Friday
Apr172015
by 
Josh
Josh 
Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Dec 20 - julie
on
Established Fiction Ghostwriters Contribution To Fiction Writing -
Dec 6 - sexdollpartner
on
Established Fiction Ghostwriters Contribution To Fiction Writing
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (89)
What do you think of the "Ecomodernist manifesto" that David Rose tweeted about yesterday?
[J: Greening happening already see http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-greening-of-the-planet.aspx ;-) ]
I assume you mean me. I think I could deal with your commentors calling me a Troll, but the host? I guess name calling is only bad when you object to who is being labelled? It's fine when you want to do so and feel somehow justified in doing so? To be fair, I'm not really complaining, nor all that surprised, but just assumed you might at least try to stay above all this. Plausible deniability and all that. Probably preferable this way, to be honest.
I think Green Luvvies will be very confused by this.
Smoking does wonders for salmon, and they don't cough or complain.
What do YOU think of it Dr Betts?
Another cracker Josh. But after your last comment I can't help thinking of a Putin lookalike called Gobby. (and since I'm not sure you got the reply to your last email the answer is 'yes, just try not to copy my spelling mistakes'.
[Snip - venting]
[Snip - raise the tone please]
Poor Ttloc/Wotts/ATTP/He who shall not be named Ken Rice
Abusing people on your own blog is fine because you can disappear those who object.
Death by dung fire is so Green, it's good for the planet.
TinyCO2
I'm afraid I don't comment publicly on specific policies - that would be against civil service protocol, especially in this period of "purdah" in the run-up to the UK General Election.
Ask me in the pub sometime ;)
Richard Betts - What do you think of the "Ecomodernist manifesto"
Ecomodernism, like two of its authors' Death of Environmentalism paper in 2004, isn't a sufficient departure from or reflection on the excesses of environmentalism. There's lots to agree with, of course. But the rest looks like the authors trying to sustain their cake and eat it.
Ken
I don't think it's unreasonable of Josh to refer to you as a troll, given the number of my threads you have diverted away from the topic at hand. I have been very patient, a courtesy you do not extend to those who disagree with you.
Am I the only one confused by the notion that Greens are plucky David fighting the Big Fossil Goliath when they claim so much influence over the big investors of this world?
Richard Betts
I got as far as the words "stabilise the climate" before words like "arrogance", "hubris", and "delusional" kicked in.What is it with this generation? They remind me of the irate Russian screaming at some Allied commander in 1944; "The trouble is you think we Russians know damn nothing. I tell you we know damn all."
[Take it to the discussion forum]
I think the Editor of Nature deserves to be in the cartoon too, for (ab)using his scientific journal as a mouthpiece for Rusbridger's political activism.
[Take it to the discussion forum]
The Grauniad and the BBC do not seem to understand finance very well. If they sell their shares then others will happily acquire them. It will make no difference to the Oil Companies. Might get a few myself. Once shares are issued they are not an asset to the Company, they are a liability. They only serve a purpose in re-capitalisation and at the moment there is not a lot of that needed. The only way they could influence the Companies is to BUY the shares and then vote them at the AGM. Prats, the lot of them.
I agree with Paul. Campbell has taken some good data-sharing initiatives, if I remember correctly. But as the Wikipedia article states '[his] role is to ensure that the quality and integrity appropriate to the Nature name are maintained...'. Nature's own editorial pages state '[e]ditor-in-Chief, Philip Campbell, is ultimately responsible for the quality of all publications bearing the name Nature in their titles'.
I've seen this happen: scientists and trainees remain tight-lipped about political issues but as soon as the issue is framed and presented in Nature, or Science, they feel free to talk about it.
Been a while since I've been mod-snipped :) Hope he read it before it went.
Yup, I blinked at that one too. TBY, snipped (!) :)
The Left and Greens also abhor all those who disagree with them on issues involving the climate. The so-called "Centre for Media and Democracy" evidently believes in playing the man, not the ball, and thinks that there is something "democratic" in trying to close down debate on climate change policy.
See the list of villains in its Climate Change Portal.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Portal:Climate_Change
"SourceWatch contains extensive documented information on so-called 'climate change skeptics,' their claims and their known corporate or other financiers."
Their pages on sceptics are all hatchet jobs. Among the sceptics featured there is a certain Andrew Montford. The name rings a bell!
Divesting here might mean cheap Shell shares for me.
Every cloud...
Roy (Apr 17, 2015 at 2:13 PM), I see they've marked Bjorn Lomborg as a climate change sceptic even though he's stated many times that he accepts the CAGW meme. Of course, what he doesn't accept is the need for draconian measures to mitigate it, which is really why they hate him.
Many years ago I remember David Milliband declaring that he was a 'denier' during a Newsnight interview... something that piqued my curiosity and helped raise my awareness of just how uncertain the 'science' really was.
steve ta
That's a theory often put forward here, possibly originally by Martin A, and it looks like he might be nearing the end of his term as nothing has appeared on discussion despite two invitations.
EntropicMan has been my favourite so far, although aTTP puts me in mind of BBD's rantings which had entertainment value but little else of merit.
Will this be the first time in the history of the human race that us humans stop using a resource because of worrying about what might happen in the future rather than because we found something better to replace it? Not only that, it is not certain which future will be "best".
Various O/T comments removed
Divestment ethics and realities
February 14, 2015 by Paul Driessen
http://www.cfact.org/2015/02/14/divestment-ethics-and-realities/
~~~~~
ALSO POSTED ON WUWT with comments
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/16/divestment-ethics-and-realities/
~~~~~
Eliminating fossil fuels from investment portfolios hurts colleges, workers and poor families
… with many links
Rob Lyons has a nice piece at The Institute of Ideas that I think Josh and the Bishop might approve of:
There’s nothing ethical about divestment campaigns
...this is about being seen to be green, a symbolic and narcissistic drive to denormalise fossil fuels, to the detriment of everyone.
In displaying their supposedly ethical credentials, these campaigners could make everyone worse off. What’s ethical about that?
Apr 17, 2015 at 12:57 PM | .and Then There's Physics
Diddums. Happy to dish it out - can't take it though. You have nothing to add of any value here Ken - why don't you go and do some work instead? I assume SOMEBODY pays you, even if is not the taxpayer (directly, anyway. Hilariously, Edinburgh Uni is a charity)
EntropicMan has been my favourite so far, although aTTP puts me in mind of BBD's rantings which had entertainment value but little else of merit.
Apr 17, 2015 at 4:24 PM | SandyS
===========================================
EntropicMan's problem is that he is falling to pieces...
Richard Betts.
"What do you think of the "Ecomodernist manifesto" that David Rose tweeted about yesterday?"
1. It's opinion not science, but then forecasting the future with climate models is opinion not science.
2. I pretty much agree with it in it's entirety and the have articulated in much more detail than I could what the history of humans has been and what problems they have solved.
3. It won't make much impact because the people who think this will be starting another day of lobbying, misinformation, character assassination and downright bullying;
"I was making a speech to nearly 200
really hard core, deep environmentalists and I played
a little thought game on them. I said imagine I am the
carbon fairy and I wave a magic wand. We can get rid
of all the carbon in the atmosphere, take it down to
two hundred fifty parts per million and I will ensure
with my little magic wand that we do not go above
two degrees of global warming. However, by waving
my magic wand I will be interfering with the laws of
physics not with people – they will be as selfish, they
will be as desiring of status. The cars will get bigger,
the houses will get bigger, the planes will fly all over
the place but there will be no climate change. And I
asked them, would you ask the fairy to wave its
magic wand? And about 2 people of the 200 raised
their hands."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/analysis/transcripts/25_01_10.txt
Mike you should read it, in more flowery language it pretty much encompasses what I believe, for instance it says there are much more important things for (moral) human beings to worry about than climate change and we're not worrying about them because of climate change and a lot more stuff that should be obvious to anyone who's been around more than a few years on the planet.
... and now Mike Hulme too, Why fossil fuel divestment is a misguided tactic.
geronimo
On your advice I shall read it properly!
But nothing is going to convince me that mankind is capable of "stabilising the climate" and I have great difficulty in believing he is capable of de-stabilising it either. Influencing it at the margins, yes, but beyond that is hubris and arrogance,
I'm sure you, like me, are old enough to remember that it was first wireless waves (no, that's a bit before me!) then television waves, then the atom bomb, then (less successfully) "all they satellites up there" that have been responsible for the good, bad, and indifferent weather we have been having for the last 70 or 80 years.
All disproved except, maybe, at the margins.
I doubt this is any different and will be seen to be no different once the gravy train hits the buffers.
I genuinely rebut any connection between the left and global warming. It's regressive.
Edwit Miliband answered a question from me (Guardian online) . He said that we already lived in socialist heaven and old people could freeze to death for all he cared. No help for fuel poverty.
The Guardian was the biggest recipient of HSBC online advertising revenue . HSBC is the most evil corporation on earth. That is reality.
Mass immigration is brutal, merciless class warfare and the plundering of skills from 3rd world nation for big business. Yet the 'left support it.
Hmmmmm.
Hmmm...Your Grace: I never thought that would happen: I don't mind being snipped for ott comments, but to be totally disappeared? That's a first. I thought that only happened on other blogs.
I have a few fossil fuel shares, all french of course. They pay me a great divi (3.5 - 5%) and capital gain, even in these difficult low cost times, is OK.
Thanks to the rampant socialism in the UK and Europe and the chronie capitalism in the USA my capital gains are approaching 60% over the last 3 years. So by all means divest you half-wits there are plenty of us ready to pick 'em up.
Of course the greeny idiots of the UK media have absolutely no idea how the real world works, so divesting to them probably means just taking their shirt off when they go to bed.
Josh,
This cartoon of yours is getting into the genre of edgy dark cartooning. Good.
I see another cartoon for you regarding your reference to your house troll Ken Rice (University of Edinburg). I assume he doesn't help clean up his intellectual messes he makes when he is done his commenting like a good academic lad should. So you could contrast then against depicting his cleanup skills on his own forum where he disposes of dissenting views; would make a great cartoon.
John
When I looked at the cartoon, what came into my head was the phrase "More power, Igor".
Sorry Michael, it's "more power, Fritz".
Unless you're thinking of baron fronkensteen.....
So the west decides to ban oil exports to the third world to fight Climate Change.
So the developing nations then buy their essential oil supplies from the ISIS controlled oilfields in Iraq or the Boko Haram controlled oil fields in Nigeria or Malitia controlled oil fields in Libya.
Any oil embargo opens up new opportunities for Islamic extremists and rogue States . Even the cartels and vigilanty groups could seize the oil and gas fields in Mexico and start sanctions busting and exporting petrolium and getting in on the act.
aTTP you say you know about physics but you obviously don't know nothing about supply and demand.
When poor people are desperate and they marginalised and then terrorists extremist and criminals come along and they either vote for them or fight for them
Is a fossil fuel embargo imposed by the West on the poorest in the third world really worth the amount of political strife and unessarcary hardship against a minor minis cal hyperthetical temperature rise.
Wars are not fought over Religon they are fought over Resources and Fossil Fuel is a Resource.
aTTP don't you think the Western world would have learnt its lesson from Iraq , Egypt ,Libya, or Latin America and Vietnam don't try imposing Western Values on the third world.
ATTP ... jy is mos net vol kak, ne? ;-)
“People of conscience need to break their ties with corporations financing the injustice of climate change.” Bishop Tutu
Yes Personally I believe divesting of investments in Green Subsidy Mafia who basically steal money from taxpayers and poor bill payers.
I am not prepared to support lending to them to build their mafia wind/solar projects.
...................................
BTW every $ invested in changing coal use to gas use does save CO2
whereas $$ spent trying to replace coal with wind/solar don't seem to save CO2 ..(based on that I have seen no proper cost/benefit analysis for them in practice reducing CO2)
- So if you succeeded in keeping gas more expensive than coal, then you could be sure that coal to gas CO2 reduction wouldn't take place.
- So I conclude that anyone campaigning for gas disinvestment doesn't really care about real world CO2 reduction.
Heres a scenario - A certain newspaper does a huge campaign to get its readers to disinvest in X.
: They collect communications data like email addresses from said readers.
: Certain Green investment companies contact said readers saying "Now you have some spare disinvested money ...."
: Certain sales people make commissions when money is re-invested ..and buy staff of said newspaper a few drinks and push a few adverts the newspapers way.
Hot off the press: Lean's finally flipped: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/11546016/The-scariest-thing-about-global-warming-Giant-super-fast-spiders.html
A comment: 'The imaginary threat of Global Warming, based on the biggest Scientific fraud in History, easily detected by any professional scientist or engineer taught standard Physics, is leading to an extraordinary outbreak of mass insanity in the soft left.
The latest manifestation of this epidemic is our dearly beloved, but stupid, 'Soylent Lean', who clearly doesn't need the wormwood liquor to create nightmares of the World being over-run by Giant Spiders.
The sooner this lunatic is pensioned off by his carbon trading masters, the better. As they say 'Absinthe makes the Heart grow fonder'....:o)'
NCC 1701E
One of the predecessors of the present crop of BBC environment correspondents delivered a couple of articles on inter-species telepathy - specifically mind reading parrots. Lean is retained / salaried DT writer ... the fact that he's left in place while shallow silly kids spout abject rubbish a la Daily Mail tells you all you need to know about the Telegraph.
Lean must trouser upwards of £60K a year as staff... maybe he's just there to make up the numbers for Dave and Freddie's Brecqhou croquet parties?
Is burnng wood better or worse than boiling Easter Bunnies ?
April seems to be the cruelest month for small furry creatures.
The ignorance and cruelty of the warmish knows no bounds
Connie Hedegaard thinks if it does not yield any CO2 dividend at least it does not harm to build all these windmills: Her own rich privileged and indefinite leech/theft, you see, will not be affected by all the misinvestments. So she has covered all the angles of importance to her good parasiting self.
I imagine you are referring to the 'life cycle of the troll' where, after entering their final phase of runaway anger and proliferation of postings, they emulate the oozlum-floozlum bird and disappear for good.
In Ken Rice's case, he exhausted the Bish's patience just as he appeared to be entering the final phase.
I could never make out what ATTP was on about, except that he disagreed in some way with pretty much anything the Bish said and expressed it with levels of condecension ("It's not really very complicated") enough to make any normal person cringe and feel embarrassed for him.
EM is still around - last spotted at ATTP's blog whinging about his lack of success in convincing "the deniers" at BH.
EM should read what SOD has to say on the use of that term. http://scienceofdoom.com/2015/02/04/the-holocaust-climate-science-and-proof/
Didn't the demented Vivian Westwood say "let them eat organic food"
Nothing like very expensive food with no extra nutritional value to non-organic food for the poor.
Harry, I was also disappeared for a comment about the house troll, which can hardly be considered off topic when it is a subject referenced directly in the main post! Whatever, I guess the Bish has the right to remove what he likes.