Citing their own website from this century as proof of how exaggerated their report was. Today I received my reply, to my great surprise, the BBC actually admitted that they had got it wrong. Although they "utterly refute" any climate change bias.
The key paragraph is as below, there was also the usual stuff about their audience log.
However, this was simply a mistake and we utterly refute the suggestion that it alleged bias in favour of climate change had any relevance to its inclusion as you suggest.
It's the first time I've had the admission of a mistake, although the fact that Black and Harrabin weren't directly involved May have had something to do with that. I didn't listen to the Monty Don piece last night but perhaps a complaint to the BBC about biased content might be in order.
Justice4rinka above says "I am baffled, on several grounds by anyone who claims to be both a Christian and a global warming believer"
I could not agree with you more.
Despite the (anticipated) mockery I will get on here, I am proud to proclaim that I am a practicing Catholic and one of the most vociferous CAGW agnostics you will come across.
These views (beliefs) far from being mutually exclusive, should IMHO, be the territory of any Christian who has studied the Nazi/Markist origins of the great CAGW scares and Adgenda24, as promulgated by the UN, aided and abbeted by the Christian leaders of the world.
One need look no further than that bastion of impartiality - the BBC - who on Sunday morning devoted much airtime to aportioning blame for the Philipines tragedy on MMGW. In this they quoted widely from Christian and secular aid agencies who have, without exception swallowed the Great Lie.
I am in the process of writing an article on this cancerous infection of many well known, mainly Catholic, charities from a layman's perspective.
Whilst yet another scandal in the Catholic Church may be a reason to gloat for some, I do not expect it to receive a Plenary Indulgence from Rome.
Watch this space.
This reminds me very much of the John Bell from the Iona community on his thought for today where he claimed that everything for paedophilia to nazism and wars was down to men (blatant gender hate speech) and in doing so likened climate sceptics to paedophiles, Nazis, etc.
After the The police visited today I got to thinking about why it is that people like John Bell feel they can attack people like me when I've never done them any harm.
It took a long walk and then I realised that this is actually a form of cyber bullying. What people like John Bell did was to give us characteristics that we never had (denying the science, warming, etc.) and then having legitimised us as evil for holding these views (which we do not) they then felt they had a right to launch the most vicious attacks upon us.
The more I think about it, the more I can see this is exactly the tactics of the bully, of the racist, of the homophobe. To create a false stereotype to legitimise attacks.
So, this is a major step forward: that we now have a speaker who is saying that it can be legitimate & even respectable to hold an alternative view on the climate.
Well it must be a slow news day Bish. Still I agree with your basic point. I still can't make my mind up whether the dam will eventually break rush or whether there are so many people with a vested interest in keeping going, that it will not fall in my lifetime. I agree that ever little helps.
BUT while some thinking has been done and thoughts spoken - elsewhere we have
http://www.thegwpf.org/climate-talks-wealthy-countries-urged-foot-bill-weather-related-disasters/
If ever there was a demonstration that GAGW is a mass hysteria event this must surely be it. Developing nations holding their hands for our money (which we don't have) to compensate them for something that has not happened.
We have a childish, gullible Prime Minister who goes around saying warming (what warming) is making extreme weather worse. The IPCC admits that there is no evidence of that. Now people want compensation. You couldn't make it up could you? Oh wait a minute - Well actually Cameron did. Somebody has to make this clown look the fool he is.
Of course the other irrefutable evidence that CAGW is a mass hysteria event is The Warm List of things caused by Global Warming.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
@ Patrick Healy et al
I have no problem with anyone being a Christian. What I do not understand is how anyone who is a Christian can also accept the tenets of CAGW alarmism while failing to notice that it is a religion in itself, and moreover one that commits constant and very specific heresies against Christianity.
James Hansen, who maintains that the world will be inundated, is the very cynosure of a false prophet because he expressly and explicitly contradicts the word of God.
These people are surely heretics asserting that their status as psyentists equips them to refute the Bible. I have no ide what the various churches' procedures are about people like this but they should not be kowtowing to them any more than they should be kissing up to Richard Dawkins.
Mike Haseler
I completely agree with your comments about John Bell of the Iona Community. He is a very nasty piece of work. Reminds you of the intolerance displayed by the catholic church towards anyone who criticised their stance on science in their shall we say darker periods.
It certainly makes you wonder what sort of movement the Iona Community is when they allow this nasty intolerant preaching in their name.
retireddave
From today's DT Letters:-
Cause of the typhoon
SIR – David Cameron has stated that he believes that Typhoon Haiyan was probably caused by man-made climate change.
May I suggest that Mr Cameron remembers the wise advice that on any subject of which one has little or no knowledge it is far better to keep quiet and let others think that you are an idiot than to speak and remove all doubt.
Terry Truebody
Hawkesbury Upton, Gloucestershire
Justice4rinka says "I am baffled, on several grounds by anyone who claims to be both a Christian and a global warming believer".
Tim Ball has drawn attention to the similarity of Al Gore to Chaucer's Pardoner. If anyone has doubts about Chaucer's merit, this Tale is a good place to start.
Nice picture of Iona is it ? (& despite the Community overtones).
For a BBC transmission (is it ?) that Thought for the Day was remarkably relaxed about Japan's about turn.
Pity Australia didn't get acknowledged for its recent enlightenment though, and Germany's which is yet to be declared
It's only 5% Skeptical : It is still well within GreenFantasyLand. I listened to it all ..it's not exactly saying "give up like Japan on renewables , or even just think about geoengineering instead" more like "climate change is real, todays renewables aren't great be like Japan and try to create innovative new renewables"
Why did Japan give up targets ?
- Solar PV is booming in UK ha bloody ha ..and Spain 's massive solar mafia problems is a better situation than Japan ?? YCMIUAP story from yesterday Japan's solar dream shatters as projects fail
Today's Green Biz Spin : "renewables are booming in country Y it's growth is bigger than country X & Japan combined !"
Canon Tilby was still obsessing that 'Climate change is real' because 'all scientists say so'. She was still obsessing about the need to 'save the planet' which doesn't need 'saving' (though people do - separate issue); just saying that Japan might actually be going to come with a wonderful green scheme by 'starting afresh'. Aussie land would still be on the road to green hell by willfully 'denying' there was a problem.
@Mike Haseler : about the alarmists doing namecalling & threats.
: "Skeptics Just shoot them. traitors..." now I guess that is not actionable
It's not a call to violence, that will be taken seriously (similar to the rhetorical "I could bloody kill you")
nor is unfair discrimination/hatespeak
- discrimination : "we don't employ any Nazis here"
- Unfair discrimination : "we don't employ any Norwegians here"
note the second case is different cos it's about something that the person doesn't have a choice over ..You can't choose your nationality, sex, or religion (due to apostasy laws)
- just some opinions I'll put more on your blog
I wonder how this slipped beneath the radar of the Director of BBC Radio, Helen 28gate Boaden; maybe it was considered a token harmless gesture towards lack of bias, or perhaps in her position she doesn't get to roll into the office until mid-morning.
@stewgreeen ... note the second case is different cos it's about something that the person doesn't have a choice over.
Wrong. Consider the following examples:
1. "we don't employ any Christians"
2. "we don't employ any Climate Change Deniers"
3. "we don't employ any Swivel-Eyed, Catastrophist Hamster Eaters"
The distinction between fair and unfair discrimination is a value judgement as to what is fair and unfair.
Bloody obvious, really.
yawn... DNFTT
I find the thought for the day insipid, which is why I rarely listen to it, and when I do can't remember what has been said. As a Baptist, I agree with Justice4Rinka that there are Christian arguments in favour of climate scepticism. Two clear ones.
First, from Matthew 7:15-16&19 comes some very strong language.
That last sentence I am pretty uncomfortable with. At least it does not exhort people to carry retribution - as theologians in the past have wrongly concluded. Verses 15-16 in a modern context could be applied to pseudo-scientists. They are identified by total failure to say anything concrete, or to make accurate predictions.
Second, is the "social" gospel that most of the modern church have as their main outward creed. Given the primary concern is with the poor, why is there not more opposition to how renewables are creating fuel poverty?
Most of the modern church wants to conform and not offend. That usually means going with the flow - or at least with the Guardian / BBC flow.
Green Sand
Love it - and thank you Mr Truebody.
The rather wooly 'Christian' position in (general) favour of the 'Green' position comes largely from the texts enjoining good stewardship of the planet. This is usually embodied by the vague but well meaning 'we must look after the planet' neglecting the texts suggesting that stewardship also implies using the resources to the benefit of all. It's a rather lop sided view that appeals to those who like the warm and fuzzy 'save the polar bear' but forget that their neighbour is freezing and can't afford their heating bill.
Like Patrick, I am a card carrying catholic, and there are others of us in the Bishop's congregation, and have no trouble at all in applying my scientific training to fighting vigorously against the green contagion that threatens to damn the poor and vulnerable to penury and fuel poverty.
I am reassured that Cardinal Pell a year or so back gave a lecture for the GWPF and is also one of Pope Francis's group of 8 senior advisers. Hopefully his influence will have the church's position adopt a more nuanced stance.
Not so reassuring is Cafod's recent advert for a climate change officer!
so is that 1 skeptical in 50 shows ? or in 100 or in 300 ?
- even the mythical 97% would mean there should have been 3 in 100 skeptical
..yet this one is the first one ever in 15+ years of alarmists
Nov 19, 2013 at 12:40 PM | stewgreen
Cross referencing to Ted Nield's article, he mentions that the NIPCC had ~47 contributors and the IPCC had ~ 800.
On that basis the proportion of sceptic scientists is 47/847 = 0.055. That's 94.5% acceptors and 5.5% sceptics.
I find this discussion - religion v. science - quite fascinating, because it's totally distracting and unnecessary.
I share the opinion of astronomer George Coyne, SJ, past director of the Vatican Observatory at Arizona, that religion is Faith and science is Science, and that the two are mutually exclusive - they can never overlap in anyone's Venn diagram.
(Coyne was allegedly removed from his scientific post by Papal instruction, because he firmly placed Intelligent Design in the "Faith" category.)
Nov 20, 2013 at 7:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed
Did your mum write that for you?
On the flip side EM that could just mean 47 deniers have more value than 800 odd catastrophilics :)
Mailman
@ EM
A hundred climate scientist Nazis against common sense
You know? Einstein and stuff?
Argumentum ad populum?
The consensus fallacy?
Boring.
EM plays the numbers game again, the earth would still be flat if that logic was followed.
@ LevelGaze
The point is not whether there are effective arguments for or against ecofascism in religion. Religious arguments either way are not especially persuasive, though we should note that all arguments in support of CAGW are religious in nature.
The issue is why those who represent orthodox religion in the public sphere haven't noticed that CAGW is a blasphemous rival faith incompatible with their Christian beliefs.
I rather think the answer lies in Cumbrian Lad's observation above that the modern church is preoccupied with the social gospel in the Bible. I would go further and suggest that there are quite a lot of people in the higher echelons of organised religion who are constructively agnostics. They are in the Church for the same reason they read the Guardian: they enjoy the holier-than-thou feeling it gives them.
Quite a lot of people's political views arise from the way they make them feel good about themselves. Loony race-obsessed parties always regard their own as the superior race or tribe and despise one or more of the others, the appeal of which is that they get to feel good about themselves. On the left the equivalent moral wank is the pleasant sensation that you are more morally competent than everyone else.
This denier lie is a libel and we should treat it as such.
And in that regard, Andrew, can you tell me whether ZedsDeadBed is based in Scotland or if not the UK.
@Justice4Rinka
Sorry, I've read your comment several times but I just don't quite get your point. I was simply making the case that, logically, science and faith have no overlap and therefore each is irrelevant to the other.
Anyway, as an atheist since age about 8, I've always believed that a man's religion is his own business and no one else's (as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else).
Cheers