Books Click images for more details
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
View Printer Friendly Version
Brilliant Josh. You can do darkness too - but the inanity can't and won't be hidden.
DumbleBBC brings you a special climate edition of No Question Time.
It's another cracker.
I'm waiting to hear the "green entrepreneurs" on this http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03ynf5n on Tuesday BBC Radio 4 when I get the chance. There'll be money in them there Mills.
son of mulderPerhaps they'll get Yeo and Deben in for Tuesday.
Or perhaps not.
The disgraced former minister and convicted liar Chris Huhne is again being granted air time on the BBC in news reports concerned with government policy on climate change and yet those who express a view different from the establishment are labelled deniers and are gagged.
It's time the BBC was privatised come on Noel lets see if your team can sort it out... Blobby for director of science programs, couldn't do any worse.
But... "Do I look bovvered?"
and yet, there's an economic-creationist (AKA marxist) in charge of economic reporting for newsnight.
I had the great pleasure of being told, "Oh, you're one of those deniers!" on an Any Answers programme a while back by the great D. The same programme had the splendid elephant trap caller who was 'off-line' using SPs and wind. Dimpleknees fell for it, 'O how nice it must be to so green etc.' Not a bit said the caller, "I'm cold, miserable and can't read a book at night." Shortly after that Dimpleknees handed Any Answers over to some drone in the BBC for fear he'd be made a fool of again.
The debate's over because they say it's over.
Meanwhile, the debate rages on.
What disconcerts me, is that as soon as I get to know a lot about a subject, I realise that what the beeb is pumping out is rubbish. It's only a few subjects so far, but it makes me pretty sure that the rest of what they are pumping out is rubbish as well.If I had the choice, I would not pay for rubbish
I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about. Why would the BBC have a 'debate' between a warmer and a 'skeptic'. There is no debate really (about from the minutiae of cloud feedbacks or something). The science is settled I'm afraid.
Anyway, if you wanted 'balance' you'd have to have a few dozen PhD scientists on one side and someone with no scientific training on the other side (insert any number of names here). What would be the point?
Would you expect the BBC to have a debate between a geologist or biologist and a young earth creationist?
Would you expect the BBC to have a debate between a geographer and a flat-earther?
(Actually, knowing the sort of people on these sort of blogs, I guess the answer is Yes!).
I notice that the Guardian is still giving it both barrels.
If the alarmists are right and we are wrong Monty, why do their predictions fail with such monotonous regularity? In a sane world the alarmists wouldn't have a shred of credibility left.
'What disconcerts me, is that as soon as I get to know a lot about a subject, I realise that what the beeb is pumping out is rubbish. It's only a few subjects so far, but it makes me pretty sure that the rest of what they are pumping out is rubbish as well.'
Politicians and media journalists too- I think spinning and weaving must be a core module in their Social and Political Science training.
Well Monty: I can tell you that in my student days some 55 years ago, when I was lucky enough to have six FRS's among my teachers, any lecturer who claimed that an untested and untestable hypothesis was "settled science" would have been jeered out of an undergraduate lecture theater.This was in what people think, falsely, was a more deferential time.Appeals to authority have no place in science!
- The journalist job is to serve the public by testing claimsBBC progs particularly Science progs keep failing to challenge, so fail the public"Scientists say" doesn't become science until it has been properly VALIDATED and that is a process of strong CHALLENGING... by ANYONE
- But media keep sending an unprepared non-expert journo to do the interview.. when they wouldn't send their cookery journalist to do an item about a new car ! The journalists job is to get the truth for the public by challenging the assertion of the interviewee and if he/she cannot do that then should bring a second expert but all too often with science the journalist fails us and just accepts.. so 20-30% of the time I sit listening saying "what that guy just said is rubbish"
- having another expert is important.. it is noticeable that shows with a panel/audience , bring up more challenges.
- I used to be a normal BBC listener enjoying the BBC's (& other leftwing) science coverage, but in the last 12 years being quite well educated on science I became appalled by the daily deceptions that I kept hearing mostly on green science so that now I find myself everyday checking websites which counter the green religion propaganda that the BBC outputs.- For me and many others the BBC that used to have so much integrity for science has now lost its integrity due to the pattern of green science reporting it has fallen into. I would like the rational world to take back the BBC/media from the grip of the green business and activists.
Gordon Walker says that he used to be taught by six FRS's, and then in the next sentence says "Appeals to authority have no place in science".
You've got to love the irony!
Well done @Pharos ..a classic.- A journos job is to seek the truth on behalf on the public, but
when it comes to the theory of Climate Catastrophe is Coming.. the BBC's crack team of Eco-warrior staff ensure it's NO-Question Time
..ooh as Monty suggests sometimes a second non-expert opinion is allowed but only according to the BBC's racist policy of Greenskins welcome anytime. so they bring on Geneticist Steve Jones or any other pop-scientist, or green activist to show their lack of understanding for the fallacy of argument from authority.
... Poor Monty doesn't understand that if the science was real-world validated., the predictions woudn't keep showing up as ridiculously bad.
Stewgreen: FYI Steve Jones is a scientist. Would you rather have humanities graduates like Delingpole, Lawson, Booker, Phillips, Monckton et al in the discussion about a complicated science?
Actually, I guess you would, because it fits your world view.
It doesn't matter if he is just a clerk in a patent office, what matters is whether he is right.
Yawns DNFTT, but good point Stonyground
Does the BBC have a policy in any other topics of banning non-inclique people from commenting about how - pubic money is spent and how policies limiting freedoms are introduced ?
All hail Big Green !
Stonyground: the difference between the patent office clerk and the 'skeptic' no-hopers is that the clerk wrote several groundbreaking papers.
Do tell me....what paper has Delingpole written?
Or Booker, or Monckton, or Lawson etc etc.
Fox Business News does Eco-scepticism. Several of their hosts are libertarian.Friday's Independents, repeating at 16:00 EDT (3.5 hours away). Description from http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/21/tonight-on-the-independents-environmenta
Chilling stuff. Anyway, "Environmentally Challenged" starts off with a contentious interview about global warming impacts and policies with serial debater Bill Nye the Science Guy. Next comes a discussion about the science of the stuff with Climate Depot skeptic Marc Morano (once tabbed by Media Matters as the "Climate Change Misinformer of the Year") and Center for American Progress Director of Climate Strategy Daniel J. Weiss, who refused to debate directly with Moreno, and chided us for airing his views.
New York Times science writer and friend o' Reason John Tierney is next with an update on his classic and controversial 1996 piece, "Recycling is garbage." Followed by "skeptical environmentalist" and cost/benefit addict Bjorn Lomborg, who talks about comparatively inexpensive solutions to pressing environmental problems, and vice-versa. Energy economist Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute discusses fracking and future energy sources, and beloved Reason Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey talks on one of his favorite themes: how things are actually getting better all the time.
Someone omitted to mention to them that "It ain't over until the fat lady sings."
The troll is so low-information that he thinks 'sceptic' is the opposite of 'scientist'.
Hi Arthur Peacock. So tell me which ones of Delingpole, Monckton, Lawson etc etc you consider as a scientist?
The troll managed to tick most of the fallacies .. Pity too many journos fall for them aswell- 0. Patronise Fallacy or Su Moore's Law "Yeh skeptics they're stupid oil funded right-wingers" - 1. The Fallacy of Rush to Oversimplify - 2. The "White Coat Fallacy" or "The 'Scientists say' equals science fallacy" - 3. "Peer Review equals proven Fallacy" - 4. "The Any White coat Will do fallacy". Hence quoting TV biologists, as climate experts. ( "Scientists say" doesn't become science until it has been properly VALIDATED and that is a process of strong CHALLENGING... by ANYONE ) - 5. "You are not wearing a white coat fallacy" or "ban the skeptics" excuse.
-- Smear tricks instead of proper refutation. All Classic Ad Hominem variations - 6. Shouting "DENIER !" fallacy - An example of the "Poisoning of the wells Fallacy". marks user as an Eco-nazi - 7. Shouting "Big Oil" Fallacy... just a paranoid conspiracy theory. - 8. "You are Flat Earther Fallacy" .. false analogy
when you say:
Gordon Walker says that he used to be taught by six FRS's, and then in the next sentence says "Appeals to authority have no place in science".You've got to love the irony!
Please would you explain what you mean by citing this an example of irony? Surely the point of Gordon Walker's example was to show that your "trollish" appeals to authority in the area of "climate science"should be treated as if they are risible. If, when he was a student, FRS's were not allowed to claim that science ws settled, surely someone of your eminence, sophistication and knowledge should be able to do more than just assert the science is settled "all apart from the minutiae of cloud feedbacks". If that were the case, the GCMs would not be on the verge of falsification, would they, and sea-levels might actually be rising discernibly, and extreme events would be inceasing (or is it this month's orthodoxy that they should be expected to decrease, it is so hard to keep up with the kaleidoscopic nature of climate science)?
Tell them where the missing heat is: that'll shut them up.
Did we already know about this Climate Action charity that is running on the bbc's website ?
Climate Asia Media-Action Their last blogpost was Nov 2013 .. I guess licence payers have been funding it.
Ah I get it Media Action is about training people to be media activists.. but the Asia one is entirely focused on Climate
Maybe the troll has left to bully some smaller kids ?
Hi DiogenesRead IPCC AR5 WG1 for a review of the latest science. There's quite a lot on GCMs, and quite a lot on sea level rise and quite a lot on extreme events. You might even want to read some of the papers cited in WG1.
However, I guess you and the others have been told this a thousand times, and I guess that you won't take the blindest bit of notice. Which is why you're not really 'skeptics' are you?
Monty: Read the AR5 Technical Summary TS.6 Key Uncertainties
Monty - give up on the Argument from Authority - it has no chance on a forum of congenital contrarians, such is this blog. The flaw is that you think quoting your "Authority" absolves you from responsibility for establishing your case. But YOU chose the authority to accept and in doing so must still justify the hypothesis that is presented. If it is unsound - then so are you. Every football fan understands this principle. It doesn't matter what your teams past reputation is - if your thrashed -you've lost! Don't you see Gordon Walkers' point - what are 6 FRSs worth now?
Surely the point is that the climate doesn't change at the BBC?
Diogenese2I'm just pointing out the absurdity of 'skeptics' wanting a balanced discussion on the BBC when the 'skeptic' view is so weak and supported by so few credible people. And I don't think Booker, Delingpole etc are credible.
The fact that you do says volumes!
Actually it's nice to see that the 'skeptic' view has morphed so quickly into a lukewarmer view. I guess we could call this progress. It won't be that long before you are all supporting the consensus, and denying ever having doubted it!!
Monty - what is your source of funding? Mum and dad?
My guess he/she is sat in a quiet solar PV sales office .. So hyping up the cause . by trolling 4 skeptic noticeboards under 4 pseudonyms at the same time
Monty is right - deniers are now moving into the mainstream. Eventually when the consensus on TCR shifts imperceptibly from 3.5C per doubling to 3C to 2.5C to 2C to 1.5C to 1C (at which point it will be obvious that CO2 emissions have been beneficial and any mitigation efforts are entirely counterproductive) everyone but the dragon slayers will have been absorbed by the alarmists, who will claim that they have been right all along.
Just remind me what this thread was about? Ah yes, the mindless intolerance of the global warming fanatics.
Morphing in climate religion/activism*:MMGWCAGWAGW... um... desperate nowclimate change
And then accusing the questioning people who have been pointing to the significance of natural climate change as somehow being 'climate change deniers', something that the climate-scammers were actually guilty of.
*I may have missed a few - there have been so, so many. as the SCAMMERS keep running away from scrutiny.Science-Corrupting, Alarmist, Money-Milking, Eco-Religionists
Monty: "and I don't think Booker, Delingpole etc are credible. The fact that you do says volumes."
You have no idea of my view of Booker and Delingpole though I have commented on the views of "etc" quite critically.The fact that you THINK you know what I think SPEAKS volumes.Actually we have no idea about what YOU think about any of the issues of "science" raised either. Thankfully we are unlikely ever to find out.
The ranting gets louder and more unpleasant the longer temperatures stubbornly refuse to budge as CO2 levels rise. It would appear that all those brilliant climate scientists the world is blessed with can't see what is staring them in the face. Or maybe they can.
lol.David S, Spot on. But I would say change the word *absorbed* for assimilated.Resistance is futile...
EM disappears, Monty appears. Trolls never last long.
So Monty, chance of hiatus exceeding 15 years in climate models, less than 5%. Models already disproved by reality at 95% CI?
When hiatus reaches 20 years, all climate models will have failed. As the APS transcript clearly shows, even the mainstream warmist scientists know they are less than three years from their climate models being completely trashed. What then? AGW is not a proper hypothesis and is totally reliant on modelling. When models don't match reality....well all I have to do is wait and see.
I don't "deny"anything. I just demand a higher standard evidence than has been given. That's because I am a scientist. A proper, sceptical, thinking, intelligent scientist who can read the scientific papers and reach my own conclusions using my independent thought, experience and relevent expertise.
There is no debate really (about from the minutiae of cloud feedbacks or something).
Strangely enough that is what the debate is all about. Do clouds stabilise climate against excursions or do they act as a positive feedback to excursions ?
Answer: (hint: the anthropic principal): We would not be here to ask such a question if clouds were indeed a positive feedback to external forcing.
Hi thinkingscientist (Great name BTW....and immediately falsified by your post!).
What hiatus? 2005, 2010 and 2007 were all warmer than 1998. Right?
And models don't deal with stochastic events (like a cool sun). Right?
And you do accept the basics of climate science (C02 is a GHG, C02 is rising and it's all human; the climate should warm etc)? Right?
And sea levels are rising. Right?
And ice is melting? Right?
And the deep oceans are warming? Right?
And this is all consistent with what climate scientists have argued for two centuries?
You do accept all of this?
Thank you Monty for just demonstrating the shallowness of your case.
Monty,Most skeptics have been lukewarmer- which means we have been and are correct- for quite some time.It is the AGW fundies who have lied about skeptics, seeking to silence us and denigrate us who have stuck with the apocalyptic clap trap and mostly still do both: lie and remain extreme.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.