BBC BLOGS - Richard Black's Earth Watch
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
« Previous | Main | Next »

Campaigning explodes as climate process risks disintegration

Richard Black | 15:55 UK time, Monday, 4 October 2010

This week marks a first for China - the first time that the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and therefore (you can argue) the country whose decisions will most affect the global climate over the next few decades, has hosted a meeting of the UN climate convention.

Sign outside UN climate talks

 

Whether the location will play a part in the progress of the talks is an unknown at this point.

Will China use the stage to announce a measure that could rebuild trust in the fractured UN process, such as tighter regulations on energy efficiency or concessions on international verification of its emissions?

Will it tighten the verbal screws on industrialised nations, especially the US, which it says have not lived up to their pledges on the issue?

Answers may materialise by the end of the week, along with signs of whether trust and progress are on an upward or downward path as December's summit in Cancun, Mexico, looms.

What is certain, though, is that almost a year after the Copenhagen summit, there is tangible fear among some long-time observers that the UN process is close to becoming moribund.

As one such observer recently said privately:

"We are now on the edge of seeing the entire international climate regime system disintegrate and fail more or less irreversibly."

And with it, many would argue, would go any hope of restraining the global average temperature rise within the 2C limit that has become such a commonly-cited touchstone of "maximum safe" warming.

Indications are that the US - which effectively holds power of veto over the talks - is angling to downgrade the role of the UN process.

Officials have constantly and openly praised the Copenhagen Accord, the document agreed behind closed doors by a handful of countries in the last throes of that summit, as a template for action - conscious as they are that it does not have the status of an official UN agreement, and that it's predicated on the concept of unilateral, voluntary actions, rather than the negotiated approach implicit in the UN climate convention.

Factory with smoke in China

China has the highest per-country - but not per-capita - emissions

Assuming that developed countries do come up with significant finance to help their poorer brethren, the Obama administration's preference is to channel this through the World Bank rather than through a UNFCCC body.

And short-term "fast-start" finance, meanwhile, is proceeding through a set of bilateral and multilateral channels without the necessity for any central clearing-house.

All of these acts, and others, work to downplay the central importance of the UN process, and to open up the entire field of climate change agreements to the forces of "politics as usual".

As we have seen over the last year, some developed countries are lobbying for regulations on counting emissions from deforestation in a way that allows them to claim high credits and continue, therefore, to increase industrial emissions.

Fast-start finance can be allocated on the basis of historical ties and in the context of western countries' desire to cement important trade relationships.

There is little notion here of the world finding itself in a mess that affects everyone, and plotting a coherent path out of that mess in a way that helps those at the greatest risk most - which is what the UN convention is ostensibly about.

Now, the talk from officials and politicians is "no binding deal in Cancun - but aiming for a binding deal in South Africa (at the end of 2011)".

If anyone can show me (a) that the US will be able to demonstrate by then that it can meet its Copenhagen Accord target of a 17% cut in emissions between 2005 and 2020, or (b) that there will be genuine desire across all important parties for a binding deal by the end of next year, then please post a comment.

Away from the negotiating halls, environment groups continue to seek new ways of "getting the message across".

Climate change has always been a difficult push for campaigners - and as the years go by, a number of different tacks are inevitably tried, some with more success than others.

Into the "others" category come June's incident with the Saudi Arabian flag and the German toilet bowl - and, last week, the video message from the 10:10 campaign that saw children in a classroom being erased from the register of life if they didn't sign up to urgent climate action.

Written by Richard Curtis of Four Weddings and a Funeral fame, the video went a fair way to redressing the numerical imbalance between celebrations and wakes inherent in that earlier effort.

By way of an apology, 10:10 themselves say:

"With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh."

... a statement that testifies to the increasing desperation many campaigners are feeling at the way things have been going since the beginning of the end of Copenhagen.

Whether or not it made anyone laugh, it's certainly backfired. Dissent among campaigners extended to some groups, including Bill McKibben's 350.org, publicly dissociating themselves from the video.

Gillian Anderson in video

Gillian Anderson starred in the "No Pressure" video

And as with the Saudi toilet incident, people are talking about a campaign bloop rather than the campaign itseif.

The environmental lawyers' group FIELD, meanwhile, is disinterring one of the oldest ideas in the campaigner's handbook - that countries affected by climate impacts could take their higher-emitting counterparts to court for damages.

I first heard of this notion - and I doubt it was new then - back in 1997, at the Earth Summit Plus Five meeting in New York.

There, President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom of the Maldives told me that he and the Alliance of Small Island States was exploring the possibility of suing high-emitting governments if and when their countries disappeared under the waves.

FIELD's new analysis harks back to the 1972 Stockholm Declaration - agreed at the first UN environmental summit - Section 21 of which states that governments have the responsibility...

“...to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction”.

A number of actions have been brought under this rule in various courts, one recent example being the suit lodged by Ecuador against Colombia in 2008 over herbicide spraying along the border, which the plaintiff said was damaging people and wildlife along the Ecuadorian side.

The complexities of building a quantified case for "emissions damage" would be immense.

The fact that such a possibility is being explored again is yet another example of how disillusioned many are feeling about the prospects of governments coming up with anything meaningful through the channel they are all publicly committed to using - the UN convention.

 

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 4:08pm on 04 Oct 2010, jon112dk wrote:

    The sooner all this 'binding target' nonsense dies a death the better - dozens of countries bickering endlessly about targets none of them will ever stick to.

    Let's have some serious targets. How about a date for sustainable biofuel to be available as standard at the petrol pumps?

    Targets like that allow progress towards fossil independence (or cutting CO2 if you are taken in by that) without any rubbish about global inequality or trying to force major economies back to the dark ages.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 4:19pm on 04 Oct 2010, Jack Hughes wrote:

    The Splattergate video is a window into the soul of the greenies at 10:10.

    You are either a member of their cult or .......... BOOM

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 4:33pm on 04 Oct 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    An Emissions Damages case might actually be a good idea. As, given the flimsy and poor nature of the evidence that's available for the plaintiff, it might actually prove to be the final nail in the coffin of the whole CAGW fiasco.

    To defend the case, I'm guessing you'd bring a nation's resources to bear on the matter and I'm not sure that the field of climate studies would be quite up to resisting that ;-)

    So, I for one, think it's a great idea.....

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 4:34pm on 04 Oct 2010, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Another non-apology.

    " At 10:10 we're all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change. Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn.

    Onwards and upwards,

    Franny, Lizzie, Eugenie and the whole 10:10 team"


    Perhaps being a green Sloane Ranger means never having to say sorry.

    In the Guardian piece we read more of their views...

    'Doing nothing about climate change is still a fairly common affliction, even in this day and age. What to do with those people, who are together threatening everybody's existence on this planet? Clearly we don't really think they should be blown up, that's just a joke for the mini-movie, but maybe a little amputating would be a good place to start?" jokes 10:10 founder and Age of Stupid film maker Franny Armstrong.'

    Lets hear that again, Franny...

    "maybe a little amputating would be a good place to start"

    Is this the same Franny that flies all over the world telling people not to ... fly anywhere ?


    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 4:38pm on 04 Oct 2010, danj180 wrote:

    The UK, US and other richer countries are hypocritical to try and get poorer countries to lower their emissions when per person the richer countries have a much higher carbon footprint.

    Outsourcing the manufacturing of our goods to the far east also does nothing for climate change although it makes us think we are reducing emissions when we are not. A bit like off balance sheet accounting. In fact it makes the problem worse due to the extra emmissions from transporting the goods from china to the west!

    I would suggest that we should concentrate on stopping deforestation as that is something we all (even the climate change sceptics?) would agree is important to stop.

    Its a small step but better than doing nothing!

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 4:44pm on 04 Oct 2010, danj180 wrote:

    The world recession itself will help in reducing emmissions.

    Governments around the world should increase taxes on goods, fuel, air travel etc etc. You could even start putting lower rate VAT (5%) on foods with a high carbon footprint (eg. apples from new zealand, meat)

    It would help reduce emissions and help govts raise revenue to reduce their deficits.

    I'm not so sure about the carbon trading. It seems like a wheeze for banks to make even more money. Governments should just raise taxs to change behaviour - they need the money.

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 5:11pm on 04 Oct 2010, Smiffie wrote:

    I think that both the big players and the campaign groups know that it is all over, they will just go through the motions for a bit longer, warming belongs to the Gordon Brown era of politics.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 5:19pm on 04 Oct 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:

    There's a one-eyed yellow idol to the north of Khatmandu,
    There's a little marble cross below the town;
    There's a broken-hearted woman tends the grave of Mad Carew,
    And the Yellow God forever gazes down.

    (Credit: J Milton Hayes 1911 - recite the rest if it takes your fancy!)

    substitute CO2 for the yellow idol and remember that Khatmandu was supposed to once have been a lake.

    Our planet's climate changes and CO2 levels change - BUT there is no scientific evidence that CO2 drives the change. You can postulate linkages (and multiply them by 2!) and it still does not match the way planetary climate has changed over the millennia of recorded time.

    We do know that pollution by sulphur causes acid rain which kills plants and we also know that soot and particulates hurts living systems. We also know that we should make the most efficient use of our finite natural resources. However possession by the green eye of the little yellow god (CO2!) will destroy the careers of those that support the bad CO2 science just as it did Mad Carew and what is more they will have no cross at which a broken-hearted woman can weep!

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 5:21pm on 04 Oct 2010, jon112dk wrote:

    5. At 4:38pm on 04 Oct 2010, danj180 wrote:
    The UK, US and other richer countries are hypocritical to try and get poorer countries to lower their emissions when per person the richer countries have a much higher carbon footprint.
    ===========================================================

    The 'environmentalists' reveal their true agenda with arguments like this.

    If the agenda is really 'environment' then a ton of CO2 created by one american driving his truck is no different than a ton of CO2 created by ten indonesians burning down a forest. CO2 is CO2 to the atmosphere - we would all need to reduce emissions.

    Arguments that america must cut, whilst indonesia can increase, are about inequality and socialism, not environment.

    A lot of people have seen through this piggy backing of other agendas, which is why the uprising against ecopanic is gaining pace with ordinary people. The minority who still believe are on the back foot.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 5:29pm on 04 Oct 2010, fdp100 wrote:

    The way forward is what Chris Huhne is doing which is:- 1. take steps to achieve the national target 2.persuade members of the EU to achieve their targets and go for 30% reduction by 2020 3. Go to international meetings with a a growing national achievement behind him.
    My opinion is that the only way to reach international concensus is to set a CO2 emission limit for every individual. Developed countries will then have to make massive cuts and developing countries will be able to increase their emissions until they reach their limits. And the price of oil will rise so high we will all going to hell in a handcart if we do nothing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 6:04pm on 04 Oct 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    considering that China produces nearly 100% of rare earth elements and 95% of rare earth oxides that the "sustainable" energy producers need to build and operate wind miles, solar panels etc, it wouldn't surprise me if China are on board, even if they are building 2 500MW coal fired plants a week

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 6:16pm on 04 Oct 2010, beesaman wrote:

    Hurray! The 10:10 murder all oppponents, even if they are innocent children, hate film has made it onto the BBC enviro site! Late and cut down to almost nothing, buried in amongst other news too I see.
    A real insight into the hard core environmentalist pysche.
    Let's see if my dissent gets posted?

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 6:17pm on 04 Oct 2010, Spanglerboy wrote:

    Blunderbunny

    Roy Spencer has just been involved ina mock trial on global warming -
    see http://www.drroyspencer.com/

    Stuck in the lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 6:23pm on 04 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    I notice you stayed scrupiously neutral wrt the 10:10 video Richard, for which i can hardly blame you given your situation. Are you able to give your opinion on it's suitability and if so what is it?

    Personally, this campaign revealed a very sinister bent in the more ardent environmentalists, that i always suspected to be there, but never REALLY credited. The absolute non-apology is further indication that they just don't get what they did wrong- further proof if any were needed to their worryingly unhinged states.

    The REAL sad part of this is that it almost, and i mean by a nats ####, made me damn all environmental acts in one go. So incensed was i. This is what i'm worried about. I can seperate these idiots form the wider 'green' movement (c02 aside), but many will not and i am genuinley worried that aside from damaging the cAGW case further it significantly damages all environmentalism. Which in my book is an even bigger crime for which they are yet to answer- though we are seeing the penny drop in a few quarters by the hasty distancing and manouvering going on.

    Re- Curbing deforestation, i agree wholeheartedly especially in 'untouched' areas. This needs far more urgent action than setting arbitrary c02 targets.

    Re- co2 targets. Here we go again, we've all been here before haven't we. The targets are useless, less than useless infact as the carbon trading mechanism will allow people to gain credits for NOT cutting down trees (perhaps ones they never intended to) and then actually emit MORE whilst
    a) appearing to reduce emmisions and
    b) make a shed load of money.

    Those that believe in these targets are naive beyond belief.

    Re- legal action against 'polluters'. I welcome it and hope that it not only happens, but happens as soon as possible. I can gaurantee the cAGW theory will not last 5 minutes in court.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 6:44pm on 04 Oct 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    hot on the heels of 10:10 comes another propaganda effort, this time supported by the NSF!

    http://www.princeton.edu/arts/arts_at_princeton/princeton_atelier/ateliers/great-immensity/

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 6:48pm on 04 Oct 2010, Jensen wrote:

    Very pleased to hear that there is a real chance that this climate change scam could be falling to pieces.
    It is based upon the most dodgy politico-science ever seen and perhaps the silent majority are waking up to the left wing politics that underpins this codswallop.
    As for the 10:10 video, do you condemn or condone this video Richard?
    Regarding its message - join us or we'll kill you - at last, the truth will always out.
    To all the eco-loons, we, the paying public, don't want to play any more, you've shown yourself for what you really are and could the BBC please re-assign all the correspondents that are working on this fake subject to something useful please?

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 6:49pm on 04 Oct 2010, Greenpa wrote:

    Sad to see the paid climate deniers in full throat here; be aware, Richard (in case you're not already) they can and do completely silence genuine discussion. And yes; 95% of them are PAID; they are not genuine humans with genuine opinions. It's quite well documented, though that discussion has been hushed greatly now:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/page/0/

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/07/climate-change-denial-industry

    Andy Revkin over at the NYT has lost a good deal of credibility - and function- by allowing paid deniers to blanket his blogs with their blather. They can be ruled out, in several ways, so that real conversation can go on.

    To anyone honestly seeking to know what scientists think about climate change- it's virtually impossible to find a genuine qualified scientist who doubts it at all. Yes, you can find dentists who doubt (and call themselves "Doctor"); and you can find a couple geologists (all over 70 years old...), and it's quite easy to find MBA's who got C- grades in high school chemistry. But NO ONE else. Really. Ask them, yourself; and ignore this malarky about "everyone is getting wise to the con!" It's a con.

    ------------------------------------------

    Speaking of actual conversation:

    "As one such observer recently said privately:

    'We are now on the edge of seeing the entire international climate regime system disintegrate and fail more or less irreversibly.' "

    I've been a technical speaker at 3 international climate change conferences, starting in 1988. From my own experiences, watching the political dynamics, I'd have to say we are already past the point of disintegration.

    Even to begin with, the diplomacy and issues were difficult in the extreme. But there was- great good will, and honest discussion. Much of the good will, and the honesty, has disappeared.

    Evidence- even for those countries signing agreements- actual compliance is dismal. Improving factual compliance seems literally impossible to me in the current international political, uh, climate.

    Best, perhaps, to seek other pathways forward. No, it's not going to be pretty.

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 6:50pm on 04 Oct 2010, Gordon wrote:

    Mr Black 9I'm being polite) please explain why rich Hollywood luvvies have the NERVE to preach about climate change when THEY are (like you, Harrabin and Shuckman) the biggest individual polluters on the planet?

    I challenge any Hollywood luvvie to compare my CO2 footprint to theirs. In fact Mr Black I BET my CO2 footprint is miles lower than yours. How do I know? Well I live in a small house and have only flown ONCE in 15 years (to Jersey)

    When will someone actually put Hollywood luvvies on the spot? THEY need to give up flying and so does the BBC.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 6:54pm on 04 Oct 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    Richard BLack.

    "Indications are that the US - which effectively holds power of veto over the talks - is angling to downgrade the role of the UN process."

    US American national and corporate interests to hold the world to ransom?

    unsurprising and hardly news; however, there is one small consolation for the 'rest of us': global environmental disasters and events do not respect national boundaries.

    in the spirit of today -- free-marketeering, consumerist, fascist -- let us all consume together then, helping the US of A to mismanage our scarce resources and shared environment as best we can (anything to speed up the demise of the human vermin). G*d bless America. LOL

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 7:07pm on 04 Oct 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @greenpa #17

    at least you are funnier than the 10:10 video

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 7:16pm on 04 Oct 2010, petewibble wrote:

    Greenpa, where do I sign up to be a "paid denier"? Foolish me, I've being doing it for free!

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 7:20pm on 04 Oct 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @MangoChutneyUKOK #15

    Oh Dear! They really are getting desperate now. I almost feel sorry for them......... Almost, but not quite........ I really, really can't wait for the court case.

    As to this:

    @Greenpa #17

    "Sad to see the paid climate deniers in full throat here; be aware, Richard (in case you're not already) they can and do completely silence genuine discussion. And yes; 95% of them are PAID; they are not genuine humans with genuine opinions"

    So we are being Paid, are we? That's News, to me - I'm still waiting for my free decoder ring.

    And, "not Human" - If you really need to know why your side is most definitely losing the argument, you've only got to look at your own post. Honestly Mate, I think it's time for you to move away from the keyboard.

    You might want to consider a career in making AGW videos - Personally, I think you'd fit right in.

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 7:29pm on 04 Oct 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    10:10 is a barking mad video bordering on visual terrorism. Be afraid, be very afraid, what kind of balanced message is that? I have gone into sense-of-humour failure.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 7:34pm on 04 Oct 2010, Paul Kerr wrote:

    @Richard

    What could be called Splattergate comes at a uniquely bad time for promoting the 'cause'.The 10:10 film represents the most unpleasant attempt yet to sell the catastropic AGW story. Public money was used for this

    'Erased from the register of life' is a pathetic euphemism for a very graphic representaion of children (deniers presumably) being blown up as there classmates gasp in horror

    This used charitible money to promote a political/pseudoscience cause, yet again demonstrating in a peculiar and unexpected way the degree of intolerance out there.Strange that Richard was discussing this very issue.

    In this case the BBCs commentary was yet again reduced to a timid critique suggesting some cranks thought it OTT, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11458726
    when in actual fact thousands of people were expressing outrage from all sides

    Yes, not so bad, teach the children the way to deal with awkward people is to just blow them up.It does tell you how close to reality the 1010 people are, some of them seriously thought it was good

    So as we approach the day of action I hope the BBC allows a discussion of how much this self destructive rubbish cost

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 7:40pm on 04 Oct 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Spanglerboy

    Thanks for the link.

    No need to feel stuck in the Lobby - We'll try and make it more welcoming - Would a few flowers or soft furnishings help? A party or some sort of fundraiser/party might be in order, especially, if we're all supposed to be being paid ;-)

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 7:42pm on 04 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Greenpa #17 wrote:

    Sad to see the paid climate deniers in full throat here

    We "paid deniers" seem to be in awful "full throat" all over the place -- such as the 10:10 website, before they removed the comments, which were nearly all furiously unsympathetic to the "No Pressure" promotional movie/ad/clip thing (whatever it is/was -- it seems to keep changing, like the climate).

    You guys seem to score one embarrassing "own goal" after another. Have you considered the possibility that your opponents are not "paid deniers" but ordinary, decent, moderately intelligent people who disagree with you? Your campaigns might fare a bit better if you confronted the uncomfortable fact that most people simply think your ideals are misguided.

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 7:44pm on 04 Oct 2010, Smiffie wrote:

    We have already had “we know who you are and we know where you live” from warmists, my fear is that now that things are not going their way, some may resort to terrorism.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 7:45pm on 04 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    jr4412 #19 wrote:

    the spirit of today -- free-marketeering, consumerist, fascist --

    Do you use the word 'fascist' for anyone whose political opinions differ from your own? If not, I'd be interested in (what you can tell me about) how you use the word.

    'Fascist' is a strong word, you see -- so we'd better be clear about how we use it. How clear are you?

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 7:46pm on 04 Oct 2010, petewibble wrote:

    Richard, just kidding but even you must admit your phrase "children in a classroom being erased from the register of life if they didn't sign up to urgent climate action." reads so much better than "exploding schoolkids".

    Your choice of wording is way better than the spin elsewhere on the web of British humour, Monty Python etc. So kudos for that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 7:49pm on 04 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    I humbly suggest to the BBC moderator that the term 'paid denier' might break BBC house rules, as it seems to me to be potentially libelous.

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 7:55pm on 04 Oct 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    don't refer the comment to the moderator

    leaving the comment just shows how ridiculous they are

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 7:56pm on 04 Oct 2010, Rajan Alexander wrote:

    10 tell tale signs that the global warming is a dying hoax

    Global warming hysteria, whose gravy train INGOs and environmental organizations jumped into for the last decade or so, has run its course. Climate alarmism is dying a slow and painful death. Here are some telltale signs that it is in its deathbed, grasping for its last breath:

    1. Re-branding exercises

    We live in this age of advertisement where if something isn't working, the first remedy is often to change the offending name. Repeated attempts to re-brand global warming are one of these. Global warming first metamorphosed as “climate change”. This worked for some years but such was the gross misuse and abuse of the term that the public soon developed allergic to this term too and thus the desperate search for an alternative term in the last few months. Some alternatives recently floated are “climate weirdness” and “climate disruption “, the last coined by President Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren.

    Read more: http://devconsultancygroup.blogspot.com/2010/09/for-climate-justice-activists-living-in.html

    It’s not only sceptics that have raised our flags of victory. George Monbiot, the journalist czar of global warming, of the Guardian, just conceded defeat in his latest blog "Climate change enlightenment was fun while it lasted. But now it's dead" Read more:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/20/climate-change-negotiations-failure

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 7:59pm on 04 Oct 2010, Paul Kerr wrote:

    @petewibble

    You are so right praise where praise is due, I bet Richard worked at that one
    "children in a classroom being erased from the register of life if they didn't sign up to urgent climate action."

    What I would love to know is how free he is to speak is mind or is his work scrutinised to check compliance with BBC 'consensus policy'

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 8:02pm on 04 Oct 2010, Greenpa wrote:

    bowmanthetard - I can't TELL you how happy I'd be to see you in court. :-)

    Truly hilarious! what a lot of scurrying!

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 8:08pm on 04 Oct 2010, Paul Kerr wrote:

    @ Greenpa

    'they are not genuine humans with genuine opinions.'

    thats another good line I suppose thats the message in the film.

    The problem is the whole problem with modern media is people think they can pay to alter peoples opinion on any issue.

    Recent events seem to suggest this applies more to the 'warmist camp'

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 8:23pm on 04 Oct 2010, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    The Western governments are in a financial mess. The continuing release of more banks in trouble as the real numbers are released places the governments in a difficult position. Having bailed out the banks they have no appetite to talk about cap and trade which it just another tax. There seems to be an idea that if the matter is not discussed it will simply go away. This will be dealt with because it will be required to do so. The deniers will chant their mantras of nonsense right to the very end.
    There are only leaders under the thumb of big oil and coal in office so the future is dim. The stupidity of not creating new employment with conversion to a new energy source is very short-sighted, but that is the waqy of politics. Short term gain at the expense of the future.

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 8:24pm on 04 Oct 2010, petewibble wrote:

    Paul Kerr, I believe Richard had a hard time from the faithful on a recent piece about the Arctic so we should give him a break.

    The BBC's Paul Hudson has been excellent recently (irony, he got me interested in all this a couple of years ago saying "snow was going to be a rare event"), he's changed his tune somewhat since then.

    Also there's a fairly decent one planet interview with Richard Lindzen on this link http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p009yfwl/One_Planet_Climate_change_pot_plants_and_small_frogs/

    So we can't expect it all our own way.

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 8:27pm on 04 Oct 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    bowmanthebard #28.

    "Do you use the word 'fascist' for anyone whose political opinions differ from your own?"

    no.

    "If not, I'd be interested in (what you can tell me about) how you use the word. 'Fascist' is a strong word, you see -- so we'd better be clear about how we use it."

    I do see. as for use, I'm fine with:

    "Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy." (from Wikipedia)

    could add militaristic, disdaining cultural diversity and other traits, but why bother, I doubt your 'interest' is genuine.

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 8:28pm on 04 Oct 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @greenpa

    could i suggest you read or re-read Richards post

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/09/something_new_and_not_altogeth.html

    it's called

    'Warmist' attack smacks of 'sceptical' intolerance

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 8:30pm on 04 Oct 2010, Greenpa wrote:

    "Recent events seem to suggest this applies more to the 'warmist camp' "

    Oh, puuleeze. Rule # 1 of the Public Opinion Manipulation Manual: repeat any lie you want 10 times; 90% of the readership will remember it as true, on week later".

    (There's peer reviewed research proving that, folks, and the denier-bots know it well.)

    If I repeated "Paul Kerr has wooden teeth!" 10 times- it would be undeniable tomorrow.

    No, to any actual humans reading; the truth is, most serious conversationalists have simply got better things to do than listen to endless bladder-banging; without receiving thoughtful - and, um, informed - replies.

    And yes, Paul Kerr has wooden teeth; I saw it in the Inquirer. :-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 8:40pm on 04 Oct 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    The last laugh is yet to come. When we are all squatting on our compost toilets(water restrictions) the ones who are the most full of excreta will be the ones to suffer the most. Now I am extracting the urine.

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 8:42pm on 04 Oct 2010, Paul Kerr wrote:

    Petewibble

    Agreed, I think Richard is now the more public face(opinion) on the web however

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 9:08pm on 04 Oct 2010, Paul Kerr wrote:

    @Greenpa


    I think more money is being spent to promote the belief in catastrophic global warming by governments in the western world. This is self evident and the narrow view that decarbonisation will some how save the world is being broadcast far and wide eg.
    http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Environmentandgreenerliving/Thewiderenvironment/Climatechange/DG_072920

    ps My teeth are not perfect in a cosmetic sense but they are real

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 9:16pm on 04 Oct 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    In the UK
    Something no one here appears to be asking. When there is a change of government, what happens to the domestic renewable energy agreements supported by government? Do the agreements still apply after a change of government or do householders have to pay the full cost of their renewable energy choices? Did the change of government also change the long term planning and investment in renewable energy proposed by the previous government?

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 9:17pm on 04 Oct 2010, Greenpa wrote:

    39. At 8:28pm on 04 Oct 2010, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
    @greenpa

    "could i suggest you read or re-read Richards post"

    Glad to do it, and a good suggestion. I read all 3. Mostly looks to me like all parties involved in that tempest in a teaspoon are just tired, and tending to get tetchy.

    Richard's original article doesn't mention AGW - it's a TINY bit odd, but not more; my own first reaction would be just that he's tired of going through all that "and" "if" "but" crap one more time, so he left it out for once. Fine with me; not like we didn't all know it already!

    The other guy's attack is just silly; maybe he had something to eat that disagreed with him; Corexit flavored shrimp, or something. My guess is that if they both had a beer with Obama, they'd shake hands and look sheepish. :-)

    Gosh, humans getting huffy. What a surprise! :-) In case you hadn't noticed, if Person A starts pointing and calling names, the Point-Callee tends to eventually respond in kind.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 9:21pm on 04 Oct 2010, beesaman wrote:

    I see the warmists like Greepa are trying to de-humanise any opponents,
    quote " they are not genuine humans with genuine opinions.."
    So what are we then, sub-human? Wasn't there a rather unpleasant man with a silly moustache that had a similar message?
    I wish someone would pay me, but then common sense can't be bought, unlike the 10:10 propganda.

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 9:24pm on 04 Oct 2010, Greenpa wrote:

    Actually, Richard; and no need to post this bit if you don't care to, I wrote a rather long essay in two parts on the problem of understanding what scientists say, several years ago, on my blog. You might find it interesting, and even useful- so, indeed, might other actual humans with unshuttered minds-

    http://littlebloginthebigwoods.blogspot.com/2007/08/pants-on-fire-part-1.html
    http://littlebloginthebigwoods.blogspot.com/2007/08/pants-on-fire-part-2.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 9:26pm on 04 Oct 2010, Greenpa wrote:

    43. At 9:08pm on 04 Oct 2010, Paul Kerr wrote:
    @Greenpa

    "ps My teeth are not perfect in a cosmetic sense but they are real"

    AH HA! Denier!! Your teeth are wood, and everybody knows it! Your mother told me so, last week! And it was in all the Brussels papers!

    :-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 9:31pm on 04 Oct 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @greenpa #47

    from your blog:

    The bug is hanging on, and besides making it difficult to eat or work, it's making my brain very foggy yet.

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 9:49pm on 04 Oct 2010, Paul Kerr wrote:

    Greenpa, I will go to the dentist and check just in case, good blog

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 10:13pm on 04 Oct 2010, 60022Mallard wrote:

    Talking about recent 50th anniversary celebrations in Nigeria the BBC proudly announced that over 50% of the population is now under 18.
    I believe the situation is somewhat similar. The Child Poverty Action Group told us on The World at One today that Bangladeshi families in the U.K. have larger families than average.

    The alarmists used to call it "man made global warming" but now that seems to have morphed to the undeniable "climate change", which it has since long before man populated the earth.

    Where is the alarmists pressure on reducing world population growth rates? Win, win on use of resources and man made climate change, but not a peep. Strange that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 10:17pm on 04 Oct 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    looks like 10:10 really has shot itself in the foot with this video - sponsors and 350.org have ceased dealing with 10:10

    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 10:34pm on 04 Oct 2010, GeoffWard wrote:

    11. At 6:04pm on 04 Oct 2010, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
    considering that China produces nearly 100% of rare earth elements and 95% of rare earth oxides that the "sustainable" energy producers need to build and operate wind miles, solar panels etc, it wouldn't surprise me if China are on board, even if they are building 2 500MW coal fired plants a week

    ....................
    Mango,
    there is plenty of the rare earth elements available outside China, it's just that it has been cheaper for us all (especially the USA) to import rather than mine. The policy is now going into fast reverse.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 10:49pm on 04 Oct 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @GeoffWard #53

    there is plenty of the rare earth elements available outside China, it's just that it has been cheaper for us all (especially the USA) to import rather than mine. The policy is now going into fast reverse

    my understanding is much of the rare earth elements in the US are located in protected areas. Please correct me if i am wrong

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 11:12pm on 04 Oct 2010, GeoffWard wrote:

    14. At 6:23pm on 04 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:
    ".... Re: legal action against 'polluters'. I welcome it and hope that it not only happens, but happens as soon as possible. I can gaurantee the cAGW theory will not last 5 minutes in court."
    .................
    .
    The biggest and best - and potentially win-able case to bring is not against AGW, which is NOT win-able in a court of law - but against the metal-mining corporations, especially for damage and cleanup costs *for however long erradication takes*, and especially in the USA where legal damages will be maximal.
    .
    But even the slightest hint that the Federal judicary intend to bring litigation againt any of the major mining corporations, perhaps a Class Action to establish modern case law, will send companies and State legislators into terminal panic.
    .
    All big and multinational mining corporations will immediately split the extracting arms of their corporation off into a mass of small, seperate, low-capitalised and asset-poor companies, each well able to go bankrupt at a moments notice.
    .
    Thus, any move to do this will result in State pressure to 'dissuade' the litigants from pursuing, because they know that the burden of Environmental (EPA) huge clean-up costs will fall on them and their tax-payers. Not just for the immediate future but for a generation or two and potentially for hundreds of years - such is the residuality of heavy metals in a mass-extraction environment.
    .
    There has to be a halfway-house, which recognises past malpractice, protects the present population in the pollution-zone, compensates those historically exposed and suffering, and does not bankrupt the state/nation.
    .
    As political funds are frequently provided by the mining corporations, an honest broker is the ideal facilitator.
    .
    Does anybody know one?
    .

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 00:17am on 05 Oct 2010, GeoffWard wrote:

    “The 1972 Stockholm Declaration - agreed at the first UN environmental summit - Section 21 of which states that governments have the responsibility...“...to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction”.
    The complexities of building a quantified case for "emissions damage" would be immense.
    The fact that such a possibility is being explored again is yet another example of how disillusioned many are feeling about the prospects of governments coming up with anything meaningful through the channel they are all publicly committed to using - the UN convention.” (Richard Black’s Earth Watch, 4/10/2010)
    …………………………………………………………………………………..
    .
    I remember that we were talking extensively then, in the 1970s, about acid rain driven on the prevailing winds to Sweden in particular, with the major culprit being Poland’s brown coal fuel & its power stations’ emissions.
    .
    Subsequently, Chernobyl acted as a point source with trans-boundary effects across many nations.
    .
    I remember receiving weekly Caesium 137 contamination tables from MAFF for soil, grass and sheep across the UK, and particularly in the highlands and Cumbria. Over a number of years we plotted the Chernobyl cloud right into our food and into us.
    .
    If any uncomplicated case under Stockholm Section 21 existed it was Chernobyl.
    .
    Non-point-source emissions of (e.g.) CO2, which are ubiquitously generated and dispersed with inherently poorly-plotted complexity, present a scenario of huge profits for lawyers but with miniscule probabilities of ‘winning the case’ in any meaningful sense.
    .
    The likelihood that the UN could do anything useful is remote in the extreme.
    .
    Perhaps the best hope is that China leads where the USA abjectly failed to assume the mantle expected of the world super-power. We have all been party to saddling China with the world’s industrial waste problem. There was always going to be a lag phase between production and waste-control. We must support the China programme of amelioration and clean-up, even though it is of vast proportions.
    .
    Taking ‘down-wind’ legal action against China will be counter-productive, though I’m sure that Japan is currently itching to twist the tiger’s tail again.

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 00:30am on 05 Oct 2010, quake wrote:

    9. jon112dk wrote:

    "Arguments that america must cut, whilst indonesia can increase, are about inequality and socialism, not environment. A lot of people have seen through this piggy backing of other agendas, which is why the uprising against ecopanic is gaining pace with ordinary people. The minority who still believe are on the back foot."

    And your counterpart in Indonesia complains that global warming is just an agenda by the West to suppress the Indonesian economy by demanding their emissions per capita are never allowed to reach those of the West.

    One of you is wrong. Perhaps both of you:

    What if there are no ulterior motives (or at least non in the driving seat) and the argument made is actually one of common sense. Think of it as rationing. If it was determined that the average amount of oil per person worldwide should be 5 barrels per person, then why should one country be allowed more than their fair share?

    Or think of it another way - what chance have you got of Indonesia (let alone all the other countries) agreeing that powerful countriesw should get bigger rations? I imagine zip.

    We would have a situation for decades where Indonesia was capped to say 1 barrel of oil per person while the US was capped to 10 per person. That doesn't actually seem very fair. I wasn't alive during WWII but I am sure the food rationing system didn't work like that.

    And I don't even have a dog in this fight.

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 00:33am on 05 Oct 2010, GeoffWard wrote:


    'there is plenty of the rare earth elements available outside China, it's just that it has been cheaper for us all (especially the USA) to import rather than mine. The policy is now going into fast reverse' Me @ 53

    'my understanding is much of the rare earth elements in the US are located in protected areas. Please correct me if i am wrong' Mango @ 54

    ..................

    Hi Mango,

    it's getting a bit late to check-out your Q, but 'after all, tomorrow is another day'.

    It's worth reflecting on the US involvement in the oil fields in Ecuador's amazonia World Biosphere Reserve. But you may be right about the higher level responsibility in one's own backyard.

    Ate amanha
    Geoff.



    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 00:40am on 05 Oct 2010, quake wrote:

    This is from an earlier response to the blog article:
    "Our planet's climate changes and CO2 levels change - BUT there is no scientific evidence that CO2 drives the change. You can postulate linkages (and multiply them by 2!) and it still does not match the way planetary climate has changed over the millennia of recorded time."

    Just want to point out this is incorrect. There is evidence that CO2 can drive climate. It is why skepticism of manmade global warming in a literal sense, is incorrect. The biggest travesty of this issue is that skeptics are getting away with pretending there is zero substance to human induced climate change.

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 03:33am on 05 Oct 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    "Will it [China] tighten the verbal screws on industrialised nations, especially the US, which it says have not lived up to their pledges on the issue?"

    That would be a very bad mistake. Right now the US is in no mood to be trifled with by China or anyone else. America's economy is not recovering the way many hoped for and China is one of the culprits or scapegoats depending on how you look at it being blamed. Congress in considering various provocative actions including tarrifs for what is perceived as China's manipulation of the currency markets to its own advantage. A verbal assault on the US by China would guarantee that the talks will fail. The US might even walk out. President Obama looks to be soft on America's adversaries. This would give him an opportunity to prove otherwise.

    The European environmentalists especially have only themselves to blame. They made the entire climate change issue a political instead of a scientific discussion to bash America and that blew up in their faces as well. East Anglia University was just the icing on the cake. If there is to be a real discussion, those who hid their data should come clean with everything they've got and let everyone including their most ardent critics and skeptics have a first hand look at it and decide for themselves. Until that happens, the world will not move on their warnings and admonishions. At the moment their cause seems hopeless and now a lot of people see it that way too.

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 03:53am on 05 Oct 2010, Jake Schmidt wrote:

    Richard,

    Thanks for the summary. I agree that the uncertainty around the US is a problem. We for one aren't giving up on getting the US towards the 17% target. It will require using the existing tools that it has and probably adding some tools over time. The Obama Administration will have to continue implementing those existing tools, while building the case (and political capital) for a climate bill. So sorry we don't have the complete roadmap that you are asking for, but at least we have some roads (the existing tools) and a driver that appears like he wants to get to a certain point (addressing climate change). We'll try to make sure that those roads lead us most effectively in the right direction.

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 04:44am on 05 Oct 2010, Bob Ryan wrote:

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 04:59am on 05 Oct 2010, Bob Ryan wrote:

    I take a sceptical view of the science of global warming because in the scientific arena that is what one should always be. I make no apology for that and would dare to suggest that if the scientists involved had been a little more sceptical and open then the debate would have nowhere near the ferocity it has now. But, to be clear, I regard the reduction of CO2 emissions as of primary importance in order to conserve the planets limited ability to regenerate its natural resources and to ensure that the growing population - largely in the developing world - has access to energy and to a future. The issue of causality between CO2 emissions and climate temperature is a diversion. Irrespective of the science we need to rebalance the world’s consumption of fossil fuels onto a sustainable basis. I hope therefore that the China conference bears fruit and a route can be found through the mess wrought by the collapse of Copenhagen, ‘Climategate’ and now this highly offensive video from 10:10.

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 07:13am on 05 Oct 2010, PAWB46 wrote:

    Damn, I didn't know I could have been getting paid for being a denier.

    Better to be a denier than to be psychotic, like those at 10:10.

    I prefer 1010. We should aim to get atmospheric CO2 to 1010ppm. The plants will love it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 07:57am on 05 Oct 2010, spud wrote:

    lets get real, if governments were realy concerned about all this they would pay for insulations/solar panels ( not just give a bit off the price), thus creating jobs etc. not just giving lip service. make enviromental cars etc cheaper than petrol run cars not 2 or 3 times more expensive. so lets get real and stop all this rubbish about green taxes etc just another way to con us tax payers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 08:02am on 05 Oct 2010, TVGgirl wrote:

    Richard -- you asked for evidence that the US could meet its 17% (on 2005 levels) reduction target. Here you go: http://www.wri.org/publication/reducing-ghg-emissions-using-existing-federal-authorities-and-state-action WRI's conclusion: for the next six years, the US can get onto the 17% pathway through administrative measures. After that they'll need additional tools and a price on carbon.

    #4 @Jack Hughes "Perhaps being a green Sloane Ranger means never having to say sorry." The headline for that post read "sorry", and you neglected to include the part where they said "we sincerely apologize" http://www.1010global.org/uk (which is more than any of those attacking climate scientists on a very personal level have ever done). And I think it's a stretch to suggest that this video seriously advocates violence -- anymore than South Park does. Stupid yes, evil no.

    #9 @jon112dk Errr this isn't an environmentalist agenda, but the concept of "common but differentiated responsibility" which is part of the original UNFCCC treaty -- something the US signed up to under the Republican Administration of George HW Bush. It has the force of law...


    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 08:04am on 05 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    jr4412 #38 wrote:

    "Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy." (from Wikipedia)

    In other words, anyone who disagrees with your "anti-corporatist" perspective is a "fascist"? You'll have to do better than that!

    You are using a truly ridiculous definition of fascism -- one that minimizes the injustices of the Third Reich, the horrors of the Holocaust and the miseries of the Second World War. It attempts to assimilate those outrages to the behaviour of oil companies, hamburger franchises and software manufacturers.

    Above all it is a silly definition, written no doubt by a middle-class armchair socialist who conveniently overlooks the fact that fascism is a kind of socialism.

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 08:06am on 05 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Greenpa #47 wrote:

    I wrote a rather long essay in two parts on the problem of understanding what scientists say

    That's too long for me to read. Could you say something brief here instead about "the problem of understanding what the scientists say", or about your criteria for counting someone a "scientist", or for demarcating who are "the" scientists?

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 09:12am on 05 Oct 2010, vidl wrote:

    Sony has now pulled their sponsorship from 10:10.

    "...we strongly condemn the “No Pressure” video which was conceived, produced and released by 10:10 entirely without the knowledge or involvement of Sony. The company considers the video to be ill-conceived and in extremely bad taste....As a result we have taken the decision to disassociate ourselves from 10:10 at this time."

    Sony and Kyocera Mita have now been removed from the list of partners http://www.1010global.org/uk/partners

    Just O2 to go, now. The rest of government quangos and companies with a vested interest in "carbon consulting".

    Here's 10:10's final solution to "Cutting Carbon" [sic: it's CO2, a harmless gas, not Carbon they want to cut)
    0:10's final solution to too much CO2 production? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmBnVjy4vagps

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 09:20am on 05 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ quake # 59

    "Our planet's climate changes and CO2 levels change - BUT there is no scientific evidence that CO2 drives the change."

    and your response

    "There is evidence that CO2 can drive climate. It is why skepticism of manmade global warming in a literal sense, is incorrect"

    you are not actually responding to the point made. You are asserting that co2 COULD or CAN drive climate which is true, however that is not what was said in the section you linked. They were saying there was no proof that co2 drove climate change, not that it wasn't posisble.

    If you are going to go to the trouble of responding to someone, at least have the decency to actually respond to what they were saying.

    THIS i find is the biggest problem with the cAGW proponents stance. Assumption is used to back assumption, rather than actual evidence.

    @ greenpa.

    I too would LOVE to know where the funding for the skeptics was handed out as i'd really appreciate my share. mortgage to pay and all that. However your argument, if you can call it such, falls apart after even a cursory look into the finances invilved. So i can only assume that you are trolling for the sake of trolling and not interested in any actual debate.

    I would also suggest that instead of responding to some sort of fantastical characature of skeptics that you seem to have in your mind, that you actually take time to read what some of us post. Most are balanced, perfectly reasonable (when not provoked) and raise valid questions.

    to re-iterate, if someone could prove climate sensitivity wrt co2 was high and show the mechanisms of clouds did infact behave as the IPCC posit, i would change my stance over night.

    I would wager significant money that were the opposite to be proved, you and many like you would not do the same.

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 09:22am on 05 Oct 2010, Wolfiewoods wrote:

    Re “paid climate deniers”, it seems unbelievable that big oil would not use their wealth in this way, it is well documented that China pays blogers to post pro government propaganda, do people really think that big oil does not do the same thing? As for climate deniers not being proper people, well of course they are people, but people who care not what damage they do.

    So what is the profile of a paid climate denier? I would think somebody of reasonable intelligence with a lot of time on their hands living on quite a small income, retired people, stay at home mums etc. I don’t believe that any of these people actually believe the things that they are saying.

    It is time for the BBC to stop giving these people a platform, despite what deniers say the debate really is setteled.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 09:25am on 05 Oct 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    Greenpa,
    I am not a paid denier (Surely a measure of tights)

    I am a scientist

    I have an Ology as Maureen Lipmann would say

    I graduated from a decent Uni (St Andrews) and when I got my degree they werent doleing them out like sweets.

    My degree was in celllular biology.
    My main project went on to be used in the development of some very useful anti diabetes drugs.

    I understand scientific method and I for one resent your assumption that I and the other climate realists are anything other than people who can see 'the climate emperor is wearing no clothes'

    I am not in the pay of big oil but actually run my own printing business.

    Warmists and believers that the 'Climate emperors suit is simply super and beautiful and colourful' can try to picture us a nutters/ranters/dailmailreaders/exxon/bp stooges but its simply not true.

    Franny wanny and Tricky Dicky and the rest of the tofu luvvies who produced the 10:10 video are guilty on quite a few counts.

    1 Smugness. The video is full of righteous self congratulation based on 'we're' on the right side and disbelievers are characters to be lampooned debased and in this case blown up

    2 Propaganda. This video was aimed at kids using marketing techniques to imply that you should join the agw gang otherwise you are worthless. Pretty sick when you dissect it.

    3 Theft of public money. Yes the time of the actors was given for free but was the time of the editing staff and the production staff? Who paid for the cameras and editing equipment? I cannot believe that a percentage of the government subsidy for 10:10 wasnt used on this misguided piece.

    4 Being unfunny. I didnt laugh. Many didnt laugh. Most that I know didnt laugh. Tango ad style graphics can be funny when delivered well this just looked like a bunch of trendy vicars trying to be funny and 'down with the kids'. Sad really as I actually like most of mr Curtis's movies. Nice for christmas and a cuddle with a good bottle of wine and all that. This one just ended up feeling a bit lame and also a bit sinister when you dig deeper.

    Young Mr Black trys to bury this story but he can tell how bad the reaction has been by how many post hes got.

    So in conclusion . Greenpa you are wrong, plain and simple. You may be proved right about your weird belief in Mother Gaia and Al Gore but I doubt it. Only time will tell. No you are wrong in painting the members of the public with sceptical views as ignorant uneducated or stooges paid by big oil. I am none of the above as are many like me.

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 09:26am on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Greenpa #17
    (@MangoChutneyUKOK)
    (@petewibble)
    (@blunderbunny)
    (@bowmanthebard)
    (@Paul Kerr)

    Yes, some of that money is responsible for the creation of internet memes like Chicken Licken. It also supports or supported some well known lobbyists.

    Some funding and links to Oil and/or right wing think tanks is very upfront. Here's right wing think tank CFACT linking to Climate Depot and vice versa.

    http://www.cfact.org/
    http://www.climatedepot.com/

    There is the occasional sockpuppet out there. Sometimes this can be amusing. Check out the way "spacedout" goes from third person references ("North stands by his work"), to first person references ("Yours sincerely, Richard North (Dr)") after apparently getting sussed by another poster at CiF.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jun/24/sunday-times-amazongate-ipcc?showallcomments=true

    But why would Big Oil or Big Money pay for wall to wall astroturf when there are so many grass roots sceptics willing to do it for free.

    And you must live in a bit of a bubble to not personally know at least one AGW sceptic member of the general public willing to dispense his wisdom, appreciated or not.

    I strongly suggest you look at the voices behind the sceptics posting here. We are not talking slimy PR types.

    And as for suggesting that bowmanthebard, with his frequent tendency to take the conversation into areas covered by the work of Wittgenstein might be some sort of paid stooge ... Seriously LOL.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 09:32am on 05 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ wolfiewoods.

    Wow. just wow.

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 09:36am on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @beesaman #12

    "Late and cut down to almost nothing, buried in amongst other news too I see."

    It was on the front page of the BBC website on Saturday, towards the top so you didn't even need to scroll down. It was towards the top of the front page for some time, I think over a day. And very little stays on the front page of the BBC website for more than a day or so.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11458726

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 09:50am on 05 Oct 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    Wolfie,
    Lol
    Genius.
    Do you sit in a room with a little aluminium foil hat on in case the sky fairies get you?
    Honestly I read your post and nearly wet myself. In fact I have to admit a tiny bit of wee came out. Absolute comedy genius.

    I can see it now, gangs of disgruntled grannies in Shell/esso/bp tshirts beavering away coming up with witty retorts.

    Well welcome ladies I hope you have had a nice cup of tea and a hobnob while digesting the paranoia that pervades the religion of AGW.
    Absolute genius.

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 09:54am on 05 Oct 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    Jane, How long did O'donnell the witch stay on the front page? 2 maybe 3 days.
    So someone who wins a primary in one state of the US gets top billing but Tricky Dickys gorefest getting pulled gets a few nano seconds.
    Talk about news management.

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 10:08am on 05 Oct 2010, quake wrote:

    Re 70. LabMunkey:

    He was implying there is no evidence that co2 can drive climate. Ie "co2 didn't drive climate in the past" (long silence implying that therefore there's no evidence that it can drive it today).

    The main flaw with his argument is that co2 changes were caused by temperature changes in the past, making it difficult to disentangle the co2-caused-by-temperature and the temperature-caused-by co2. That differs from today where co2 changes are being caused by man. So there is no past precedent, except perhaps the PETM.

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 10:17am on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Paddytoplad
    (@Wolfiewoods)

    Always a good idea to check someone's posting history before starting with the tin foil hat cracks.

    Oh, and just for the lulz
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMKsR_wUSfA

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 10:21am on 05 Oct 2010, JunkkMale wrote:

    I am an enviro-campaigner, and proactive initiative supporter, albeit it a pragmatic one more keen on reducing waste and improving efficiencies than vague 'big picture' (though important if not key) and endless 'awareness' scares.

    For the life of me I can't see how so many can witter away in one breath about growing economies and populations without seeing more stuff will be going up in smoke and appreciating the complexities of that. And the extent of A in AGW still seems so hazy as to warrant serious investigation before pouring bazillions down a bunch of green holes in the name of 'saving the planet'.

    This little 10:10 episode was awful on many levels.

    But one swallow does not a summer make. Hence the actions and deeds of a few should not be so easily used to tar anyone else who suits who might, at a stretch, be easily covered in gore too. Many rather extreme activist groups have bargepoled 10:10, rather cynically in my view, but they know a lame duck when they see one.

    But, for heaven's sake, even other global 10:10 outposts have holllered (all the good stuff, so hard fought for, done already, and coming... smothered). However, the 'leaders', the 'y's and the 'ies' and the Jemimas, are all here. And their mindsets, in conceiving this and then so woefully defending it, have to be acknowledged.

    Look at the support their weasels have garnered to date, including by our national broadcaster's few, now discredited, 'eco' 'experts'. Masterpieces of watertight oversight, with an outing on a website used as an example of coverage, when anything from a non-BBC approved direction that imploded would have Sian and Bill intoning solemnly, asking your views and reading out what the ediots prefer as 'a sample of opinion'.

    What, like the 'many found it funny, but some were upset' attempt at spin such as the Graun tried to push, with cheeks burning, before they pulled their comments thread? Even the most ardent green could see the disconnect between 10:10 even balance - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11458726 ''...split between those congratulating the team and others who thought it was in bad taste' Split???? - and 100:1 not too thrilled.

    They really don't get 'it' at all, and are trying to spin the misplaced humour line as a stawman, just as they try to spin as denial that the climate changes to what some would like to think all AGW sceptics are focussed on.

    It's the attitudes, stupids! The self-righteous, 'we are right, you are wrong' arrogance that only they know. Or else. No pressure.

    Not all, or even a majority of eco types are rabid social engineers bent on domination of their religious belief system by any means, ignoring or suppressing any counter-view, but too many are, and they seem to appeal to and have the ear of some in the MSM. With some 'objective' 'reporters/editors/analysts' and their bosses fully mantra chanting, signed-up congregation members.

    That's the problem. And compared to the possible future threats of a deteriorating global environment (for whatever reason), this assault on free speech and democracy in its name are clearer and more present dangers still.

    Let Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot back in via the back door, and you also get their enviro notions, too. Don't recall those working out too well for the planet, from poisoned lakes to destroyed agriculture.

    And yet I still read groupies sneering about priorities.

    I for one don't want to live on a planet with such folk in charge.

    Hence I'll address that as much as doing my bit to help create as good a legacy as I can to my kids.

    I am my own person. And proud to be so. Though it seems I am also to some, in such a sinister manner, seen as 'these people'.

    It is time for the BBC to stop giving these people a platform, despite what deniers say the debate really is setteled.

    The historical precedents are not good. But at least the counter-PR, which does seem more organised if not paid, is still as inept as the original piece and its initial official defence (though the advice reaching them now seems to have seen some move from utter denial on their own part).

    Hope this opinion by one person doesn't again see this thread 'closed for comments'. But if it does, I'd suggest a different target for any response. No pressure.

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 10:27am on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Paddytoplad #77

    Very little stuff is on the front page two days running. But the Beeb's 10:10 news piece was.

    And the O'Donnell story is much more significant than your #77 acknowledges. It was a major unexpected gain for the Tea Party movement, with obvious implications for a Tea Party candidate, probably Palin, for the 2012 Republican candidate for the presidential election. This at a time when the Obama presidency is doing very badly in the polls.

    You do see that the possibility of Sarah Palin winning the Republican nomination in 2012 would be a big story, don't you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 10:35am on 05 Oct 2010, petewibble wrote:

    Re JaneBasingstoke

    I appreciate you spending ages typing all that up. However, the 10:10 video is important because there's no longer a need for this pointless back and forth.

    I could spend ages talking about the upside-down Tiljander series, the MWP, selective self fulling peer review, the billions spent in climate research, the trillions in the carbon markets etc, etc

    But why bother? I just need to post a single link to your 10:10 video and most people get the message loud and clear.

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 10:36am on 05 Oct 2010, petewibble wrote:

    Oh and I'm serious, if I can become a paid denier somebody give me a link, I want to sign up.

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 10:38am on 05 Oct 2010, purpleDogzzz wrote:

    10:10 have issued another apology, a rather more sincere-sounding one this time, but I am sure that having lost all, bar one, of their big money sponsors, is just a coincidence.

    Now that the money is drying up, suddenly they "realise" that there may have been a problem with the depiction of blowing up kids for having a different opinion.

    Even then they do not concede that this video shows that for weeks and weeks they had no issue with the notion of blowing up children merely for being sceptical of CO2 driven climate catastrophe. That it did not occur to them that the NAZI-like dehumanisation of their opponents was a sick descent into the propaganda of fascism. What if someone had produced an identical video de-humanising gays, or blacks, or Muslims? I would bet that Franny, Curtis and their left wing twitterati of supporters would have brought down servers and slowed the internet to a crawl in their barrage of protest. But dehumanising people for having the gall to hold a contrary opinion on the right? That is acceptable to these left wing bigoted hypocrites.

    There was nothing scientific in support of their cause in this film. Nothing credible to support the narrative of this film and nothing of humorous value either. It was pure dehumanisation of a pre-picked enemy.

    Their first, arrogant, condescending non-apology used the same statistical ignorance as their climate "science". Complaints on their own site from the moment the video was posted were running 90% hostile and negative to the video. Their apology claimed that lots of people thought it was funny, but some did not, suggesting a majority in favour.

    Just More distortions from the human hating enviro-lunatics. The sooner 10:10 is outlawed as an extremist organisation, and it's leaders jailed for their part in hate crimes, the better.

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 10:45am on 05 Oct 2010, purpleDogzzz wrote:

    @67. At 08:04am on 05 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard,

    My overly simplified definition and distinction between socialism/communism on the one side and fascism on the other is as follows.

    Under a socialist system, the boot stamping on your face forever has a national flag on it.

    Under a fascist system, the boot has a company's corporate logo.

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 10:50am on 05 Oct 2010, minuend wrote:

    The 10:10 video demostrates how to achieve consensus, simply blow up your critics. The environmental movement is now a home for extremists and authoritarianism.

    This video should be shown to school kids in order to explain how little difference there is between facism, communism, religous fanaticism and environmentalism. Indeed the killing of critics, unbelievers and those deemed less worthy is a trait all four now share.

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 10:53am on 05 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    jr4412 #19:

    the spirit of today -- free-marketeering, consumerist, fascist

    jr4412 #38 wrote:

    why bother, I doubt your 'interest' is genuine.

    I assure you my interest in fascism is completely genuine. As a left-leaning liberal, I oppose the ideology of libertarianism and the unregulated market. Perhaps my abhorrence of that way of thinking is the result of the many uncomfortable affinities between liberalism and libertarianism -- for example, both are the result of enlightenment values such as respect for freedom of thought and expression, although one is on the left and the other is on the right. Recent semi-educated socialists have taken to calling libertarianism "neo-liberalism", presumably to evoke the neo-conservative movement.

    Much as I dislike libertarianism -- I believe lack of regulation gives rise to famines, monopolies, and many kinds of injustice -- it is just plain sloppy, even fantasist, to describe it as "fascism". A central feature of fascism is its contempt for the individual, and its insistence on conceiving questions of justice in terms of groups ("aryans", "non-aryans", what have you). For all their failings, free-marketeers just don't think like that.

    As for "consumerism", ordinary people like to buy things -- clothes, cars, houses, etc.. The word 'consumerist' sounds like a rude word for ordinary people who inconveniently refuse to go along with silly, hypocritical socialist slogans such as "property is theft". I can think of nothing particularly "consumerist" about Mussolinini's Italy, Hitler's Germany, or Franco's Spain.

    Many socialists use the word 'fascism' as a blanket term to justify extreme actions -- such as "no platforming". That way, they can pretend to themselves that their own "communitarianism" is distinct from the group-thinking of fascists, and that their socialism is distinct from the "national socialism" of Hitler et al.

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 10:56am on 05 Oct 2010, Smiffie wrote:

    Paid climate deniers? don’t believe it, guess that makes me a paid climate denier denier.

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 11:08am on 05 Oct 2010, purpleDogzzz wrote:

    Woolfie, seriously, Where can I find these grants? I have spent the past 5 years posting in favour of rational climate science, and opposing the silly extremists on both sides. Are you saying that I could have made some money doing this???? DOh!!!

    Please, before you post anything else, back up you wild assertion with proof and state where I can apply for such funding...

    Yes there is climate change. The fact is the climate has always changed and it always will change.

    Yes CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" insofar as it does absorb radiative heat in a specific range of the spectrum.

    Yes man has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    There is ZERO proof that this increase has warmed the atmosphere enough to trigger the feedbacks as feared by extremist climate alarmists.

    Much of the statistical analysis of historical proxy records was very poor, as shown by statistitions who know what they are doing. People like Steve Mckintyre, who contrary to alarmist propaganda also believes in the possibility human induced climate disruption as a theory and was wanting access to Michael Mann's detailed work to check the statistical analysis of the data in order to measure how much warming has taken place. He was NOT trying to rubbish man-made global warming.

    As an aside, Michael Mann is now being investigated for fraudulently exagerating his previous work in order to use the alarmism to claim more grant money. I await the outcome of this civil invastigation with great interest.

    So far, the predictions from the extremists have not showed any sign of coming true. The latest science shows that CO2 is warming the planet, slightly, 0.7 degrees C per century, but that the atmosphere is a much more robust thermostat and is NOT significantly sensitive to a doubling of CO2 as even the moderate claims of the IPCC, let alone the extremist claims of Mann, Hansen et all. The logarythmic nature of the warming capacity of the CO2 molecules means that if CO2 doubled from now, 380ppm to approximately 800ppm that there would be roughly half the warming that came from the near doubling of CO2 from 200 - 380ppm. A doubling again to 1600ppm would result in a quarter of the warming again. However, There is not enough carbon based fuel on the planet to create 1600ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Anyone who claims that the debate is over is either extremely ignorant of the current state of science, (as even the Royal Society has now softened its stance on the climate change debate and admits that there is indeed much more scientific uncertianty about the rate and extent of human induced climate warming), or they are being deliberatly disingenuous.

    Even the head of the IPCC has admitted that there is debate and he welcomes it.

    So wolfie, put your inflated opinions and wild conspiracy theories to the test. Post links to prove your paranioa about evil oil companies that pay for sceptics to post to online blogs.

    Would these be the same evil oil companies who are funding climate alarmist research too? In fact giving significantly more money to the alarmists than to the sceptics?

    Seriously, post links.

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 11:10am on 05 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    purpleDogzzz #85 wrote:

    Under a fascist system, the boot has a company's corporate logo.

    The only genuinely fascist corporate logo I can think of was that of Volkswagen, who used slave labour in their factories. But that was a time of "total war", with extremes of behaviour and large-scale nationalized industries on all sides.

    The idea that any big international company supplying wanted -- note, wanted -- goods to consumers who freely buy them is "fascist" is just laughable. And it trivializes real fascism in a really creepy way. I ask you, can't post-sixties generations think of something more worthwhile to do with their brainless teenage years? What happened to the adolescent joys of swallowing goldfish? Or singing with a big old-fashioned megaphone while wearing a big letter on your front?

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 11:13am on 05 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ quake #78.
    I agree largely with what you're saying actually. So if i were being overly pedantic, i apologise.

    I would add one point though.

    You rightly raised this: "making it difficult to disentangle the co2-caused-by-temperature and the temperature-caused-by co2"- which is an astute observation, however you seem (from that post) to have missed the point that this too can apply to recent changes.

    You are right, we cannot say that co2 has driven (or not) the climate in the past due to the fact that temperature seems to drive co2 levels. However, when you apply this to human released co2 this does not automatically prove that co2 is the cause of the recent temperature rises, just as it cannot be used to disprove it either.

    To put it another way there is no way, using these two factors alone (temp and co2 levels) to distinguish between the following two statements:

    1-Co2 release is caused by temperature. High co2 levels at present have little to no effect on overall temperature levels as temperature is the primary driver of co2 levels and co2 has little influence on temp (so the increased co2 levels have no effect). i.e. there is no causal link.

    2-C02 has an insulating effect and ‘shores up’ any temperature rise. Once the initial onset has occurred (driven by natural factors) the co2 slightly re-inforces the warming trend. Current levels of co2 are driving temperature up. i.e. there is a causal link.

    This of course doesn’t preclude either possibility, but hopefully shows how trying to prove ANY link from just those two data sets is not only pointless, but counterproductive.


    Re-10:10.
    interestingly it this kind of puts richards article on 'warmists' using 'skeptic' tactics into a whole new light!! Must be a lovely ivory tower up there in the BBC...

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 11:15am on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @petewibble #82

    I never said the 10:10 story was unimportant. My point is that the BBC picked up on it comparatively early for a mainstream news outlet and treated it with more importance than others posting here seem to recognise.

    Incidentally it's not my video. When I first saw it I thought it was just a satire by mainstream greens on extremist greens. (Like Animal Farm is a satire by a lefty on hard left Stalinism.) But despite this innocuous interpretation I didn't find it funny because they pitched it wrong for my background. (I am perpetually having to show sceptics that despite being an environmentalist I am not an ecofascist.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 11:16am on 05 Oct 2010, JunkkMale wrote:

    ps:

    May I commend today's http://dilbert.com/

    No reason.

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 11:16am on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Smiffie

    "denier denier"

    LOL

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 11:24am on 05 Oct 2010, pph wrote:

    11. At 6:04pm on 04 Oct 2010, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:

    "wind miles"
    Now that may have just been a 'slip-of-the-pen' there Mango, but it sounds like something that could be picked up and traded on the open market. Maybe you have just accidently happened upon a logical extension to carbon trading :-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 11:26am on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @bowmanthebard #87
    (@jr4412)

    "Recent semi-educated socialists have taken to calling libertarianism "neo-liberalism", presumably to evoke the neo-conservative movement."

    Er, perhaps the term is to cover those free marketeers who have co-opted Adam Smith and ignored stuff they don't like.

    http://www.adamsmith.org/adam-smith/

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 11:41am on 05 Oct 2010, purpleDogzzz wrote:

    "The idea that any big international company supplying wanted -- note, wanted -- goods to consumers who freely buy them is "fascist" is just laughable."

    You are deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote.

    Fascism is a monolithic entity like extreme socialism. The difference between the two is in how it gains power. The Communist/Socialist model uses the state mechanism to create nationalised supply to meet controlled demand. It all comes from the state.

    Fascism is a merger between corporation and state whereby the state ignores free-markets and competition and supply-demand, but allows, and indeed encourages the monopoly of certain corporations over the people. Instead of using their own state-funded police and secret police and state storm troopers, they would use a privatised police and secret police. The contracts for running the police would not be open to competition, but agreed behind closed doors by cronies of the government elite. They would enforce absolute rule with a privatised army.

    This is why I state that the boot would have a corporate logo on it.

    If you want a model of fascism. look at how the almost destroyed city of Fallujah was run after the marines destroyed most of it. Privatised contractors enforcing total marshal military law. Citizens having to carry mandated biometric id at all times or face death, citizens having to notify the authorities of their intended travel plans within the city in advance, or face death. Citizens drafted onto work teams to clean up the rubble of their city on pain of death if they did not comply.

    I am in no way associating the likes of Cadbury PLC, or Intercontinental Hotels PLC, or Sainsbury's or any other FTSE 100 company of being a fascist company or being in any way associated with establishing a fascist state.

    Hitler's Germany was not a true model of fascism. It was closer to national socialism, although many large corporations were utilising slave labour from prison camps, not just VW.

    Please do not misrepresent what I was claiming again.

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 11:43am on 05 Oct 2010, petewibble wrote:

    Re JaneBasingstoke, 10:10 is the most significant event since the emails came to light.
    Trying arguing your case in the face of the parody videos that are now sweeping the net.

    Warning the below video link is graphic, it's also not a real interview about 10:10 from Richard Curtis, but as Richard Black linked the original video at the top of this page, I think it's fair to link a PARODY with again the disclaimer GRAPHIC CONTENT BELOW.

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 12:02pm on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @purpleDogzzz #89
    (@Wolfiewoods)

    Seriously. Don't you people check posters' histories before assuming that they are coming out all conspiracist?

    Just for the lulz, here's The Onion Mission Control blog
    http://omissioncontrol.blogspot.com/

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 12:06pm on 05 Oct 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    Junk Science;

    "I am an enviro-campaigner, and proactive initiative supporter, albeit it a pragmatic one more keen on reducing waste and improving efficiencies than vague 'big picture' (though important if not key) and endless 'awareness' scares."

    Even if the science your ilk already accepts as gospel truth turns out to be correct and you manage to get the political force necessary to impose your program, your Euronic solution will not work. The marginal per capita savings your approach would achieve is spit in the ocean compared to the size of the problem. It is so pathetically feeble as to be laughable. Is it better than doing nothing? No it is worse because it gives the illusion that it will matter when it won't. If the problem of climate change is the result of human activity, you'd have to return the world to a pre-industrial age to reduce CO2 enough to change things. All the wind farms you can build and all the solar panels you can manufacture and install won't add up to a hill of beans.

    There are only two possible avenues that together might work, both of which are being ignored. One is sharp reductions in the world's population down to no more than one or possibly two billion at most. Maybe less. That is as much as this planet can sustain with our curent fossil fuel burning technology which is not going away anytime soon. Yet in my lifetime we've gone from 2.8 billion to 6.5 billion and are headed towards 9 billion and all of them want the same high standards of living and freedom to travel we enjoy in the developed countries and consume so much energy. The other is research into very different large scale energy production means. The only one I see as viable is geothermal but they will have to be very different from those we've had up to now. They will have to be closed systems, not open as most enthalpy is lost in polishing steam before it is put through a turbine. This is possible because geothermal energy is reliable and is found in limitless quantities everywhere on earth as long as you can dig a hole deep enough. How deep? Depends where you are. Short of this the problem will not get better.

    I'm not an enviro-campaigner. I'm an electrical engineer with a lifetime of experience. I actually know something about it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 12:07pm on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @JunkkMale #93

    Pointy haired manager understanding the term "cognitive bias"? That's pushing suspension of disbelief, that is.

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 12:14pm on 05 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    The CAGW cause has scored a series of "own goals" lately, some like "slow-motion train wrecks" (as with attempts to take the 10:10 movie off the web in this the age of YouTube).

    For the sake of having a decent debate -- I get bored just shooting trout in a barrel -- I recommend that you think twice before dismissing your opponents as being in the pay of Big Oil (or whoever). By smugly underestimating your opponent's case, you make yourself vulnerable through lack of self-examination, lack of self-criticism, etc.. It is remarkable how far the 10:10 movie made it "down the pipeline", presumably because everyone involved assured each other that Richard Curtis was safely "on message", that anyone who pointed to coincidental similarities between his message and that of Bin Laden -- on the very same day, for goodness' sake! -- were just "paid propagandists", and so on...

    For what it's worth, dismissing one's opponent's case on the grounds that the opponent is not a sincere person is a classic tactical error. I've seen it many times in bitter political disputes. For example for many years in Northern Ireland, unionists were widely held by republicans to be "just trying to hold on to their money", and conversely republicans were widely held by unionists to be "just gangsters"... In fact, both sides were completely sincere and motivated by what they themselves regarded as completely moral principles.

    Unfortunately, moral fervour is a great "suspender of disbelief" (since we're on the topic of "deniers" I thought it appropriate to mention "suspenders"). When we believe a cause is morally right, we assume the opposing cause is morally wrong... But then we are liable to dismiss the people who hold it as bad people, and their cause as unwarranted because they must hold it insincerely.

    For the sake of your own cause, beware of that! There are likely to be more spectacular "own goals" unless you take your opponents' views seriously, and examine your own possible failings!

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 12:21pm on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    Wow. Sceptic lobbying over the weekend is paying off big time.

    Sony have pulled out of 10:10.
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/climate-group-regrets-shock-film-tactic/
    http://www.climatedepot.com/
    http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1740518/sony-pulls-climate-campaign

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 12:24pm on 05 Oct 2010, purpleDogzzz wrote:

    @99 JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    "@purpleDogzzz #89
    (@Wolfiewoods)

    Seriously. Don't you people check posters' histories before assuming that they are coming out all conspiracist?"

    No I did not check his posting history.

    If Wolfie was being ironic, or sarcastic in his post, then it is normally customary to surround such a post with some sort of indication in the form of [sarc]...[/sarc] or [sarc off] or other such indication.

    It is often impossible to tell purely from a casual glimpse of a post using only written words what is written in jest, or irony, or sarcasm and what is sincere.

    It is therefore his error in communicating his intention in his post that has caused him to be labelled a tin-hat conspiracy theorist.

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 12:30pm on 05 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 102

    "When we believe a cause is morally right, we assume the opposing cause is morally wrong... "

    That's a really excellent point and probably explains the fevor around this whole 'debate'.

    nice one.

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 12:32pm on 05 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 103.
    Jane, it is not just the skeptics who are rightly outraged by this. Many 'pro' cAGW-ers too are disgusted and taking action.

    To somehow try to place the blame at the feet of the skeptics (which you SEEM to be trying to do) is both disingenuos and dishonest.

    The Fact that sponsors are abandoning this campaing like rats from a sinking ship should tell you just how much damage this has and will continue to do.

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 12:35pm on 05 Oct 2010, AnotherEngineer wrote:

    84. At 10:38am on 05 Oct 2010, purpleDogzzz wrote:
    10:10 have issued another apology, a rather more sincere-sounding one this time, but I am sure that having lost all, bar one, of their big money sponsors, is just a coincidence.

    Please could you advise who the other one is, just in case anyone should wish to not buy their products

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 12:37pm on 05 Oct 2010, purpleDogzzz wrote:

    "103. At 12:21pm on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    Wow. Sceptic lobbying over the weekend is paying off big time."

    Sorry jane, but your post is grossly incorrect. Most of the people complaining about that video were reasonable and moderate AGW believers who could see what damage that video was doing to their cause.

    It was NOT sceptic lobbying, it was lobbying by all decent minded people on all sides of the climate change debate who saw this video for the gross de-humanification of a scapegoat enemy that is obviously was.

    I do not think that if this was only sceptics complaining, that the corporations who had invested in this campaign would have pulled out.

    When these corporations were bombarded with emails from people who share the aims of carbon dioxide reduction, they realised what a liability this extremist 10:10 organisation had become.

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 12:38pm on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @MarcusAurelliusII #100
    (@JunkkMale)

    Can we be careful with names please. There is an AGW sceptic site called Junk Science. And JunkkMale does not appear to be connected to it, so please don't confuse the two.

    http://www.junkscience.com/

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 12:39pm on 05 Oct 2010, purpleDogzzz wrote:

    Oh and Jane, it is not just Sony.

    Apparently O2 are the only sponsors 10:10 have left. I do not know how much longer they will keep them though.

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 12:45pm on 05 Oct 2010, AnotherEngineer wrote:

    Can anyone point me towards some dispassionate evidence that:
    a) the climate has changed more than we would expect (bearing in mind how little evidence we have got of the past);
    b) this change has been caused by man-made increases in the level of CO2 e.g. what other posible causes have been considered;
    c) any reduction we may make in Europe will make any difference taking into account rising living standards in developing countires and population increase in general?
    Also please can we keep the climate change propaganda going until I have had my free photovoltaic panels which will reduce my electricity bill.

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 12:48pm on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    Trial by Media!

    The results are in.

    10:10's former sponsors Kyocera and Eaga are out.

    http://www.1010global.org/uk/partners

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 1:01pm on 05 Oct 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    BowmantheBard #102

    Good post.

    I've always found I get a much more rewarding experience in these discussions if I assume that the person I'm talking to is not a troll or paid shill (and actually assume the same even where its obvious that they are one). People can sometimes dive in very aggressively in a way they would never do face to face and that often leads to a tedious cycle of name calling.

    So assume at the start that the person you're responding to is sincere. That the reason they disagree with you may not be the reason you think they disagree. Then its more likely you can both (plus anybody else reading the thread) learn something from the discussion


    "It is remarkable how far the 10:10 movie made it "down the pipeline", presumably because everyone involved assured each other that Richard Curtis was safely "on message" "

    Absolutely. I think it just shows that Curtis and some of the people in 10:10 were hopelessly naive, completely unaware of this prevalent meme that portrays greens generally as "ecofascists". Frankly if there was an agent provocateur in there intending to provide a bit of black propaganda for the opposition they could hardly have done better.

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 1:01pm on 05 Oct 2010, vidl wrote:

    the 10:10 splatterfest video parodies are coming online now and 10:10 (I'm sorry, I mean 10:10, a wholly owned subsidiary of Spanner Films Limited) is trying to get 'em removed. e.g. www.youtube.com/?v=5IrtItfWn1E

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 1:01pm on 05 Oct 2010, Smiffie wrote:

    The 10:10 video marks something of a turning point, for years the climate debate has been going the warmists way with plenty of other agendas added for good measure, now the AGW lobby can see that public opinion together with the political and media establishment is turning against them and they don’t like that.

    Expanding on what I said at #27, there is a danger that the more extreme eco-nuts will turn to terrorism, there are parallels between climate activists and the animal liberation movement. For decades nice people campaigned against animal cruelty by peaceful & legal means, they achieved nothing, then the Animal Liberation Front started it’s campaign, tactics included physical beatings, fire bombing peoples homes and videoing the movements of targeted people’s children which were then posted online.

    I very much fear that this is the way that some elements of the eco movement could go and they will make the ALF look like a bunch of pussy cats.

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 1:06pm on 05 Oct 2010, JunkkMale wrote:

    As Godwin's Law is being invoked left and right :), one the kids can watch, though they may not understand it either:

    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5291308/10_10_no_pressure_downfall/

    I may have mis-interpreted the inevitable name mis-spelling, if not the sampled text, but as an ilk now, it is always interesting when those in holes, from all extremes, keep or start digging. Or shoot own feet. Reflects so well on the decent arguments, if from opposing views, being conducted. Funny to be offending both 'sides', mind. Does this, by BBC definition, make me even-handed?

    Also jerking of knees might lead to presuming what others feel, and indeed advocate doing. I campaign and am active in reducing waste and increasing efficiencies. Preferably to save money too, but at least with a positive enviROI. How that negatively impacts GHG emissions I'd love to learn. It is all small beer, but I do think it 'better than nothing'.

    Oh, and not that I have a clue why it matters, or counts in debate on many issues enviro, science, engineering and/or communications (pro & con) as a BSc Vet (ok, dropped after two years) and BSc Civ Eng (got that, plus some experience), plus a few decades in advertising, I can often add up and have a view on poor comms, too

    I usually feel raising such things as vindication when hardly pertinent well, silly. Get me on wind power/generation, however...

    Even then, what I 'know' counts for naught if I don't explain it well and/or engagingly. Actually.

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 1:06pm on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @LabMunkey
    @purpleDogzzz

    Yeah. I saw those posts by environmentalists. Typically along the lines of "we've done so much hard work towards 10:10:10 (10th October) and this video's damaged it". Definitely not along the lines of "we've done so much hard work towards 10:10:10 (10th October) and we want Sony and other companies to pull out and punish us too".

    http://www.350.org/en/about/blogs/days-suck-response-gross-video

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 1:08pm on 05 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    JaneBasingstoke #101 wrote:

    "That's pushing suspension of disbelief, that is."

    I see we're independently thinking of an idea originated by one my favourite poets (Coleridge). Great minds think alike! There's hope for us yet Jane!

    (PS just having a laugh... not too sensitive... waiting for gross-out noises!)

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 1:14pm on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @LabMunkey
    @purpleDogzzz

    Oh, to clarify my point about sceptic lobbying. I'm not just talking about sceptics blogging. I'm talking about sceptics contacting companies and telling them to pull out of 10:10.

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/climate-group-regrets-shock-film-tactic/

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 1:21pm on 05 Oct 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @pph #95

    "wind miles"
    Now that may have just been a 'slip-of-the-pen' there Mango, but it sounds like something that could be picked up and traded on the open market. Maybe you have just accidently happened upon a logical extension to carbon trading :-)


    I think certain "greens" have already stolen my idea, sold their shares in carbon trading companies and started a new exchange ;-)

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 1:29pm on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    I said in an earlier thread that the 10:10 film could not be defended. However I believe I have to make a defence for the 10:10 filmmakers, who I think are being seriously miscast as ecofascists.

    The 10:10 group started up off the back of the success of the low budget "Age of Stupid" film. They had early successes getting their message (= 10% is an easy painless first step, and a nice target for 2010) through to government.

    Then they, like the rest of us, watched as Copenhagen flopped and politicians backpedalled.

    And it is quite clear from some of their pre-controversy comments. They don't understand why this is happening. They don't understand their opponents' motivations. Result, they feel powerless in the face of what they mistake for apathy and heartlessness.

    So then we come to their film. They don't understand their opponents. They don't understand they are seen as an extension of government by some of their opponents. They don't understand they are seen as authoritarian and holier than thou by some of their opponents. All that they do understand is that without humour their message can look too worthy.

    And so they make a film that could only have been made by people feeling powerless. But it is not perceived as such by their opponents because of their earlier well publicised successes getting through to politicians.

    There is also an attempt at satire within the film. They are taking the p*** out of extreme greenery. But this element of their film is not obvious to everyone. This is partly because their opponents see 10:10 as being powerful. It is partly because people sending up extremism on their own side of the ideological fence are rarer than those sending up extremism on the opposite side of the ideological fence. It is also partly because the two elements of the film, the attempted satire and the frustration, naturally clash.

    Why do I believe that they are not ecofascists? Because of the children in the film. The surviving children, and the surviving workers, are the viewers' proxies. Their reactions tell you what the filmmakers want you to think. If the survivors had looked smug and superior, then I would be very worried. Instead they are horrified and disgusted. Curtis is using the children to say real threats and real violence is disgusting.

    The film is deeply flawed. But the filmmakers aren't.

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 1:42pm on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Smiffie #115

    The Earth Liberation Front already exists, it has links with the ALF, and it is extremely tedious.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Liberation_Front

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 1:53pm on 05 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ jane
    " "we've done so much hard work towards 10:10:10 (10th October) and we want Sony and other companies to pull out and punish us too"."

    So you lay the blame entirely at the skeptics feet, rather than the people who made the video? It seems, to me at least, that you are in a very round-about way attempting to defend them.

    The sponsors would not be pulling their support did they not think those who'd complained were right (or at least able to dent sales... natch)

    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 1:59pm on 05 Oct 2010, GeoffWard wrote:

    ".... Re: legal action against 'polluters'. I welcome it and hope that it not only happens, but happens as soon as possible. I can gaurantee the cAGW theory will not last 5 minutes in court." (LabMunkey @ 14)
    .................
    .
    Prescient, or what!
    I wrote yesterday (@ 55): The biggest and best - and potentially win-able case to bring is not against AGW, which is NOT win-able in a court of law - but against the metal-mining corporations, especially for damage and cleanup costs *for however long erradication takes*, and especially in the USA where legal damages will be maximal.
    But even the slightest hint that the Federal judicary intend to bring litigation againt any of the major mining corporations, perhaps a Class Action to establish modern case law, will send companies and State legislators into terminal panic.
    All big and multinational mining corporations will immediately split the extracting arms of their corporation off into a mass of small, seperate, low-capitalised and asset-poor companies, each well able to go bankrupt at a moments notice.
    Thus, any move to do this will result in State pressure to 'dissuade' the litigants from pursuing, because they know that the burden of Environmental (EPA) huge clean-up costs will fall on them and their tax-payers. Not just for the immediate future but for a generation or two and potentially for hundreds of years - such is the residuality of heavy metals in a mass-extraction environment.
    There has to be a halfway-house, which recognises past malpractice, protects the present population in the pollution-zone, compensates those historically exposed and suffering, and does not bankrupt the state/nation.
    As political funds are frequently provided by the mining corporations, an honest broker is the ideal facilitator.
    Does anybody know one?
    …………………………………………………………
    Today’s news
    “Hungary has declared a state of emergency in three western counties after sludge from an alumina plant killed three people and injured 120.
    The red chemical sludge flooded out of a burst dam, affecting at least seven villages and towns including Devecser, where it stood 2m (6.5ft) deep.
    The sludge is said to contain caustic material and to be toxic if ingested.
    While the cause of the deaths has not been established officially, it is believed the victims probably drowned.
    Some 600,000-700,000 cubic metres (21m-24m cubic feet) of sludge escaped from the plant, 160km (100 miles) from the capital, Budapest.
    With 7,000 people affected directly by the disaster, a state of emergency was declared in the counties of Veszprem, Gyor-Moson-Sopron and Vas.” (BBC News Online, 5 Oct. 2010)
    One huge problem, and the problem here, is the ‘mine tailings’ impoundments – cost-cutting and poor construction-control & compliance combine to make this happen time and time again.
    Sometimes the problem is heavy metals, sometime caustic, sometimes acidic, and *always* long-term toxic to humans.

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 2:01pm on 05 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 119.

    Sorry jane, are you trying to suggest that this group should KEEP it's funding after this video?? Seriously?!?!?!

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 2:02pm on 05 Oct 2010, petewibble wrote:

    GreenpeaceUK's Channel, check out the "What does your car say about you?" [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    The 10:10 video is just a far extreme take on that, the underlying message is exactly the same. Conform, Consensus.

    But 4x4 drivers do get their tyres slashed by the lunatic fringe, and I freely admit both sides of this debate have a lunatic fringe.

    If you want a healthy planet in 50 years time you should really be worried about why so much of this propaganda is aimed directly at children.

    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 2:02pm on 05 Oct 2010, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 128. At 2:04pm on 05 Oct 2010, Wolfiewoods wrote:

    @ Paddytoplad
    @JaneBasingstoke

    Just got back. If you would like to check my past postings you will see that I am fairly consistent. I do not expect to be popular here.

    Complain about this comment

  • 129. At 2:07pm on 05 Oct 2010, purpleDogzzz wrote:

    Actually Jane, I did not see many saying "I have done so much work for 10:10...etc.

    You are twisting the evidence to try to change reality, as is all to common with people on both sides of the climate change debate (the blind denialists and the alarmist catastrophe believers alike)

    What I saw overwhelmingly was along the lines of,
    "I agree that carbon reductions are essential and am in no way a sceptic or a denialist, but this video is sick and does nothing to help the cause. I shall be contacting your sponsors to express my disgust in your appalling film"

    This sort of sentiment expressed in one way or another was very common. Very few comments even referenced 10:10 in the way you suggested.

    Of course there were also comments from denialists too, spouting off their fury on any number of their pet hates, but overall, there was a strong balance between moderate believers, and moderate sceptics who all agreed that this video was an abomination against science and humanity.

    There was in no way shape or form a purely "sceptic lobby" to pressure the sponsors. There was a strong lobby of people who stand on both sides of the debate, who normally disagree with each other, who were willing (in some cases very reluctantly) to share the same outrage to denounce a blatant example of dehumanising a chosen enemy in a grossly offensive and very possibly illegal way.

    Your suggestion that it was mainly a sceptical lobby attacking a good cause is plainly incorrect. It was people from all sides attacking a repulsively offensive video and the organisation which conceived, created, published and promoted it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 2:08pm on 05 Oct 2010, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    Is anyone able to give me one shred of evidence that man made CO2 emissions have been the cause of the clement climatic changes since the ice age? Also another shred of evidence that in the future there will be catastrophic global warming due the same cause.

    Since when should we in Great Britain give a monkey's toss the views of the corrupt Chinese dictatorship?

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 2:25pm on 05 Oct 2010, Rational Environmentalist wrote:

    I guess if those smaller countries who want to sue the bigger polluting companies they will have to prove the SCIENCE in a GLOBAL court of law. Well, I'll think we can all look forward to that case !

    Complain about this comment

  • 132. At 2:29pm on 05 Oct 2010, purpleDogzzz wrote:

    "The film is deeply flawed. But the filmmakers aren't."

    Well you are half right Jane.

    The fact that the film-makers could not perceive the idea that dehumanising people who merely have a different opinion by blowing them up as part of a political campaign, proves that the film-makers ARE deeply flawed.

    That this idea ever got passed the discussion stage shows how deeply flawed these people are. Especially as the political views of most of the film-makers is of the left and these people would rightly be utterly outraged if instead of climate sceptics, gays, blacks, Muslims or Jews were being blown up as part of a "creative way to engage people" to a political campaign.

    The fact that their reasoning did NOT pick up on this very obvious point shows very deep flaws indeed in the thinking of the film-makers.

    After all, this was not satire, or comedy for comedy's sake. It was a political film with a political message.

    When a stand-up comedian says something sick in a joke, it is not really something that people get worked up about. However, if that same comedian said the same thing on behalf of a political group in a political video in support of taking a political action in support of a political campaign, then that is a very different thing.

    And 10:10 are associated with government because of the large amount of government funding they have received, directly and indirectly, from the tax-payer.

    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 2:37pm on 05 Oct 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    JaneBasingstoke #121

    "I have to make a defence for the 10:10 filmmakers, who I think are being seriously miscast as ecofascists."

    I agree they're being miscast (they aren't ecofascists), but I'm not sure I agree with the rest of your analysis. Given the corporate sponsorship they seem to have had before everybody pulled out, why would they have felt powerless? And if they were aware of the nature of the political mobilization against their position, why would they have come up with a film which played so obviously into the hands of people ready to portray them as ecofascists at any opportunity?

    As I said in an earlier post, I think it had more to do with naivety than any sense of powerlessness. If anything they give too great an impression of moral certainty (as Bowman warned against in #102)

    There is also an attempt at satire within the film. They are taking the p*** out of extreme greenery. But this element of their film is not obvious to everyone.

    No. That aspect wasn't clear to me for example. In fact the only reaction shot I remember was Crouchy and Co trotting off as if nothing had happened after Ginola was exterminated.


    This was one film that probably needed to be watched by a focus group before it got released!

    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 2:41pm on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @LabMunkey #125

    I'm saying that only people involved in the film should be punished. 10:10 is much bigger than Franny Armstrong and the Richard Curtis film. And 10:10:10 has other environmental groups who have made commitments.

    I'm also saying that the people involved in the film should only be punished for the film. They've made some horrendous c***-ups. But they aren't ecofascists.

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 2:42pm on 05 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 121
    Jane. You are trying to defend the inexcusable. Regardless of what they thought, it was wholly inappropriate, exceptionally bad taste and had significant undertones that were easily misinterpreted (assuming the motivations you outlined for the film are true, which I highly doubt).
    If the film as you stated, was meant to be a pastiche at the expense of ecofacists then it fails spectacularly(the tone is incorrect and the way it is presented does not make it obvious in any way that this is the case). All they’ve done then is to prove they are completely unsuitable to be running a campaign, especially one aimed at children.
    If, as I think is infinitely more likely, this is either an ill thought-out publicity stunt or actually an extension of the frustrations you already outlined and a playing-out of fantasy, it is even worse.
    The term ecofacist that’s being bandied around (I think I’ve even used it), but is not because of what they represent or who they are, but of what they have done and appeared to align themselves with.
    Incredibly you seem to see this as a little innocent mistake borne out of frustration in the ‘causes’ failings. But instead of looking at the reasons for this failure (the questionable science and obvious duplicitous nature of carbon trading) they have lashed out, pure and simple. They LASHED OUT. How long until they contemplate actual violence? Their cause after all is just…
    It shows a mindset that is not only dangerous but completely at odds to what they SHOULD be trying to achieve and again is completely inexcusable.
    Regardless of their motivation, their actions have shown them for what they are. As such they should lose all public funding, the private sector is already making its position clear and the wider environmental movement should do everything it can to distance itself from these very worrying people.
    To be clear though, I do not, as many others do, see this as a reflection on the rest of the cAGW movement- though it is certainly an interesting insight into an increasingly prevailing mind-set- but as an isolated incident, from an isolated group who should and with any luck WILL find that the general public and those that pay their bills/wages are not at all amused. I can only hope they lose their positions and jobs accordingly.

    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 2:46pm on 05 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    To my recollection, the negative comments on the 10:10 blog were almost all ostensibly from non-sceptics who felt the movie damaged their cause. It is quite ridiculous -- and an important part of the mighty "own gaol" -- that these comments have been removed. Will they ever learn?

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 2:48pm on 05 Oct 2010, quake wrote:

    Re 130. ManmadeupGW wrote:
    "Is anyone able to give me one shred of evidence that man made CO2 emissions have been the cause of the clement climatic changes since the ice age? Also another shred of evidence that in the future there will be catastrophic global warming due the same cause."

    You have it the wrong way round im afraid. The issue isn't going away until someone can prove the safety of the changes we are making.

    Complain about this comment

  • 138. At 2:53pm on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @purpleDogzzz

    "contacting your sponsors" #129

    Really? One of the reasons why I made my #119 clarification is because I have seen very few "contacting the sponsors" comments in the blogosphere from either side of the debate.

    The 350 people are upset because they are also substantially involved in 10:10:10 (10th October). Here's that McKibben article again, complaining about the damage by the film to 10:10:10, but this time with some comments from mainly warmists.

    http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/01/bill-mckibben-days-that-suck/

    If these warmists are not typical perhaps you could provide an alternative link?

    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 2:55pm on 05 Oct 2010, Paul Kerr wrote:

    @JaneBasingstoke

    I think you must ask yourself why are so many people sceptical?

    10:10 themselves made a choice to try to make people believe and fear things they did not understand. This is for me is 'science by media' in other words not science, not truth, but a media campaign. Its unfortunate so many people gain an understanding of the world from the media rather than their own understanding of the world.

    This video however betrays a swing from rational to irrational from enthusiasm to vindictive zealotry

    We live in a world where 60 million people die from disease and starvation There are lots of simple things we could do with the money thrown away by organisations like 10:10. Think how many lives could have been saved with the money used for that stupid video.

    When it comes to 2055 people will still be dying in their millions from simple preventable causes.Why you wish an apocolyptic utopia for all of us is a mystery.Is it to allow the (self) righteous people to save the world?

    Reducing our carbon footprint by 10 percent will not save anyone but its a lot of wasted effort which could be worth a lot in the real world

    I hope the sponsors find something much more useful to do with their money

    Complain about this comment

  • 140. At 3:00pm on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @purpleDogzzz #132

    If you want to dehumanise someone, you don't have some character blow them up and then show children looking horrified and disgusted with your actions.

    Complain about this comment

  • 141. At 3:01pm on 05 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @137

    quake,
    unfortunatley you cannot use that logic and still claim to be following science.

    You are invoking the precautionary principle here which is political not scientific. sorry.

    If the theory is to be based on science the the onus IS on those presenting the theory and unfortunatley to date they have failed to present their case sufficiently.

    Complain about this comment

  • 142. At 3:04pm on 05 Oct 2010, Rational Environmentalist wrote:

    "that countries affected by climate impacts could take their higher-emitting counterparts to court for damages."

    presumably they would have to prove their SCIENTIFIC claims in a Global court of law.. I think warmanista's and deniers would all look forward to that

    Complain about this comment

  • 143. At 3:09pm on 05 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 140
    "If you want to dehumanise someone, you don't have some character blow them up and then show children looking horrified and disgusted with your actions"

    and if you want to highlight environmental issues in a video you don't show authority figures violently blowing children up.

    Complain about this comment

  • 144. At 3:15pm on 05 Oct 2010, purpleDogzzz wrote:

    "They've made some horrendous c***-ups. But they aren't ecofascists."

    Dehumanising your opponents in this very sick way, is a symptom of fascism. Doing it for a political cause in the name of ecology is a symptom of eco-fascism.

    If the same film showed union members, or Jews being blown up, I am pretty sure that people would be accusing the film makers of being fascists. Ironically, The likes of Fran and Curtiss would be the first to accuse such film makers of promoting fascism.

    Also, 10:10 themselves can very much receive the blame too. They commissioned that film. At some point, before it was posted onto their Youtube page, they must have watched it. If so, their actions in hosting and promoting it show approval of it and its message and its content.

    If I had been on the board who commissioned this, I certainly would have raised significant opposition to 10:10 posting this film on the 10:10 website.

    The 10:10 people also showed their tasset approval of this film when they removed it, by claiming that a lot of people thought it was funny, but a few were offended. The disapproval of that film was about 90% on their own website right up until they took the video down and deleted the comments.

    It was not until the sponsors reacted to the mass of people (from ALL sides of the climate debate) started to pull their sponsorship, that 10:10 even admitted that the film was wrong and that they, in hindsight, were wrong to show it at all.

    This is NOT a warmists vs denialists argument. It is a decency vs gross indecency one.

    The film, the film-makers and 10:10 have NO excuse for posting this barbaric film, other than it is a symptom of the sick minds involved, for only people with sick minds would fail to see how utterly wrong this film is.

    Complain about this comment

  • 145. At 3:17pm on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @PaulButler #133

    "why would they have felt powerless"

    You have been following the news since 10:10 were set up, haven't you. Climategate. The failure of Copenhagen. The backpedalling of politicians on fixing global warming. Oh, and only 97 thousand people signed up in the UK.

    And they don't appear to understand what is going on. They don't begin to understand the resistance to tackling climate change.

    "That aspect wasn't clear to me for example."

    They made it perfectly clear with their accompanying comments that they don't really want to blow people up. There is a long tradition within satire of satirising the extremes on your side of the political divide. You do know that Orwell, the author of Animal Farm, was a leftie, don't you.

    I admit they badly c***ed up the satire. But it was definitely an attempt at satire.

    "Crouchy and co"

    Unlike the surviving children and the surviving workers the surviving footballers weren't obvious stand-ins for the viewer. Or do you play for England?

    "probably needed to be watched by a focus group"

    LOL.

    I'd say the problem was it was probably was watched by a focus group with exactly the same mindset as the filmmakers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 146. At 3:19pm on 05 Oct 2010, Smiffie wrote:

    JaneBasingstoke @#121 said “They don't understand their opponents. They don't understand they are seen as an extension of government by some of their opponents. They don't understand they are seen as authoritarian and holier than thou by some of their opponents.”

    I am not sure if this is true of the 10:10 people but I am sure that it is true of many in the eco/AGW camp who are sincere in their beliefs and cannot conceive that anyone doubts their truth. From their position of certainty, they can only conclude that their opponents act out of greed or malice, hence all the paid climate deniers type of comments.

    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 3:26pm on 05 Oct 2010, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Watch an interview with 10:10 boss Franny Armstrong:

    Franny: "My carbon footprint has shot up since I've become a successful campaigner".

    She describes how her film had a carbon footprint of 96 tons and included helicopter flights for visual effect.

    And how she flies round the world telling us to stop flying.

    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 3:27pm on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @LabMunkey #135

    Which part of "I said in an earlier thread that the 10:10 film could not be defended. However I believe I have to make a defence for the 10:10 filmmakers, who I think are being seriously miscast as ecofascists." don't you understand?

    I am not trying to defend the film. Not. Not. Not. Not. Not. The film is deeply flawed.

    I am however trying to defend the filmmakers. They are not ecofascists. They have been accused of ecofascism and worse here and elsewhere on the internet.

    I have tried to make comments in my posts to clarify this distinction. Perhaps this additional comment might help.

    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 3:29pm on 05 Oct 2010, purpleDogzzz wrote:

    "You have it the wrong way round im afraid. The issue isn't going away until someone can prove the safety of the changes we are making."

    Wrong. Science insists that the Null hypothesis be disproved and a hypothesis proved for that hypothesis to be valid. It is only when people posit a hypothesis,, and a Null hypothesis and the method for proving the hypothesis and peers manage to prove it, by failing to discover in the method, the data or the theories themselves that a hypothesis is proved.

    That means that the hypothesis that a doubling of atmospheric concentration of CO2 will create an increase of X degrees by 2100, MUST be proven to be valid and they must also prove that any increase is directly caused by CO2 and solely CO2.

    It is not for sceptics to disprove it, when empirical evidence certainly casts significant doubt upon it all the time, as admitted recently by the Royal Society.

    It is wholly unscientific to state that "this is my hypothesis it stands as valid unless you can disprove it"

    The scientist must state, "this is my hypothesis, this is the method I used to verify and test it, this is all the data I used, this is the result of the testing, this is the Null Hypothesis, these are the places where the Null Hypothesis fails and this is why, and these are all the possible exceptions to my hypothesis, (if any), and any areas of doubt or uncertainty, I invite all people to test this and welcome written suggestions for updates and amendments from wheresoever they originate and I will test these in an open and honest spirit of true scientific discovery.

    The two are totally different.

    Shame that uniquely in climate science, so often the open and free access to data, and open invitation to all to test the data, method and techniques of their "science" is omitted.

    Complain about this comment

  • 150. At 3:29pm on 05 Oct 2010, Jack Hughes wrote:

    @Jane,

    Thanks for the insights into what they were thinking.

    Maybe they really do think that

    1) 90% of the public is on their side and will
    2) Help to kill the other 10% of selfish obstructionists.

    This is group-think at work.

    Complain about this comment

  • 151. At 3:32pm on 05 Oct 2010, purpleDogzzz wrote:

    "If these warmists are not typical perhaps you could provide an alternative link?"

    I would but 10:10 removed all the comments I was referring to on the day the video was published and then hastily removed.

    I am not talking about the general internet chatter on unrelated blogs. I am referring solely what was written on 10:10s own Youtube page before they removed them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 152. At 3:34pm on 05 Oct 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    10;10 was a rubbish video! Spam acting, wafer thin plot, not clear who represented what. Get over it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 153. At 3:35pm on 05 Oct 2010, melty wrote:

    Oh aren't blogs wonderful? Any jerk can mouth off. And they sure do. Net result: confusion. Implications: we will do nothing of consequence to save the polar ice sheets, coastal cities, an acidified ocean, deaths from mercury and particulates. I just hope the geoengineering schemes our current 10 year-olds have to devise don't mess us up more than they help. So: have your say. Then your kids can sleep in the bed you made.

    Complain about this comment

  • 154. At 3:45pm on 05 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @148.

    Jane. they planned it, paid for it (with our money), Filmed it, reviewed, posted, said it was funny and then removed it after extreme pressure.

    How on EARTH can you claim that this film does not reflect on those that fully supported it?!?

    And yes, you were indeed quite clear in your eventual condemnation of the film. However you have done some serious defending of the people who made it, i cannot see how you can seperate the two and i think it's dishonest of you to try and present them as seperate issues.

    They made the film and thought it was ok. Therefore THEY are at fault. It really is quite simple jane.

    Would you fail to prosecute a graffiti artist for drawing all over a building just because he was confused about what other people thought??? i mean seriously jane.

    Complain about this comment

  • 155. At 3:54pm on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Paul Kerr

    "I think you must ask yourself why are so many people sceptical?"

    Unlike 10:10 I have spent a lot of time on the internet debating with sceptics. I don't need a rehash of the sceptic point of view. And the 10:10 people (and many of my fellow environmentalists) need a much deeper coverage than a single post on a blog.

    "This video however betrays ..."

    I disagree. I think it shows ignorance of their opponents and a clumsy failed attempt to marry a satirical point about extreme greens with frustration.

    And as for vindictiveness, they thought they were issuing a darkly humorous wake-up call to people like themselves but a bit more apathetic. They did not think they were threatening or punishing actual sceptics.

    Complain about this comment

  • 156. At 3:54pm on 05 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    purpleDogzzz #149 wrote:

    Wrong. Science insists that the Null hypothesis be disproved and a hypothesis proved for that hypothesis to be valid.

    No it doesn't. Hardly anyone outside of the most plodding sort of "inductive" statistics even talks about "the null hypothesis". The "proof" of any other sort of hypothesis, if it means more than mere corroboration, simply never occurs at all.

    Complain about this comment

  • 157. At 3:59pm on 05 Oct 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    Jane
    You seem to be flogging a dead horse here.

    Video by 10:10
    Concept wrong
    Application wrong
    Publication wrong
    First apology wrong
    Just wrong really.
    Richard Curtis nice man and all, but wrong
    AGW argument settled wrong
    Richard Black burying his response into the middle of his usual one sided campaigning words wrong.
    People on either side of this debate should not be dismissed. I dont want greenies white washed from our TVs I dont want their arguments shouted down I just want sensible debate/discussion.
    The problem occurs when there are two sets of people sincerely convinced in their point of view. A media that dismisses one side and promotes the other does not help a concensus being reached.
    Curtis's lame attempt at humour just drives a bigger wedge between the two sides.
    If warmists changed tack and concentrated on selling cost savings and fuel conservation they would have more success but getting me or others like me to believe in the global warming myth by coercion is never going to work.

    Complain about this comment

  • 158. At 4:06pm on 05 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @155
    " they thought they were issuing a darkly humorous wake-up call to people like themselves but a bit more apathetic. They did not think they were threatening or punishing actual sceptics."

    Jane do you actually know this, have you spoken to them etc or are you just making assumptions based on your beliefs.

    Everything i've read from the of late makes me think that they not only knew full well what they were doing and WHO they were targetting, but also that they STILL think it was appropriate and are shocked by the response.

    It took their BOARD for heavens sake to get an ACTUAL apology.

    Jane you cannot be this blinkered.

    Complain about this comment

  • 159. At 4:16pm on 05 Oct 2010, purpleDogzzz wrote:

    "If you want to dehumanise someone, you don't have some character blow them up and then show children looking horrified and disgusted with your actions."

    I am so glad you raised this part of the film. I too noticed this, and as someone who has worked in advertising for a number of years on "new media" projects for a diverse range of clients, I know a thing or two about the deliberate use of subliminal imagery to trigger a specific emotional response in a demographic. When you have worked on this for an extended period, such techniques SCREAM out and are blatant.

    This was a blatant, although overdone and amateurish, attempt at this. It was used to target the demographic of people who would naturally associate with the people who raised their hands. The use of raised hands being a subliminal technique in itself to promote compliance and conformity.

    Those people who agree that carbon reduction is a good thing would associate with being part of a large majority (in itself misleading as the public are split roughly 50/50 on the cAGW theory) who agree with the notion expressed by the authority figure/majority. They then associate themselves as being 'like' those people who are in agreement with the theme. Then when their "colleagues" who disagree are blown up, the use of the shock and horror is intended to create a strong, though subliminal, horror themselves in what disagreeing to the notion being presented really is.

    The dead pan expressions of the "authority" figures is what dehumanises those who are blown up, and it is the acceptance of the "normality" of death shown by the authority figure, which dehumanises those who do not comply. This is further entrenched by showing those horrified expressions people who are now covered in the blood of their former colleagues, by the inhuman murder of their former co-workers, by the authority figures which is the central subliminal message.

    That message being, conform or you are less than human and must die.

    Propaganda throughout the last 100 years has used the same sort of imagery and techniques where possible to present the same notion of opponents/enemies, being less than human and expendable. Armies the world over rely on blatant and strong versions of such techniques to train troops to kill opponents without any remorse or guilt or feeling.

    In this case, with this 10:10 no pressure film, the film-makers did a terrible and amateurish job and presented imagery so strong and shocking that it bypassed the sub-conscious of their intended demographic and alerted the conscious mind to the horror of the intent.

    Showing authority figures blowing people up and calmly carrying on as if it is normal, mundane and the right thing to do, IS dehumanisation, any way you slice it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 160. At 4:16pm on 05 Oct 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    Well here I am in a wet and cold Sunderland.

    The reservoirs are all full even though summer has just finished.

    I am going to wax my skis for the up coming english ski season.

    Frozen lamas have been falling of mountains in record low temperatures in South America.

    My Austrailian business partners have just told me that Queenslands reservoirs are all full again and any thought of drought forgotten.

    Life goes on, the world goes on and the climate still doesnt fit the Models.

    Al Gores hockey stick need a bit of viagra as its gone a bit floppy.

    And some islington luvvies want to brainwash my kids with a propaganda piece that looks fluffy on the surface but which contains some pretty sinister undertones.

    Complain about this comment

  • 161. At 4:23pm on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @purpleDogzzz

    The filmmakers did not dehumanise their opponents.

    If they wanted to dehumanise their opponents they would show their opponents being visibly unpleasant (historically portraying the enemy eating babies has been a favourite, or burning ancient Rome, or curdling the milk, or giving people warts). And then the filmmakers would have shown the surviving children approving of the destruction of the filmmakers' opponents.

    Complain about this comment

  • 162. At 4:23pm on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @LabMunkey #154
    @Paddytoplad #157

    They c***ed up. The c*** up is serious enough for some form of punishment. They are not ecofascists. They should not be punished for being ecofascists because they are not ecofascists.

    Complain about this comment

  • 163. At 4:24pm on 05 Oct 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    JaneBasingstoke #145


    "why would they have felt powerless"

    You have been following the news since 10:10 were set up, haven't you. Climategate. The failure of Copenhagen. The backpedalling of politicians on fixing global warming. Oh, and only 97 thousand people signed up in the UK.
    And they don't appear to understand what is going on. They don't begin to understand the resistance to tackling climate change.


    They'd have felt frustrated at their failure to get their message over to a large enough constituency. They might have felt that their constituency had been shrinking for a few months. But they still seemed to have significant corporate support. And apparently they are in receipt of public funding.

    I agree, they don't seem to understand what is/has been going on. At least some of the most important people in 10:10 UK don't.

    That's what is so frustrating - these are the very people who should be abreast of the political dimension

    Complain about this comment

  • 164. At 4:36pm on 05 Oct 2010, Wolfiewoods wrote:

    I feel that I must stick up for JaneBasingstoke and her defence of 10:10. We all know that 10:10 are not actually advocating killing people just as we all know that Monty Python did not actually advocate killing people. Ok the video back fired but 10:10 do make a very valid point, namely that those who are disinterested in combating catastrophic anthropogenic climate change are every bit as guilty as those who wilfully obstruct action, it’s a bit like people who turn a blind eye to drink driving.

    Complain about this comment

  • 165. At 4:37pm on 05 Oct 2010, Barry Woods wrote:



    The BBC is truly beyond impartial journalistic redemption


    Richard writes:

    "Into the "others" category come June's incident with the Saudi Arabian flag and the German toilet bowl - and, last week, the video message from the 10:10 campaign that saw children in a classroom being erased from the register of life if they didn't sign up to urgent climate action.

    'erased from the register"

    Maybe people reading wil not realise what actually happens if he says this... (blood gore, body parts, splatter.)

    Even the Guardian said what happened in it, they thought it very funny...
    Interestingly, overwhelmingly the comments did not (the BBC said split - implying equally)


    Quote from the Guardian:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film

    "Had a look?
    Well, I'm certain you'll agree that detonating school kids, footballers and movie stars into gory pulp for ignoring their carbon footprints is attention-grabbing. It's also got a decent sprinkling of stardust – Peter Crouch, Gillian Anderson, Radiohead and others."

    So even the Guardain could say bloody pulp, and the classmates that agreed were also traumatised covered in cgore and body parts (check out Gillian Anderson's eyeballs slidingdown the screen at the end....


    My childs' infant school, WAS signed up to 10:10

    It took precisley 1 minute and 12 seconds, for the Headteacher to contact 10:10 withdrwaing all support, and would never be dealing with them again...


    Richard wrote a WHOLE article about 2 activits flushing the saudi delegations nameplate down the toilet, the wwf, etc sent them home, no longer part of the organisatiion..

    Here we have a high profile, luvvie backed well connected 'Notting Hill' chattering classes group. Well over a hundred peole, profeesional,etc were involved in it AND the Guardain, who were proud to have the scoop, of this video to be shown in cinemas...

    And is thatthe real story, not one person during the conception, production and relase of this video though, 'hang on, might this be wrong, or be perceieved badly.. NOT ONE PERSON..

    truly groupthink at work...

    Or wa sit 'No pressure' to go along with it


    Franny, though in the Guardian article, that sceptics suffered from an AFFLICTION..

    She also surmised:

    What to do with THOSE people.......

    What to Do with Barry Woods, inset your name here, etc....

    Would the BBC care to ask Franny and 10:10 what the intend to do, suggest to be done..

    If sceptical people, keep asking questions..

    Go on BBC, you can do it.... maybe not

    Complain about this comment

  • 166. At 4:39pm on 05 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "Oh aren't blogs wonderful? Any jerk can mouth off. And they sure do", says "melty", in a blog.

    One of the defining characteristics of authoritarians is their contempt for ordinary dissenting opinion. It's the mirror-image opposite of their awestruck, worshipful, breathless attitude to orthodox "expert" opinion!

    Complain about this comment

  • 167. At 4:46pm on 05 Oct 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #149 purpleDogzzz

    "Wrong. Science insists that the Null hypothesis be disproved and a hypothesis proved for that hypothesis to be valid. It is only when people posit a hypothesis,, and a Null hypothesis and the method for proving the hypothesis and peers manage to prove it, by failing to discover in the method, the data or the theories themselves that a hypothesis is proved.

    That means that the hypothesis that a doubling of atmospheric concentration of CO2 will create an increase of X degrees by 2100, MUST be proven to be valid and they must also prove that any increase is directly caused by CO2 and solely CO2."


    The trouble is, for this kind of proof to work we have to wait till 2100 AND have another Earth to use as a control.

    That's why your argument doesn't apply in this case (and in many other cases where the standard small scale experimental rules can't be applied)


    Of course there have been all sorts of experiments which show that test tubes with CO2 in them warm up faster than those without. I think you can do these in schools. But I've got a bit of a feeling that isn't the sort of proof you'd be happy with :-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 168. At 4:47pm on 05 Oct 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    17# Green pa (please leave this for all to see)

    "And yes; 95% of them are PAID; they are not genuine humans with genuine opinions. It's quite well documented, though that discussion has been hushed greatly now: "



    Seriously.....

    Wow....

    Maybe the BBC should read this and reflect a little....

    I've met Roger Harrabin, maybe he could vouch for me..........

    ... as a genuine human being, not some sub species to be quashed...
    on a less serious NOT....

    WHERE IS MY CHEQUE... I surely desereve aleast a miilion by NOw..

    The BBC should refelct on that comment...

    And the others saying deniars (presumably me) should not be allowed to debate here...

    Of course 10:10, beside blowing people up, were really just bullying controlling, supressing debate..

    something my child's Headteacher saw, in 1 minute 12 seconds of the video..............

    Complain about this comment

  • 169. At 4:50pm on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @LabMunkey #158

    They have issued a number of statements, including the original pre-brown-stuff-hits-the-fan release statements.

    The statements strongly imply that they think apathy is the reason for the lack of climate change action.

    From Franny Armstrong "Doing nothing about climate change is still a fairly common affliction, even in this day and age."

    From Richard Curtis "The 10:10 team are a fearless, energetic bunch, completely dedicated to getting the public fired up about climate change."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film

    From the earlier apology

    "With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh."
    http://www.1010global.org/uk/2010/10/sorry

    The statements are also explicit that it was supposed to be humorous, albeit darkly humorous, and that it didn't turn out that way was a mistake.

    Here's Curtis's "worthy" statement. Doesn't look like he's trying to threaten, does it?

    "I was worried that the environment is an issue that can seem worthy and we will all just drift into disaster. So I thought it was worth trying to write something unexpected. But when you try to be funny on a serious subject, it's obviously risky."
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/oct/02/1010-richard-curtis-climate-change

    And some admissions of naivety in both apologies

    "At 10:10 we're all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change. Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn."
    http://www.1010global.org/uk/2010/10/sorry

    "10:10 is a young and creative team but we will learn lessons from this."
    http://www.1010global.org/uk/2010/10/statement-1010-uk-director

    Complain about this comment

  • 170. At 4:59pm on 05 Oct 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    Jane I get the point :)

    They may not be ecofascists but ecosfascists can drift by under their coat tails.

    When did you here of a denier attempting to blow up a TV station.

    Videos like this even if well meaning can cause consequences well out of their control because they didnt think.

    Why?

    Because of the smug selfrighteouness of the ecowarrior.

    Preaching at people who dont believe their dogma.

    These days people dont tell gay jokes because the prevailing logic is that gay jokes lead inexorably to gay bashing.
    Based on the same principle harmless well intentioned humour ment to poke fun at 'Deniers' can lead to eco nutters who try and blow up global satelite channels.

    I am not arguing against humour BTW or at jokes poking a bit of fun its just the humour here was all about alienation of the opposition.

    As has been stated before if the teacher was a christian and the kids being blown up were Muslim or visa versa there would be hell on. If the kids were Labour and the teacher Tory there would be hell on. If the teacher was a charity giver and the kids were non givers it would be percieved as putting too much pressure on.

    They should really take a good look at themselves and analyse what they have done.

    But hey NO PRESSURE

    Complain about this comment

  • 171. At 5:10pm on 05 Oct 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    Off to play footie now. Maybe I shouldn't run too fast as I will be burning more energy and increasing my carbon footprint.

    Everyday the world doesnt do what the global warming gang says is another nail in the coffin of their discredited religion.

    A man sits at the end of the street ripping up bits of paper.

    I walk up and ask " why are you doing that?"

    "To keep the elephants away" he replies.

    "But there are no elephants here in Sunderland" I tell him

    "Must be working then" he replies (smugly)

    For ripping up paper read eco lightbulbs toyota priuses reusable nappies etc.

    For the elephants read global warming

    Complain about this comment

  • 172. At 5:16pm on 05 Oct 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    I had a look to see if there were any climate change videos made by kids. I bet they would do a better job of it and without the big pay packet. Because believe it or not, kids are not easily brainwashed by one camp or the other. Most kids would do a sketch that involved both sides of the argument and with some sort of moral outcome.
    Come on kids, show us dumb adults what you are really made of, not the passive exploding deniers of 10;10 but proactive, intelligent and resourceful media developers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 173. At 5:30pm on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @LabMunkey #158

    Of course there is another reason for seeing the filmmakers thinking the problem is apathy.

    None of the victims actually come out with any sceptic statements, not even a bland "I don't believe in global warming". A schoolchild who just scowls and shrugs does not look like a climate sceptic.

    Complain about this comment

  • 174. At 5:30pm on 05 Oct 2010, Barry Woods wrote:



    Franny is not young, neither richard curtis, or al the board members, or the Guardain...

    My childs headteacher saw it as, bullying labbeling, controlling mindset.... I did not have to explain it to her..

    ! minute 12 seconds, was all it took her... Hse was frowning, at the pointing poel out stage, etc... After the red button... wow...

    She said, those that agreed were punsihed as well, learnt a lesson, covered in blood and gore, that was extreme suposedly a JOKE, but the underlying message was conform..

    "10:10 is a young and creative team but we will learn lessons from this."
    http://www.1010global.org/uk/2010/10/statement-1010-uk-director


    of course bullies everywhere, always say, whe n confronted , ir was a JOKE, don't you have a sense of humour...

    Teachers get that.... they see it in children...

    10:10 are not a bunch of naive 20 year olds.... don't let them attempt to 'spin' it that way..

    Some comments from their website..

    Before they deleted them....

    2. Dan Woodfine

    Dear 10:10

    I'm a teenager who has spent the last year trying to convince my parents to be more aware of the environment, to put more effort into recycling, to save energy etc. And what's more - it was working.

    They've now seen your video and have been interrogating me about who I'm associating with, warning me about "eco-terrorists" and other such nonsense.

    In short, with this video, you've completely undone everything I've tried to do to help my parents. You've made them suspicious of me, and you've made them downright angry.

    Thanks for nothing, you bunch of idiots.



    1. Carol Ann Cattell

    Is that the best you can do, 10:10 leaders? Still no apology even to your supporters. Mention jokingly a "lively round on cake", which was about 5 out of 3000 comments? Like a finishing school dormitory girls' giggle? And your main statement still says "most" thought it funny but "some" didn't - but the truth is, as you know, the opposite - that globally, thousands found it crass and unfunny and authoritarian and just, well, crap in promoting your cause.

    You. Just. Don't. Get. It.

    And some - a handful of goodhearted souls - have loyally supported you, but not terribly well, all the time you were silent. All a bit of a laugh, was it? Going back to Mummy and Daddy and their contacts for a bit more money, now, are we?

    God, you make me angry. And most of us were on your side, if you hadn't been so blinkered. No, the eco stuff is still there and serious and needs serious consideration, proper scientific facts, and effective action. But I hope to god you lot aren't anywhere near it. You're toxic. You can't even say sorry properly. You've no idea, have you? We're just plebs to be sniggered at, fodder for your little wanky games. For the earth's sake, just grow up, will you?

    Yeah, I'm a smidgen cross.


    3. Managing Director

    Our corporate accountants alerted me this evening to the existance (sic) of this video and to remind me that we had made a financial contribution to the 10:10 campaign. Having viewed it, I find it personally repulsive in the extreme. You have had the last donation you will ever get from our business or any business with which I have any influence. What could you have been thinking?

    4. Dear all at 10:10

    I have supported your campaign to date, am pro-green, pro-cutting carbon emissions, and generally very environmentally conscious. I also grew up in a country where people were blown up and killed by terrorists on a daily basis. I know people who died in this way, and from this video, I imagine from this video that no one at your office, or on your creative team, has experienced this.

    The mini-movie campaign indicates a total lack of sensitivity. Further, whatever the intended message might have been, it does implicitly suggest that those who disagree with you should be blown up. If this had been aimed at people who are of a different race, religion, sexuality, etc, it would have been evidently grossly unacceptable.

    Sadly, the mini-movie makes me ashamed to have lent my support, and put my name to 10:10. I imagine your corporate sponsors may feel similarly. I am reluctant to continue to be associated with an organisation which can advertise its cause in this way, even if I support the underlying green cause.

    This is compounded by what is somewhat obviously a non-apology. It is not a sense of humour failure (as you seem to imply) for people who may actually have seen children, friends, etc blown up, not to consider your mini-movie particularly funny.

    The environmental cause will now to have to deal with the damage that you've managed to do it. Your supporters deserve a decent apology for the damage you have done to the general reputation of the green movement.

    We will just have to continue onwards and upwards without you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 175. At 5:36pm on 05 Oct 2010, Paul Kerr wrote:

    @JaneBasingstoke

    I am not against fair minded debate either but I think you think because this was well intentioned nobody should be accountable,.. back to the real world for a moment please

    I ask you to pretend you have just witnessed a government information video intended to persuade parents to let their children have the MMR vaccination.

    Now watching the unvaccinated children getting spotty and dying of measles would be harsh enough.

    Imagine however if it was the teachers going around infecting them saying 'no pressure it was your parents choice' as they simply went spotty and fell to the ground.

    Now be honest, what would happen to the well intentioned public health docs who spent a pile of public money on that video?

    This also gets to the heart of why the BBC is so terrified of these issues. They feel its about picking the 'right' side and the MMR debacle left them feeeling vulnerable. But of course its about informed debate and critiquing that not taking sides.The politics is so threatening that even as questions are beginning I think the BBC is terrified of a meaningful critique of the warmist predictions

    Personally I think the blogosphere is filling the void in recent years

    Complain about this comment

  • 176. At 5:56pm on 05 Oct 2010, Ryan_ wrote:

    The video does seem to be in poor taste. It's hard to work out whether its produced by climate deniars highlighting ecofacism or just shock tactics by the eco side to get issues back in peoples minds.

    This 10% thing, seems a rather nebulous concept. Wouldn't it be better to say just don't waste energy/money/fuel needlessly by leaving things switched on or buying more food than you need- rather than trying to quantify a percentage.

    The eco argument should have morphed its message to fit in with these recessionary times. Think about electricty/fuel usage and save money on bills or something.
    I still don't hold out alot of hope for these climate talks, which just pay lip service to the problem. I think the whole eco issue needs rebranded- perhaps show how societies can still advance but by being mindful/respectful of the environment, sustainabilty, cleaner water ,cleaner air etc
    I agree with the post #1. More should be done to encourage infrastructure on the ground like alternative fuel/hydrogen pumps.

    In the UK we should be making alot more use out of our rough seas with hydro -electricity, maybe using the oil platforms in north sea to place marine current turbines, like the one they placed in Strangford Lough , Northern Ireland

    Complain about this comment

  • 177. At 5:58pm on 05 Oct 2010, quake wrote:

    Re 141 LabMunkey:

    It's not quite the precautionary principle I was talking about, but the establishment of a threat from manmade climate change. The precautionary principle is an political argument for action in light of that threat, but the threat itself is founded in the science.

    The threat of manmade climate change won't go away until it can be ruled out. That's not really going to happen until the models show very different results than they do now, and past climate changes can be explained in ways that are currently not known. The less we understand about climate, including our observation systems of current climate, the further we are from being able to dismiss the threat.

    Complain about this comment

  • 178. At 6:04pm on 05 Oct 2010, JunkkMale wrote:

    109. At 12:38pm on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    Thank you for the clarification. I can confirm I am nothing to do with http://www.junkscience.com/ I thought I had heard of it, but clicking thru can't ever recall seeing it before.

    I'd endorse the name calling bit, too. Especially when names can get confused to initiate rants.

    Jane and I have had, and doubtless will have our different views (though on occasion might also agree), and will articulate them robustly, but I do not recall her ever resorting to inappropriate name calling or tactics. Well, maybe a few descriptive terms that don't help set the scene as from an objective mindset too well.

    She fights her corner, and should be respected for that. If one takes issue, fine, and I think she's a big girl and can take it. We have crossed swords before. I, on the other hand, do bleed when cut (with a sharp comment), and take it out on the bin usually. There are many here, which is where the Junkk name originates, as 'junk' seemed a bit less fun.

    In this instance I feel she is perhaps a rather lonely voice, probably with some reason, and seeking to defend the indefensible a bit much. Many counters (very polite ones, but to the point in taking to task those being made) are taking issue. But that's her call. I'm with 157. At 3:59pm on 05 Oct 2010, Paddytoplad pretty much. But even here and there I can still also appreciate some input, Well, this bit at least:

    I'd say the problem was it was probably was watched by a focus group with exactly the same mindset as the filmmakers.

    Seems pretty fair to me. But should perhaps suggest to Jane a much bigger issue/problem a lot need to get their heads around when imposing views: there can be others. Equally valid. Equally frustrated, especially from the 'support' from some chatterati that seem every bit as well funded as individual posters are accused (with no evidence) of being by this odd 'big oil' entity, plus enjoying near total free access to highly uncritical MSM resources to broadcast one side only. And these folk are seldom satisfied with 'settled science' or being told to get over it. With good reason.

    I just had a very prompt, and very well worded apology (no silly weasels this time) from the UK 10:10 organisation. Someone there has figured out what a boo-boo this was, and has at last moved to react a bit more sensibly. A bit late maybe, but better than nothing. They call it 'a' mistake. I think they need to think a bit broader than that.

    When this thing 'broke', I was livid. I saw no merit on any basis, environmentally, creatively or in terms of strategic thinking and message brief.

    And I wrote and told them so. I do confess I in turn knee-jerked and withdrew on the spot my little outfit's 'support', even if only passive (featuring ideas, neat events, etc).

    I am a passionate believer in many environmental issues, but do not seek to impose, rather hoping to inspire by example. Bit more doing than talking here, and the word 'awareness' is near banned as it seems few are capable of seeing it in other than doctrinaire terms. I thought 10:10, from what I had been advised of and seen, was of a similar mind... foolishly. Running due diligences of every request to pop out a PR for a fair is about as sensible as expecting bloggers to have a detailed knowledge of others' history to frame poorly outlined comments. Few have time or resource to validate every story, if it seems quite harmless.

    But I do expect so-called journalists, editors, correspondents, editors and analysts who are well paid, with access to vast resources, and expect to be taken be taken seriously, to do so, and not punt out retyped press releases or accept what a mate from media studies at Uni tells them is gospel science fact. Hence the thread comments on this blog usually being a lot better to come to a view than the articles that kick 'em off. And my finding 'closed for comments' as profoundly retrograde as a tool for narrative shaping. Broadcast only pieces are basically deemed here as suspect until proven otherwise.

    I was unaware of the 10:10 'management' structure, or mission statement if they have one, which seems to have caught out quite a few others. Lessons learned, to coin a phrase. I suspect a few corporates, and even gov quangos (one hopes), may review major support a little more carefully before lobbing a bunch of cash at something that sounds worthy and ticks a few eco-boxes, but is run by a bunch of amateurs, especially ones with a curious agenda.

    I am reviewing our initial reaction in light of time and what has been shared. But this time I will mull for a while.

    The apology was well crafted and hit all the right buttons. But after the series of decisions that went into commissioning, approving, screening and then initially defending this thing so woefully, I maintain a suspicion that there are mindsets at the top that need at the very least to be purged, as persuasion and actual realisation seems unlikely with such folk lurking. Even if it's their creation. Especially ones 'on a roll', so loved by sycophantic courtiers and isolated now from reality as they fly in the very jets they declaim. You don't come up with such a thing lightly and then get away with 'oops'. There are folk who are very flawed here. Sorry Jane. Hypocrites at best. And a few most certainly abusing positions of privilege (power, access, money) to push personal beliefs. Not messengers worthy of such complex and critical messages. Not in my name at least.

    But I don't want to tar others in the 10:10 diaspora, here or around the world, with the same brush. IF they are equally appalled. But the fact remains it kicked off here, and all the top dogs (if mainly female,... won't go there) emoting instead of thinking carefully are still in place.

    They (and many others) shouldn't get money (especially grants, etc) to push propaganda on the very people who may not share their views... yet are also paying for them. Now, where and about whom have I had that feeling before?


    Complain about this comment

  • 179. At 6:10pm on 05 Oct 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @JaneBasingstoke

    if it's any consolation, Jane, I'm getting a bit of a seeing to over at JoNova's blog for stating the sceptics should not be endorsing the spate of parodies of the 10:10 video

    and i am already on record on a different thread dismissing the 10:10 video as shooting themselves in the foot

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 180. At 6:16pm on 05 Oct 2010, NotaSheep wrote:

    You say that 'President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom of the Maldives told me that he and the Alliance of Small Island States was exploring the possibility of suing high-emitting governments if and when their countries disappeared under the waves.'

    Isn't there a slight problem with this? I seem to remember Nils-Axel Mörner a former lead reviewer for the IPCC and head of Geodynamics at Stockholm University until his retirement in 2005 writing an open letter to the government of the Maldives, here's a few extracts:

    "The people of the Maldives had no problems surviving the 17th century, which was 50cm higher than now. Nor the last century, where it rose by 20cm. This bodes well for their prospects of surviving the next change.
    ...
    Neither of those levels would pose any real problem — simply a return to the situation in the 17th and the 19th to early 20th centuries, respectively.

    I wrote a piece last year (9 December 2009) about this very issue and asked: 'So why the scare-mongering? Could it be because there is money involved? If you inhabit a tiny island and can convince the world that its very existence is under threat because of the polluting policies of the West, the industrialised nations will certainly respond. The money is likely to flow in more quickly than the ocean will rise.'

    Comments Mr Black?

    Complain about this comment

  • 181. At 6:17pm on 05 Oct 2010, quake wrote:

    Re 149 purpleDogzzz:

    "That means that the hypothesis that a doubling of atmospheric concentration of CO2 will create an increase of X degrees by 2100, MUST be proven to be valid and they must also prove that any increase is directly caused by CO2 and solely CO2. It is not for sceptics to disprove it"

    This is the way the issue is currently framed and I think it's wrong.

    Look at it this way, drugs companies aren't allowed to release drugs to the public untested with the reasoning that noone has proven they are dangerous. Drugs companies have to test the drugs to demonstrate they are somewhat safe.

    And so it should be with climate (imo). The science has established sufficient cause for a threat. As such a powerful argument can be made that ongoing emissions are dangerous until they are proven safe. Climate activists would have far better traction if they reframed the whole issue that way.

    Trying to establish substance behind specific threats, rather than list plausible threats that cannot be ruled out, is symptomatic of bodies such as the IPCC. What would be more interesting would be more emphasis on areas of lack of understanding that present risks.

    A list of all the systems in climate and the ecosystem that could go catastrophically wrong would be a start, like rainforest dieback, ocean current reconfiguration. Then a little note under each of them, where applicable, saying "insufficient understanding to rule out this effect".

    Complain about this comment

  • 182. At 6:19pm on 05 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Paddytoplad #170 wrote:

    Videos like this even if well meaning can cause consequences well out of their control because they didnt think.

    Why?

    Because of the smug selfrighteouness of the ecowarrior.


    That's a good point.

    Personally, I don't think the film counts as incitement to violence at all, and I don't think it's all that bad, actually. (But maybe they should have called it "Four Explosions and an Implosion"?) Why does it not count as incitement? -- Suppose someone has an attack dog that goes ballistic and bites everyone in sight every time it hears the theme music to "Postman Pat". Should we count that song as incitement? -- No, we should count the dog (rather than the song) as a dangerous uncontrollable weapon. Political satire/humour has always been -- always will be, and indeed should be -- "edgy" or "in bad taste" because that's just what satire is. Should we count satire as incitement? -- Of course not -- we should count the violent nitwits who go ballistic when they are exposed to satire as the real source of the danger.

    Importantly, as Paddytoplad points out, it is the self-styled "warrior" whose moral fervour whips him up into a disbelief-suspended state of high-minded dudgeon who is most likely to do the real harm -- to count his fellow humans as non-human, their opinions as non-opinions, and so on, if not worse.

    When Monty Python did this sort of thing in its original form -- with weights marked "16 tons" falling out of the sky, with knights in shining armour getting de-limbed, etc. -- people were not at the time actually falling victim to weights falling out of the sky, or losing arms and legs when confronted by knights saying "no one shall pass!" However, when Richard Curtis does the same sort of thing 40 years later, people actually are detonating themselves and exploding others along with them...

    So I think the film has to be counted as less than a success in terms of its political swaying power. It was misjudged -- and how, given the solemnity of those whose political opinions it was meant to promote. It suggests failures of self-examination. But it just wasn't incitement to violence.

    Complain about this comment

  • 183. At 6:23pm on 05 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Paul Kerr #175

    There is a big difference between 10:10 being accountable for a horrendous mistake that has hurt other people and 10:10 being held accountable for more serious crimes of which they are innocent.

    Please see my #162

    Complain about this comment

  • 184. At 6:35pm on 05 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ jane
    i seriously think you need to take a step back and think about what you're actually saying.

    You are basically putting forward that this organisation and the people in it, who in full knowledge put this film through (which even with the implied threat aside is in shockingly bad taste given the daily occurances in iraq and afghanistan) should be 'let off' because they 'meant well'.

    Garbage. utter garbage.

    Re-Ecofacism.
    i had not even entertained the idea until they had released that video. The video is worrying not just for what it portrays (and jane you can pick at the subtelties all you like to try and defend them, but you're flat out wrong, as has already been pointed out many times by far more eloquent people) but because it shows a mind-set.

    They actually thought this would be FUNNY. Their non-apology explicitly shows this. This 'damns' them and 10:10 alongside them.

    I understand your need to try and seperate the film from the people, but you cannot especially given its HEAVY political message.

    Jane you are arguing a completely un-winnable point here. You are usually the first to spot these kind of things (and have done for me on numerous occasions) please take time to re evaluate this stand you are making. It does you zero credit.

    @ Quake.

    Again, quite an interesting point made there. Technically you are right, without a 'control' earth (as it would be called) we cannot test this hypothesis. HOwever what we can do is test the predictions.

    I think you'll have to agree that the predictions, to date, have been woefully inadequate.

    If the predictions are inaccurate, then by extension so to is the theory. There therefore, by very basic logical reasoning no threat- unless proven otherwise. Which does take me back quite nicely to the precautionary principle.

    Just stating that we have to act now IN CASE something happens is not science, ESPECIALLY when the predictions are wrong and the observations don't match the theory.

    As such, we have nothing to point to any drastic issues except inaccurate models and politics.

    Complain about this comment

  • 185. At 6:42pm on 05 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ quake
    "A list of all the systems in climate and the ecosystem that could go catastrophically wrong would be a start, like rainforest dieback, ocean current reconfiguration. Then a little note under each of them, where applicable, saying "insufficient understanding to rule out this effect".
    "

    thats a very interesting idea, while i obiously wouldn't class CO2 in that myself it's still, an interesting idea.

    Complain about this comment

  • 186. At 6:46pm on 05 Oct 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @quake 181

    Re 149 purpleDogzzz:

    "That means that the hypothesis that a doubling of atmospheric concentration of CO2 will create an increase of X degrees by 2100, MUST be proven to be valid and they must also prove that any increase is directly caused by CO2 and solely CO2. It is not for sceptics to disprove it"

    This is the way the issue is currently framed and I think it's wrong.


    The scientific method has stood the test of time, but you want to change it to suit the AGWers agenda?

    If it ain't broke .....

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 187. At 6:57pm on 05 Oct 2010, Paul Crabb wrote:

    Cannot believe that people on here are STILL promoting biofuel. It's singlehandedly responsible for tripling the cost of wheat, and STARVING people to DEATH! I suggest we urgently eat crops rather than burn them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 188. At 7:23pm on 05 Oct 2010, beesaman wrote:

    Jane, the murder of childern can never be treated as some form of humour, not even dark humour. If you don't get that then why should any of your other views be given validation here? You defend the indefensible and in doing so throw light upon your own pysche.

    Complain about this comment

  • 189. At 7:40pm on 05 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    LabMunkey #184 wrote:

    who in full knowledge put this film through (which even with the implied threat aside is in shockingly bad taste given the daily occurances in iraq and afghanistan) should be 'let off' because they 'meant well'.

    Garbage. utter garbage.


    Bear it in mind that British society is very deeply divided, politically, over the recent wars. The situation is quite different from the US during the Vietnam war, by the way, because in those days there was conscription, and people from all walks of life were on the front line, especially those who least wanted to be involved. Many black and/or impoverished anti-war families were drawn into it because they couldn't arrange a big-shot lawyer to wangle their young adult son's way out of it.

    As things stand, at least one half of British society is "blind" to the wars because they're not involved, and they're not involved because they simply don't want to be involved. They despise those who are involved, because the latter chose to be involved. If those who chose to be involved are having a bad time, then that's just tough, many think, and I needn't give the matter any further thought. Luvvies are typically blind in this way.

    Complain about this comment

  • 190. At 7:49pm on 05 Oct 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Judging from the somewhat snide comments posted here, I gather that some of you do not like comments from ordinary people and would prefer to limit the blog to scientists and upper echelon writers. Tough luck! Thinking reflectively, I thought it might be an idea to qualify why I found 10:10 distasteful enough to throw a hissy fit. Several bloggers here have remarked on numerous occasions about there being too many people in the world. This remark has been made many times in the context of climate change and humanity-caused global warming. Imagine what the 10:10 video suggests in the context of remarks about there being too many people in the world.

    The makers of the 10:10 video have accidently made a link to the idea of too many people; 9/11( eg.9+1 and 11-1); amateur terrorist videos of people being shot in order to get demands met; an idea that a percentage of people must die to bring the population down (so-it-might-as-well-be-the-ignorant-who-don't-understand-climate-change)
    This idea will also link back to the last war and the atrocities that occurred because of 'difference' used as a scapegoat during the severe economic downturn of a certain country.
    I am sorry I am speaking my mind and I am sorry if I am upsetting anyone, but anything that even jokingly makes a threat of extermination, invokes real fear and a real sense of threat in many people.

    The 10;110 video makers might argue that mock violence is a regular part of our culture in programs such as Dr Who or video games depicting violence or soaps or films with violent themes. However this is different. This film is supposed to be representative of authority and there is an unspoken rule that authority should always lead by good and responsible example.

    Complain about this comment

  • 191. At 7:51pm on 05 Oct 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    beesaman #188

    "Jane, the murder of childern can never be treated as some form of humour, not even dark humour. If you don't get that then why should any of your other views be given validation here? You defend the indefensible and in doing so throw light upon your own pysche"

    beesaman - you and one or two other contributors (eg LabMunkey but not Bowman or Mango) I think are ODing on rhetoric here. That last sentence especially is very ad fem

    If I mention South Park, I may assuming too much because you may also think South Park is tasteless and unfunny. However, let's assume you just think of it as dark humour which can be very funny - probably the view of most people who watch it. The fact is, it often involves children getting killed.

    So, do you feel inclined to be just as critical of South Park and its creators and the people who like it as you do of the Curtis film? Or has your rhetoric got more to do with your dislike of the views of the people who run 10:10 than with what you really think of the film?

    Complain about this comment

  • 192. At 7:51pm on 05 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    beesaman #188 wrote:

    the murder of childern can never be treated as some form of humour, not even dark humour.

    I trust you would ban Chitty Chitty Bang Bang on the basis of its "Child Catcher" character? And must we never let a wry smile play about our lips as we read "The Pied Piper of Hamelin"?

    Complain about this comment

  • 193. At 8:27pm on 05 Oct 2010, Hank4162 wrote:


    bowmanthebard wrote @ 156:

    Hardly anyone outside of the most plodding sort of "inductive" statistics even talks about "the null hypothesis". The "proof" of any other sort of hypothesis, if it means more than mere corroboration, simply never occurs at all.


    As a research scientist, I can assure you your characterization of the scientific process is naively misinformed. The null hypothesis is the critical test of all scientific theory, used in all branches of the physical and theoretical sciences. Probability and confidence intervals, a requirement of any research abstract, are constructed to rule in or out the null hypothesis. Without the null hypothesis there would be no objective scientific test of knowledge.

    To be clear on terms, a hypothesis is a belief built around observations that seeks justification. Only when it is objectively proved that the null hypothesis (or alternate hypothesis) cannot account for the observation can the hypothesis claim the status of knowledge. The burden of proof of the hypothesis lies squarely on the shoulders of the proponent of the hypothesis. It is their responsibility and, in fact, requirement to prove that the null hypothesis is falsified and the hypothesis, as demonstrated by evidence, is proved without confounding variables, with proper methodology, and with reproducibility. Anything less rigorous is pure junk science, or at best, pure guesswork.

    Complain about this comment

  • 194. At 8:50pm on 05 Oct 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    bowmanthebard #67, #87.

    "..a truly ridiculous definition of fascism.."

    it is a mistake (IMO) to argue fascism ended in 1945 when Hitler's Germany lost in WWII.

    however, my heart is not in debating this issue for I think there's no one as blind as those who won't see; if you are unconcerned about the way society and politics have developed globally since the 70s, good for you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 195. At 9:09pm on 05 Oct 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    "#193 Hank4162

    To be clear on terms, a hypothesis is a belief built around observations that seeks justification. Only when it is objectively proved that the null hypothesis (or alternate hypothesis) cannot account for the observation can the hypothesis claim the status of knowledge. The burden of proof of the hypothesis lies squarely on the shoulders of the proponent of the hypothesis. "


    So in the case of climate science, I can hypothesize a model in which some combination of forcings (solar, volcanic, greenhouse gases, clouds, albedo) explains sufficiently well the temperature over the past 100 years or so. Then I create a null hypothesis which is a model that doesn't include the anthropogenic element of greenhouse gases and show that it doesn't explain temperature variability over the past 100 years.

    But does that constitute a proof in the same sense that a small scale experiment in which all defined variables are controlled for can be said to confirm a hypothesis unambiguously.

    There are aspects of the climate experiment - cloud effects and feedback thresholds in particular - which indicate that the hypothesis can't be said to be proved in quite the same way. The best we can do is say that the hypothesis is supported by the current state of the science.

    Isn't that one reason why this has become such a controversial scientific discipline?

    Complain about this comment

  • 196. At 9:10pm on 05 Oct 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    Jane,

    I would like to thank you for your polite responses and your consideration during this debate. I dont share your view but do respect the way in which you have carried yourself during what must be a difficult time with so many people with an opposing view. If more people took the same amount of time to listen/read on both sides maybe this situation could be repaired.


    A few deluded (IMHO) scientists have bet the farm on their theory with little conclusive data and with insufficient sampling.

    Their knee jerk conclusions have consequence. Its not just us recycling a little bit and maybe going on fewer holidays its the other parts which cause the rot.

    Its the hobbling of economies caused by punative taxes and restrictions which have little statistical significance scientifically but massive detrimental effects on peoples livelyhoods.

    Effectively the greens will prevent Brazilians, subsaharan africans,east asians indians and others getting out of poverty because they will hold back their abilities to produce competitively. You cant feed billions of people on green economies and eco tourism the maths doesnt stack up.

    We will condemn these people to many more years of poverty all to asuage the white mans angst.

    Kenyan flower farmers are now prevented (not legally but by eco pressure) from selling their blooms to europe out of some misguided drive to reduce an invisible carbon footprint. They had been setting up a lucrative trade which paid its workers well in excess of what they could earn in hotels or by more 'eco friendly' means.

    If the greenies are right these kenyan flowers will not have much impact on total CO2 emmisions if they are wrong they have prevented thousands of people lifting themselves out of poverty.

    The crazy thing is the people who wore the white wristbands also wear green ones and yet in many ways one counteracts the other.

    These measures have real consequences. If we are going to condemn future generations in the developing world to poverty there better be a good reason.

    Remember

    1 CJD Where are all the people with mad cow disease. There were supposed to be millions in the end many times more people die of normal food poisoning from soft cheeses etc.

    2 MMR Remember the hysteria whipped up by well meaning members of the main stream media including many of the same luvvies that now preach eco lunacy. The doctor who started the whole scam is now in jail and yet their are still many luddites who risk their kids lives by not giving them the mmr jab

    3 The Ozone hole. WE now know the hole increases and decreases in size with the seasons but it wasnt that long ago that the greenies were telling us we were all going to need spacesuits.

    4 Global cooling. In the mid seventies a large part of the scientific community thought we were going into the next iceage. How times change.

    5 Y2K bug. No planes fell out of the sky no hospitals stopped functioning no trains crashed nothing

    6 Bird flu swine flu etc. How many people actually popped their cloggs and yet we were told the plague was coming.

    Based on the above are we so sure that we can condemn the poor to remain poor just to satisfy our own hysteria?

    Complain about this comment

  • 197. At 9:39pm on 05 Oct 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    Paddytoplad #196.

    "We will condemn these people to many more years of poverty all to asuage the white mans angst."

    no, 'we' condemned these people to poverty because 'our' wealth is based on it. do you really believe that "Brazilians, subsaharan africans,east asians indians and others" are impoverished because of their lack of "abilities"?

    Complain about this comment

  • 198. At 10:03pm on 05 Oct 2010, GeoffWard wrote:

    'There are plenty of the rare earth elements deposits available outside China, it's just that it has been cheaper for us all (especially the USA) to import rather than mine. The policy is now going into fast reverse' (Me @ 53)
    ......................................
    'my understanding is much of the rare earth elements in the US are located in protected areas. Please correct me if i am wrong' (Mango @ 54)
    ......................................
    Hi, Mango,
    yes, an interesting dip into websites.
    .
    You asked me about Conservation/National Park/etc. status of US Rare Earth Metal (REM) mining sites. There is *no* overlap information on this aspect – mining corporation websites never mention landscape, and landscape/’conservation’ websites never mention mining, even though they are talking about the same place! However, conservation comes a distant second when it comes to 'national security' of military hardware.
    .
    The world's major supplier of rare earth metals, China, is increasingly withholding rare earth metals for its own needs and reducing export quotas for Europium and Yttrium oxides by 6% and 34% respectively this year. Currently China produces 95% of the world supply of REM, following withdrawal from mining by all other countries on the grounds of relative cost and pollution litigations. Used for permanent Eco-magnets in windfarms and a range of military materiel, the US is exposed as its supply chain is controlled by its potential enemy.
    .
    The Rare Earth Elements (REE) , also called the Metal Lanthanides (AN 57-71), group into the ‘’light’ and the ‘heavy’
    .
    'US' corporations must re-open/open its ‘light’ REE mines [light = lanthanum to gadolinium] in Colorado (Chinese investment), Idaho, Montana, Missouri (Chinese investment), Utah (Canadian extraction), Wyoming (Canadian owned) and - the largest - California.
    .
    At the last of these, Mountain Pass Mine, Ca (No specified landscape value), Molycorp expects to resume mining soon and plans to produce cerium, lanthanum, praseodymium and neodymium oxides by 2012, *even if it must ship those oxides to China for final processing*. Previous on-site processing was halted by the EPA following toxic and radioactive (Th & Ra) mine waste pollutions – 60 pipe-breakages in 15 years – a paltry $1.4m was negotiate for liability & clean-up..
    .
    The ‘heavy’ lanthanides [terbium to lutetium] are more problematical; there are deposits at Diamond Creek, Idaho (Teton, National Forest); and smaller deposits at Lemhi Pass on the Idaho-Montana border (a National Forest area), and at Elk Creek, Nebraska (No specified landscape value).
    .
    Large but unquantified REE deposits at Mount Weld in Australia may be a significant part of the ‘Non-Chinese’ solution, and smaller fields are accessible by the West in Brazil, Canada, France and Japan; there is potential access to mines in Malawi, Malaysia and Zambia, though I expect these deposits to fall within the Chinese Sphere of Influence.
    .
    Regards,
    Geoff.


    Complain about this comment

  • 199. At 10:14pm on 05 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Hank4162 #193 wrote:

    As a research scientist, I can assure you

    I'd try some other approach if I were you, if you want me to keep reading!

    Complain about this comment

  • 200. At 10:22pm on 05 Oct 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    jr4412 #197
    Ability definition
    n. pl. a·bil·i·ties
    1. The quality of being able to do something, especially the physical, mental, financial, or legal power to accomplish something.
    2. A natural or acquired skill or talent.

    Above is the dictionary definition of abilities. Number 1 fully describes the limitation we will be putting the third world under.

    We will restrict their financial power by restricting their trade with us because of distance and so called 'carbon footprint'

    We will restrict their physical abilities to feed their families by reducing their financial power.

    We will restrict their lives legally by imposing uneeded international agreements which in real terms benefit the west by hidden protectionism and force the third world to live off some sustinance payment in some carbon offset trading schemes.

    So in this sense i couldnt have chosen a better word. Thank you for helping me reinforce my point Most kind





    Complain about this comment

  • 201. At 10:31pm on 05 Oct 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    as someone who trades with many countries of the world I see first hand how trade if done correctly enriches both sides.

    The print I produce help them sell their products and they in turn grow more prosperous and competitive. This directly enriches them while in turn benefiting my company and my 300 staff.

    There can be exploitative trade but the vast majority in my experience can benefit both sides. Its national governments and trading blocks which skew the system to protect there electorates and backers that cause exploitation. If given a reasonably free rein business and trade can bring lasting benefits.

    Complain about this comment

  • 202. At 10:41pm on 05 Oct 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    By the way has anyone noticed that they have taken all the spoof versions of the video off youtube for copyright reasons and yet they have left all versions of the original on.

    Withdrawn my rse

    Complain about this comment

  • 203. At 10:43pm on 05 Oct 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    Paddytoplad #200.

    "We will restrict their financial power by restricting their trade with us because of distance and so called 'carbon footprint'

    We will restrict their physical abilities to feed their families by reducing their financial power.

    We will restrict their lives legally by imposing uneeded international agreements which in real terms benefit the west by hidden protectionism and force the third world to live off some sustinance payment in some carbon offset trading schemes."

    since we're using dictionary definitions, try and look up meaning and use of 'will'.

    'we' have been there and done that already, why are you concerned about 'Green' policies?

    Complain about this comment

  • 204. At 10:44pm on 05 Oct 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @GeoffWard #198

    That's what i was saying, which is why i find it interesting that Richard can do a piece on China without mentioning that China has a virtual monopoly on the materials used to produce much of the "sustainable" energy bits and pieces

    So of course the Chinese are on board with the AGW farce

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/this_week_marks_a_first.html#P101500645

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 205. At 10:55pm on 05 Oct 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    Paddytoplad #201.

    "as someone who trades with many countries of the world I see first hand how trade if done correctly enriches both sides."

    as someone who lives on planet Earth, where companies like Monsanto, Rio Tinto, Imperial Tobacco, GlaxoSmithKline, United Fruit Company, etc, etc dictate the reality which we are 'privileged' to experience, I see no evidence that trade "enriches both sides".

    "The print I produce help them sell their products and they in turn grow more prosperous and competitive. This directly enriches them while in turn benefiting my company and my 300 staff."

    {applaudes politely}

    Complain about this comment

  • 206. At 11:24pm on 05 Oct 2010, GeoffWard wrote:

    "Re: GeoffWard #198: That's what i was saying, which is why i find it interesting that Richard can do a piece on China without mentioning that China has a virtual monopoly on the materials used to produce much of the "sustainable" energy bits and pieces
    So of course the Chinese are on board with the AGW farce" (Mango @ 204)
    ........................
    They are temporarily in control of key metals, but the motivation is to rapidly expand their state-of-the-art munitions industry, rather than to hog the world commercial market for permanent magnets.
    I'm pretty sure the commercial strategy will feature extremely largely in the coming years as the 'limiting factor' cascade of raw materials, processed materials and finished products makes the rest of the world progressively unable to operate key industries and services except through the Chinese route.
    This is the modern way to world conquest.

    Complain about this comment

  • 207. At 11:40pm on 05 Oct 2010, U14592372 wrote:

    What incentive does China have to sign up to any climate change agreement besides for good PR in the west? Their own population is a bigger factor in their problems with water supply and farmland.

    And as for that unfunny and disgusting 10:10 video, it's an effort Bin Laden wouldn't put his name on:

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    Complain about this comment

  • 208. At 00:33am on 06 Oct 2010, beesaman wrote:

    Paul Butler, so you can't distinguish between cartoons and real people, what an odd world you exist in!
    As for Bowmanthebard, do we see children graphically murdered in those stories or is that just what you see in 'your' imagination? Again, another mirror into some of the warmists souls.
    Personally, I hope that the makers of this film are prosecuted under child protection laws. I for one, would not want them to be allowed to supervise children again. But then again, maybe to some people a theory in more important than a child's life.

    Complain about this comment

  • 209. At 00:39am on 06 Oct 2010, Paddytoplad wrote:

    jr4412

    Always like being complemented by members of the cloth even if in this case the cloth is cheese.

    Always love hippies and trots. You have no answers only anger. Your nihilism knows no bounds. 'Everything in life is crappy and terrible western culture and commerce are to blame'

    Blame big oil/pharma/agric/brother anybody as long as they're big.

    Your anti globalisation whos who may show some corrupt and arrogant businesses but not all are like that. There are plenty of good examples of international firms who work symbiotically and not parasitically as some of your hit list do. Sometimes the profit motive can actually have some social benefits. More properous suppliers often means more efficient supplies. Farer deals for customers helps their business thrive and in the end help your business grow. The eternal drive to push down and subjugate supply is not the only model. Look at firms like John Lewis and the coop who continuously strive to have ethical and sustainable supply chains and firms supplying third world markets like mine need to be aware of export market conditions if expensively created business relationships are going to last.

    Not all business or commerce comes out of the SWP blacklist



    Your bible the grauniad states

    'How going green may make you mean
    Ethical consumers less likely to be kind and more likely to steal, study finds'

    While you snipe other people including many of my staff help.

    While you sit on the sidelines moaning others are doing things which make a difference.

    Sit in your common room/ bedsit / luxury islington flat and enjoy your trust fund while other people try to make things better.

    You seem a bit angsty and slightly sad. The world is a good place. It has its bad bits but on the whole people are good. Every day people live longer, life is better more people are fed and more children survive disease.

    Yes there is corruption, death starvation rape and destruction we should do our best to lessen and in the end irradicate them but on the whole we are living longer brighter happier lives.

    The human race has its faults and certainly has its challenges to face but on the whole it is getting better.

    I admire your idealism but a bit of optimisitc realism wouldnt go a miss.
    As Obama says 'yes we can'

    Sorry to get patronising and preachy but you seemed so glum and needed cheering up.



    Complain about this comment

  • 210. At 01:14am on 06 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @beesaman #188

    There is no such thing as "indefensible" in law. Everyone has a right to be heard. This is not just to be soft on crooks. This is to ensure that people only get punished for things they actually got wrong. And to ensure that everyone, victims, accused, and society, get justice. Justice means justice for all, otherwise it isn't justice.

    Is justice for all really less important than punishing sick jokes about killing children? Is it really OK for these people to be treated as Nazis by bloggers like James Delingpole as well as being punished for the sick jokes?

    Complain about this comment

  • 211. At 01:25am on 06 Oct 2010, Charles Higley wrote:

    There is absolutely no reason for the US to step up and do anything regarding climate change or CO2 emissions as we have not warmed since 1995, cooled a bit since 2002, and actively cooled since 2006. CO2 cannot drive the climate - this is a political scam, nothing more - and it is plant food, responsible for greening the planet and increasing our food supply. There is no down side to CO2. and, if it did cause some warming, there is no evidence of any kind that its effects would be bad. Rather, they all appear to be good as evidenced by the thriving civilizations during other warm periods.

    However, as we have stopped warming and been cooling right on cue according to natural cycles and as CO2 continues to rise quite implacably and steadily, the two are obviously not linked. The IPCC is a political body, not scientific, and has an agenda to sell.

    AND, as there are no damages to other undeveloped countries to speak of by CO2 emissions, the US, or any other country, owes those countries nothing. We should give them aid in developing, but we owe them nothing. It's that simple.

    Sea level rise, acidification, species losses, more extreme weather, floods, drought - all cobbled up alarms that have no scientific foundation. The Arctic ice is not going anywhere, and currently growing at one Manhattan-size area every few minutes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 212. At 07:34am on 06 Oct 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Charles Higley #211

    I am by no means an AGWer, but I think the overall trend in recorded temperatures is still up, despite a few ups and downs, with 2010 as being one of the warmest.

    Spencer, for example, has the September anomaly at +0.6C, even though it has felt freezing all year. The Arctic and the oceans, however, are not playing ball. Sea ice is recovering well according to NSDIC and the oceans are cooling causing sea level to flat line or decrease.

    The overall trend, however, is still up

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 213. At 08:01am on 06 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Hank4162 #193 wrote:

    Probability and confidence intervals, a requirement of any research abstract, are constructed to rule in or out the null hypothesis. Without the null hypothesis there would be no objective scientific test of knowledge.

    As I said, plodding inductivist statistics -- in other words, unadulterated pseudoscience.

    To be clear on terms, a hypothesis is a belief built around observations that seeks justification.

    Baloney. For a start, a belief is something an agent holds to be true, but a hypothesis yet subjected to testing is generally not assumed to be true; the idea that a hypothesis is "built around" observations is either obviously untrue, or else a disguised form of inductivism; and the idea that a non-agent "seeks" anything is ridiculous.

    It is a tragedy that so many of the general public swallow appeals to authority (one's own. no less) and big words as above, and assume this sort of half-baked garbage is real science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 214. At 08:13am on 06 Oct 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @GeoffWard #206

    They are temporarily in control of key metals, but the motivation is to rapidly expand their state-of-the-art munitions industry, rather than to hog the world commercial market for permanent magnets.

    Whatever the Chinese motivation or strategy, I think it was amiss of Richard to talk about the Chinese role at the latest round of talks without mentioning their monopoly of the raw materials.

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 215. At 08:14am on 06 Oct 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    I meant to say, China has a clear vested interest in being on board with the CO2 as primary driver of climate change farce

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 216. At 08:28am on 06 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    beesaman #208 wrote:

    Paul Butler, so you can't distinguish between cartoons and real people, what an odd world you exist in!

    Isn't the real problem here that you are failing to distinguish between fact and fiction? The children you saw were child actors. They were not really killed. When I was a child I joined the local youth drama group, and I can remember acting my own death at least twice.

    Perhaps you object to all child acting -- fair enough, there may be a case there -- but it isn't the same case as you seem to be making here, which seems to assume that real people got killed in the making of a movie! No one is accusing Richard Curtis of making "snuff movies", surely?

    Complain about this comment

  • 217. At 09:04am on 06 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 212,
    I'd re-iterate this point.

    The cAGW is occuring ontop of a baseline that was ALREADY increasing via natural methods. I.e. the temperature was already rising, co2 if it has any affect is adding warming on TOP of that.

    This does however make any pause of slight reduction in temperature rises all the more significant.

    However, it is interesting to point out that the only data set to show significant warming is the one that interpolates the arctic 'data'....

    Re- the film.

    Bowman you are trying to draw parallels between comedy and the film which just aren't there. One set (i.e. python) are comedians, the other are and advocacy group supported by the government.

    That's the issue, not so much the film- disgusting as it is, but the message it supposedly shows and the 'official' support it has (had).

    You cannot seperate the film from the political message making any conparisons between typical comedy irrelevant.

    @ jane, i realise my last few posts may have been a bit heavy handed- if so i apologise. Needless to say however, i still disagree with you quite strongly.

    Complain about this comment

  • 218. At 09:05am on 06 Oct 2010, Taxanban wrote:

    I wish Richard Curtis had blown up those 2 sickly kids that appeared at the end of 'Love Actually'. Now that would have been funny.

    Complain about this comment

  • 219. At 09:18am on 06 Oct 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #208 beesaman

    "Paul Butler, so you can't distinguish between cartoons and real people, what an odd world you exist in!"


    ... and beesaman (obvious response but I can't resist it), the kids in the film weren't really exploded


    "As for Bowmanthebard, do we see children graphically murdered in those stories or is that just what you see in 'your' imagination? Again, another mirror into some of the warmists souls."

    You need to look at peoples' posting history before you fly off with assumptions. I'm a 'warmist' but I don't think Bowman is somehow :-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 220. At 09:27am on 06 Oct 2010, Smiffie wrote:

    JaneBasingstoke @#173 said “Of course there is another reason for seeing the filmmakers thinking the problem is apathy.
    None of the victims actually come out with any sceptic statements, not even a bland "I don't believe in global warming". A schoolchild who just scowls and shrugs does not look like a climate sceptic.”
    This says something about the mindset of the 10:10 people and people like them, not only do they despise there opponents, they also despise everyone who is neutral, everyone who does not share their obsession.

    Complain about this comment

  • 221. At 09:28am on 06 Oct 2010, Smiffie wrote:

    Paul Crabb @#187 said “Cannot believe that people on here are STILL promoting biofuel. It's singlehandedly responsible for tripling the cost of wheat, and STARVING people to DEATH! I suggest we urgently eat crops rather than burn them.”
    Latest from the classic car press, the government is considering increasing the amount of bio-ethanol in petrol to 10 percent.

    Complain about this comment

  • 222. At 09:52am on 06 Oct 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 223. At 10:05am on 06 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    From the 'you couldn't make it up', news desk:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11470261

    Wind turbines creating 'drastic' temperature variations on a local scale:

    ---"This turbulence leads to a warming near the surface at night and a cooling during the day," Dr Roy told BBC News.

    He added that the effects were in the range of ‐0.4 to 1.5C"---

    That's a variation that by the IPCC's own reckoning, would be damaging to the environment.

    So it would seem that the cure is the same, if not worse than what it is trying to prevent..... who'dhavethoughtit....

    Complain about this comment

  • 224. At 10:08am on 06 Oct 2010, Andrea Robson wrote:

    @ Barry Woods

    You posted some text which seems to have come from the 10:10 website (no longer available there). Is there another source for the deleted posts? I'm wondering if the "sense of humour" failure by a few people is a tenable apology from 10:10.

    Complain about this comment

  • 225. At 10:49am on 06 Oct 2010, JunkkMale wrote:

    Ironic.

    When the 10:10 furore 'broke', some not unsurprisingly headed to the only 'live' BBC avenue of discussion.

    Unfortunately in its latest form.. about bears.

    I have only now been advised by email that two of my replies then, days ago, have been re-reviewed and found to be 'off-topic', by referring to 10:10 one supposes.

    Oddly, this seems a smidge selective currently, unless some entity in a big sulk is working through and complaining one by one.

    Helen Boaden will be proud. Though I suspect Capita's lawyers will be going into OT, as in 'overtime', as I am sure I am not alone in getting a tad tired with the variable free speech standards applied across BBC blogs, especially in shaping discussions to suit narratives.

    See how long this lasts. Oh, and Aunty, this is a test.

    Lots of pressure.

    Complain about this comment

  • 226. At 10:53am on 06 Oct 2010, Wolfiewoods wrote:

    Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change is the biggest threat facing mankind and over population is the second biggest threat facing mankind, so perhaps the 10:10 people do have a point, perhaps there are just too many “don’t know & don’t care” types in the world.

    Complain about this comment

  • 227. At 11:12am on 06 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 255.

    indeed i've just been informed i've had nuerous posts re-reviewed and removed from the last blog.

    interesting.

    Complain about this comment

  • 228. At 11:21am on 06 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 226.

    So the ends justify the means huh....

    Complain about this comment

  • 229. At 11:24am on 06 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    LabMunkey #217 wrote:

    Bowman you are trying to draw parallels between comedy and the film which just aren't there.

    If you're saying the film wasn't actually funny -- I agree with you. But that's an aesthetic complaint, which I put alongside its failing to be very original. But it was intended to be funny in a shocking/satirical sort of way. That is just the nature of satire -- it's supposed to be shocking, disgusting, and hopefully amusing as well.

    One set (i.e. python) are comedians, the other are and advocacy group supported by the government.

    In a sense, everything on the BBC including the Goons, Monty Python, etc. are "supported by the government". That is just one of the uncomfortable or disturbing features of tax-supported "national broadcasting". That is why Americans are genuinely baffled by the very concept of such a thing, and regard it as rather sinister. That's why the BBC have so many forums for discussion -- like this one -- to better deal with the awkward questions "national broadcasting" raises.

    That's the issue, not so much the film- disgusting as it is, but the message it supposedly shows and the 'official' support it has (had).

    Perhaps the BBC should eschew all politically loaded "message conveying". Perhaps that is not an appropriate role for a "national broadcaster" -- I'm sympathetic to all that. But it's a separate issue from whether or not satire is unacceptable as a means of "conveying messages". Personally, I wish they'd use a bit more satire (or attempts at satire) in their road-safety "messages", which strike me at present as being leaden.

    Personally, I think a lot of posters are confusing their hostility to the "message" with hostility to the "medium" used to express it. But nowadays children spend their days spattering (pretend) body parts in (pretend) showers of blood and gore -- ever hear tell of a thing called a "computer game"? One of them new-fangled "X Box" machines?

    Complain about this comment

  • 230. At 11:31am on 06 Oct 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    226. At 10:53am on 06 Oct 2010, Wolfiewoods wrote:

    "..so perhaps the 10:10 people do have a point, perhaps there are just too many “don’t know & don’t care” types in the world."


    And?

    Franny - 10:10 founder.
    said in the Guardiathat these people were 'afflicted'


    she also said 'What to DO with these people'

    So, may I ask Wolfie to come out with it, what does wolfie personally suggest be done with THESE people.. which I imagine, would include me?

    Complain about this comment

  • 231. At 11:33am on 06 Oct 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #226 Wolfiewoods

    "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change is the biggest threat facing mankind and over population is the second biggest threat facing mankind, so perhaps the 10:10 people do have a point, perhaps there are just too many “don’t know & don’t care” types in the world."

    Those threats (to which I would add the threats of desertification and acidification of to the oceans) don't happen on the kind of timescales that force people to care at the emotional level. Scientific uncertainty turns them off, because we don't even know what the timescales of the threats really are, so why would people bother with some nebulous threat sometime in the future except to the extent to which they can transcend what directly affects their own individual lives.

    They expect governments to be sorting things out at that level. By the time the threat becomes personal enough it'll probably be too late. In the meantime we can always hope that those who say global warming isn't going to happen are right.

    Complain about this comment

  • 232. At 11:51am on 06 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Wolfiewoods #226 wrote:

    Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change is the biggest threat facing mankind and over population is the second biggest threat facing mankind

    To be exact, in your opinion, an opinion that is not shared by many others, those are the biggest threats facing mankind. So there has to be some debate about it. And in the opinion of many others, "mankind" is distinct from individual sentient humans, so it is not the sort of thing that anyone need worry about. Contraception is a "threat to mankind" too, but HIV is a threat to individual humans, so condoms should be freely available.

    Complain about this comment

  • 233. At 12:01pm on 06 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 299.

    Bowman, i think (for a change) that you're being deliberatley obtuse.

    The BBC whilst technically 'supported by the government' in as such that the government protects it's 'license fee' is SUPPOSED to be completely impartial and the funding SHOULD have no direct effect on it's practices of political stances.

    10:10 is an advocacy group which supports the governments current stance on C02 and directly attempts to affect peoples perceptions (especially children) and is such a very different entity.

    The BBC is not seen to have the governments endorsement on the stories it writes or the programs it produces. A directly funded advocacy group however CAN be seen this way.

    Your further points on comedy, computer games whatnot are irrelevant as they TOO are not government sponsored, but to extend your very weak analogy If the UK government produced a game letting you murder skeptics would that not be just as sinister/unacceptable?

    The film was not funny and it is beside the point whether it was attempting to be or not. Would propoganda by an advocate of an terrorist/extremist group be excused if it were attempting to be funny?

    NO. hence that is no defence here either.

    Complain about this comment

  • 234. At 12:01pm on 06 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Paul Butler #231 wrote:

    Scientific uncertainty turns them off, because we don't even know what the timescales of the threats really are, so why would people bother with some nebulous threat sometime in the future

    I'm afraid that's just rationality at work. When we weigh up the risk in any course of action/inaction, we have to take account of the likelihood of its achieving its goal as well as the desirability of the goal.

    To see why, suppose there are a million tickets for a lottery, and the single winning ticket holder wins one million pounds. Then it is rational to pay less than a pound for a ticket, and irrational to pay more than a pound for a ticket.

    By analogy, sooner or later a huge asteroid will hit the Earth, causing mass extinction and death. Question: How much money should we divert from relieving present-day famines, fighting present-day diseases (etc.) to invest in making preparations for the coming catastrophe? -- Answer: Not much!

    Complain about this comment

  • 235. At 12:05pm on 06 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    "In the meantime we can always hope that those who say global warming isn't going to happen are right. "

    SIGH.

    This is one of the most frustrating parts of debating with cAGW-ers. We have ZERO evidence to suggest that the world is warming due to man. The warming may be completely natural in which case we have ZERO right or need to attempt to stop it.

    In that case the money would be FAR better spent on mitigation rather than prevention. Or does that take away some of your richeous zealotry?

    Complain about this comment

  • 236. At 12:35pm on 06 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    LabMunkey #233 wrote:

    The film was not funny and it is beside the point whether it was attempting to be or not.

    Its principal objective was to sway political opinion. But I don't think it was using violent imagery as a threat to further that end. It was trying (unsuccessfully) to win people over by being funny, and trying (unsuccessfully) to be funny by being "over the top". Richard Curtis has succeeded at "over the top" humour in the past, but now he's obviously "over the hill". He is unfunny, and unoriginal, but he is not a terrorist.

    Would propoganda by an advocate of an terrorist/extremist group be excused if it were attempting to be funny?

    No, because that would be a threat. It wouldn't be funny either, by the way, but that's no reason to ban it. If it's a threat, that's a reason to ban it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 237. At 12:39pm on 06 Oct 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    LabMunkey #235

    First off, I actually mean it when I say "we can always hope that those who say global warming isn't going to happen are right"

    Second off, we do have evidence, predictions about the fingerprint of CO2 induced warming, which support the AGW position. This is not the thread to go into all that in detail for the x millionth time.

    Third you say "In that case the money would be FAR better spent on mitigation rather than prevention". I think you mean "adaptation rather than mitigation". If present day warming is not natural, its far too late for prevention. Its probably too late for effective mitigation as well if the truth be told.

    Fourth, do you really think I suffer from righteous zealotry? Bet you anything you like I can find more of that in your posts than you can find in mine!

    Cheers

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 238. At 1:10pm on 06 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @237
    "do you really think I suffer from righteous zealotry" not really forstly i'd confuised you with someone else and secondly i was trying (and failing spectaculary) to make a point about assumptions based on belief. apologies.

    "Bet you anything you like I can find more of that in your posts than you can find in mine!"

    I'd be suprised if you could. I'm a passionate arguer but a scientist through and through, changing my opinion based on evidence. You may just be mistaking my opinions of the validity of the evidence or the conclusions made from it as something else.


    " we do have evidence"
    True, of certian aspects of the 'puzzle' but nothing that ties it all together. Granted this is not the place (lest the mods descend with the recent fevour they've descovereD) to go into that further, but in the example you raised- that itself is not proof that man is the cause. It is proof man's raising the co2 levels, that's all.

    "Third you say "In that case the money would be FAR better spent on mitigation rather than prevention". I think you mean "adaptation rather than mitigation "

    Yes, i mean adaption rather than mitigation, apologies, however that doesn't negate my point.

    Complain about this comment

  • 239. At 1:16pm on 06 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ paul

    doesn't seem to be my day, i'm responding to something you didn't actually say again (i.e. co2 levels).

    "we do have evidence, predictions about the fingerprint of CO2 induced warming, which support the AGW position"

    This is news to me. I was under the distinct impression that they have failed to find the cAGW fingerpritn for over 30 years now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 240. At 1:29pm on 06 Oct 2010, Wolfiewoods wrote:

    Barry Woods @#230 asks what to do with the deniers and don’t know & don’t care types that I mentioned at #226. Well obviously we cannot just go around blowing them up as in the 10:10 sketch, that was just a bit of harmless fun. Perhaps there should be some sort of state sanctioned re-education programme, something similar to the anger management or alcohol awareness programmes that courts sometimes order offenders to undertake. Of course my suggestion will not happen in a world where every Tom, Dick & Harry can have his say, I know that I am not alone in thinking that democracy’s greatest strengths are also its greatest weaknesses.

    Complain about this comment

  • 241. At 1:38pm on 06 Oct 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #238 LabMunkey

    "Bet you anything you like I can find more of that [righteous zealotry] in your posts than you can find in mine!"

    I'd be suprised if you could. I'm a passionate arguer but a scientist through and through, changing my opinion based on evidence. You may just be mistaking my opinions of the validity of the evidence or the conclusions made from it as something else.


    But righteous zealotry has nothing to do with science or evidence. And that joke bet of mine was not based on you scientific opinions, more on the tone of your end of your discussion with BowmanTheBard about what 10:10 could do given that it was partially state funded. That did look a bit like righteous zealotry. (This has no bearing in whether or not I agree with you - I'm still making my mind up about that, but I should say the fact that Bowman's tone seemed calmer tends to make an agnostic like me prefer his view)

    Complain about this comment

  • 242. At 1:44pm on 06 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 240

    "Perhaps there should be some sort of state sanctioned re-education programme,"

    wow. you ACTUALLY typed that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 243. At 1:51pm on 06 Oct 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #239. LabMunkey

    "
    "we do have evidence, predictions about the fingerprint of CO2 induced warming, which support the AGW position"

    This is news to me. I was under the distinct impression that they have failed to find the cAGW fingerpritn for over 30 years now."


    As I said before this is not the thread to discuss this in detail and I don't have time right now anyway, but the primary fingerprints are differences in the incoming and outgoing radiation at particular wavelengths and the vertical distribution of warming/cooling trends.

    Obviously this isn't proof which satisfies everybody, otherwise the AGW argument would be a done deal, but it does go a long way to explaining why most scientists (and not just climate scientists!) accept the AGW consensus

    Complain about this comment

  • 244. At 1:54pm on 06 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 241
    "But righteous zealotry has nothing to do with science or evidence. And that joke bet of mine was not based on you scientific opinions, more on the tone of your end of your discussion with BowmanTheBard about what 10:10 could do given that it was partially state funded. That did look a bit like righteous zealotry. (This has no bearing in whether or not I agree with you - I'm still making my mind up about that, but I should say the fact that Bowman's tone seemed calmer tends to make an agnostic like me prefer his view)"

    Hmmm. That's a good point actually, i disagree that i am zealous in anything (excluding perhaps my football team) but i can see how you'd perhpas think that, though i would temper that by suggesting that tone is very difficult to judge in written word, especially in a blog. So if i came across as a religious zealot, then i suppose the fault is mine alone.

    The point i was trying to make to bowman was not ideological, but more a practical observation; as soon as something becomes or appears to have state backing the messages it can and does portray carry significantly different weight. Therefore (to my mind) comparing independant comedy to something that 'has' state support, especially given the political aims is not correct. Hence that defense is invalid. Even though this is not on scientific evidence, my mind still works in the same way- hence my reasoning.

    or something along those lines

    [/soapbox]

    Complain about this comment

  • 245. At 1:54pm on 06 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Perhaps there should be some sort of state sanctioned re-education programme

    wow. you ACTUALLY typed that.


    Is it another "edgy joke"?

    Complain about this comment

  • 246. At 1:57pm on 06 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "Perhaps there should be some sort of state sanctioned re-education programme"

    On reflection, if I do not hear many "warmists" disowning this -- or explaining its "humour" -- I think I shall have to start to count the 10:10 film as something bordering on terrorism...

    Complain about this comment

  • 247. At 2:05pm on 06 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 243
    "differences in the incoming and outgoing radiation at particular wavelengths and the vertical distribution of warming/cooling trends"

    to seperate the two
    "differences in the incoming and outgoing radiation at particular wavelengths" i was aware of this and accept the work- but as you pointed out it is not enough to show a link (those pesky feedbacks)

    "the vertical distribution of warming/cooling trends"

    this would be the models again would it not? As the satellite data, as far as i'm aware, doesn't show anything like this.

    " but it does go a long way to explaining why most scientists (and not just climate scientists!) "

    i would also heavily debate this. The surveys are heavily skewed- but i'm sure you knew that already.

    BUt you're right, we're probably veering too far OT

    Complain about this comment

  • 248. At 2:29pm on 06 Oct 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #247 LabMunkey

    "the vertical distribution of warming/cooling trends"

    this would be the models again would it not? As the satellite data, as far as i'm aware, doesn't show anything like this.


    Go to the RSS satellite page here

    http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html

    then go to the section 'decadal trends'. You'll see a switch from warming to cooling trends as you go up through the atmosphere.

    Bear in mind though, that even the satellites don't measure temperatures at each level directly. The vertical profile is itself modelled. But I don't think anybody questions the validity of these interpretations.


    Re your #244
    "that tone is very difficult to judge in written word, especially in a blog."

    Quite right. And that's why so many of threads descend into namecalling.

    Complain about this comment

  • 249. At 2:47pm on 06 Oct 2010, Smiffie wrote:

    I think that special thanks are in order, firstly to the 10:10 team for unwittingly revealing their inner feelings to the world and secondly to Wolfiewoods and JaneBasingstoke for having the courage to stand by their beliefs when all other warmists had run for cover. Well done to you all.

    Complain about this comment

  • 250. At 3:03pm on 06 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @248.

    So you do, thanks for the link.

    I'll need to look at this more thoroughly though than current time would allow.

    Complain about this comment

  • 251. At 4:43pm on 06 Oct 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    240:

    I consider you reply, as either.

    1) a very carfully constructed method of bullyin and attempting to control/supress the debate..

    2) Or was it a joke...(please explain the humour)

    which was it, your choice... NO PRESSURE


    Of course it was a JOKE:

    "It is only a JOKE, don't you have a sense of humour, is the standard response from every bully(ever worked in an office or school) when their behaviour is challenged...

    The casual use of the word 'deniar' actually does bother me now... (not personally) The public HAS become desensitised to it's use......

    BUT, What does it actually mean...?

    I am merely sceptical of catastrophic, end of world predictions, based on assumptions computer models 'runs', where the underlying physics suggest the 1-2 degrees of warming dues to a DOUBLING of CO2. That is the simple physics... In the actual climate, there are many complex systems and feed backs (no POSITIVE ones prooved for CO2, some indication that it is negative) thuus the actual AGW effect in the real climate may only be tenths of a degree..

    I don't know, I would like some scientists to actually attempt to find out... ( I would call that a ratioanlist, or scientific response)

    Anybody else here have an opinion, or don't they want to get put on a list... (I'm not makin any jokes here)

    Does that make me a deniar...

    Please define your version wolfie..


    I am actually beginning to regret using me real name on all these blogs, when there are so many brave anonyomous people out there, calling me a 'deniar'... I don't even know what that means

    Complain about this comment

  • 252. At 4:51pm on 06 Oct 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    Lots of defense of the movie around... what is interesting is the lack of tolerance for other views...and the propaganda message, of motives of 'scepticism'

    http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/3-offensive-images-of-climate-change/1122

    "This movie was not offensive. What is offensive is the fact that we still entertain climate change deniers who use fossil fuel-funded studies to push their dishonorable agendas."

    I hope know one here thinks I have dishonourable intentions....

    I can assure you I have received no money....
    If there is any money going I must be owed tens of thousands (joke)

    Complain about this comment

  • 253. At 5:20pm on 06 Oct 2010, Hank4162 wrote:

    "#195. At 9:09pm on 05 Oct 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    So in the case of climate science, I can hypothesize a model in which some combination of forcings (solar, volcanic, greenhouse gases, clouds, albedo) explains sufficiently well the temperature over the past 100 years or so. Then I create a null hypothesis which is a model that doesn't include the anthropogenic element of greenhouse gases and show that it doesn't explain temperature variability over the past 100 years.

    But does that constitute a proof in the same sense that a small scale experiment in which all defined variables are controlled for can be said to confirm a hypothesis unambiguously.

    There are aspects of the climate experiment - cloud effects and feedback thresholds in particular - which indicate that the hypothesis can't be said to be proved in quite the same way. The best we can do is say that the hypothesis is supported by the current state of the science.

    Isn't that one reason why this has become such a controversial scientific discipline? "


    Yes, you can hypothesize such a model as you described and suppose a null hypothesis (0H) would be the same model minus the anthropogenic element of greenhouse gasses but all you've demonstrated is the underlying assumptions of the model are dependent on anthropogenic green house gasses. That there is agreement between the model and retrospective observation does not demonstrate proof that the underlying assumptions is correct but rather, that the assumptions can be allegorical of the observation right or wrong. It is for this reason, in my opinion, models do not constitute proof of a hypothesis in and of themselves. Adjusting the data to compensate for an incorrect assumption and visa versa can produce identical results. Models can help us to test what we know against data and assumptions to refine our knowledge and improve our assumptions. That said, I personally have a low confidence in their having genuine predictive skills.

    The controversies in climate science have less to do with the fact that scientists are dealing with poor data, low resolution and limited, at times divergent proxies in paleo climate reconstruction, and a narrow and QC challenged instrument record. In reality, the above describes the environment of many branches of science. These issues can all be dealt with appropriately within the normal processes of scientific inquiry.

    The root of most controversy, as I see it, is where politics and science create blurred lines with conflicting and poorly presented messages (witness the 10:10 debacle), confidence being overstated, uncertainties understated, and the known unknowns and unknown unknowns downplayed as inconsequential. Worse is when you have politicians and activists being the scientist's mouthpieces, misrepresenting the science. This all creates public distrust. Added to fuel for public distrust is the message of post normal science - a more political than physical or theoretical science. The public has an intuitive ability to distinguish between science and politics and generally distrusts political messages.

    Complain about this comment

  • 254. At 5:29pm on 06 Oct 2010, Hank4162 wrote:

    "#199. At 10:14pm on 05 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:
    Hank4162 #193 wrote:

    As a research scientist, I can assure you

    I'd try some other approach if I were you, if you want me to keep reading! "


    Given your position that time honored scientific methods aren't used at all in the sciences, I can understand your aversion to my speaking from a vantage point of practical experience.

    Complain about this comment

  • 255. At 5:33pm on 06 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @bowmanthebard #246
    (@LabMunkey #242)

    "On reflection, if I do not hear many "warmists" disowning this -- or explaining its "humour" -- I think I shall have to start to count the 10:10 film as something bordering on terrorism..." bowmanthebard

    I'm finding it difficult enough explaining why some failed jokes by fellow warmists are not proof of Nazism. And now you ask for an explanation of some successful jokes by an individual that doesn't appear to be a warmist?

    To me Wolfiewoods's #240 looks like a straight p*** take of some of the more blinkered warmists, although obviously that is at least partly based on Wolfiewoods's historical posts.

    Why should I have to explain Wolfiewood's humour as well? What's happened to the Bowman sense of irony?

    Of course I could be wrong about our Wolfie. You may wish to look at this definition of Poe's Law.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law

    Complain about this comment

  • 256. At 5:51pm on 06 Oct 2010, bgstrong wrote:

    Why has the BBC & other mainstream news media taken so long to recognize the "Global Warming" scam as a fraud ??

    Complain about this comment

  • 257. At 6:17pm on 06 Oct 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Wolfiewoods #240

    Perhaps there should be some sort of state sanctioned re-education programme,

    WOW! That's a shocking statement to make and I'm surprised it hasn't been attacked by AGWers as well as sceptics on AGW

    in the words of Pink Floyd:

    We don’t need no education
    We don’t need no thought control


    Thank goodness some of us can still think

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 258. At 6:40pm on 06 Oct 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Richard Black

    You said:

    Answers may materialise by the end of the week, along with signs of whether trust and progress are on an upward or downward path as December's summit in Cancun, Mexico, looms.

    Do you think the Cancun conference will be affected by the admission by the New Zealand National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA)that the NZ temperature record is incorrect?

    Apparently NIWA have disowned the NZ temperature record following a paper by NZ Climate Science Coalition, which proves historic temperatures were adjusted downwards to show a recent upturn.

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 259. At 7:00pm on 06 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Hank4162 #254 wrote:

    your position that time honored scientific methods aren't used at all in the sciences

    My position is that time-honored scientific methods are not used in psychology, sociology, astrology, phrenology, -- and much climate science, especially the sort that supposes theory is "based on data". That is why most of the above is no better than pseudoscience. The surest mark of a pseudoscience is its use of inductive methodology. Many recent applications of statistics (although not all) are nothing better than extrapolation from a sample (or many samples, which pretty much amounts to the same thing).

    Time-honored scientific methods do not involve "the null hypothesis" -- as you would know if you could talk to Galileo, Boyle, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and many others.

    Complain about this comment

  • 260. At 7:26pm on 06 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    JaneBasingstoke #255 wrote:

    now you ask for an explanation of some successful jokes by an individual that doesn't appear to be a warmist?

    I'm not sure I'd count a joke as successful if a lot of people have trouble knowing it's a joke! Trick, maybe; joke, hardly. People laugh at jokes. Actually, come to think of it, I don't laugh at jokes -- I laugh at humor. My difficulty spotting the humor in this is partly the failure of my own sense of humor, partly the fact that some others have suggested seriously that deniers need state re-education.

    Thanks though -- I'm glad you clarified that. Wonder what sort of humorist gets others to clarify that they are being humorous?

    Complain about this comment

  • 261. At 8:09pm on 06 Oct 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #253 Hank4162

    "The controversies in climate science have less to do with the fact that scientists are dealing with poor data, low resolution and limited, at times divergent proxies in paleo climate reconstruction, and a narrow and QC challenged instrument record. In reality, the above describes the environment of many branches of science. These issues can all be dealt with appropriately within the normal processes of scientific inquiry.

    The root of most controversy, as I see it, is where politics and science create blurred lines with conflicting and poorly presented messages (witness the 10:10 debacle), confidence being overstated, uncertainties understated, and the known unknowns and unknown unknowns downplayed as inconsequential. Worse is when you have politicians and activists being the scientist's mouthpieces, misrepresenting the science. "


    Thanks for that thoughtful reply. But although you say "These issues can all be dealt with appropriately within the normal processes of scientific inquiry" wouldn't you agree that dealing with scientific problems with the constraints you describe stretches the standard null hypothesis driven model to its limit? For one thing when we are dealing with the whole earth system, there is no control experiment. For another, the proof of the hypothesis - if it can ever be said to happen when there is no control - lies well into the future, by which time (if there are societal implications in our response) it may be too late anyway.

    Presumably that's why - for all their limitations - scientists in these fields do treat model based experiments as if they were real experiments. And although I agree the models leave a lot out, I can also see that they do a pretty good job of predicting weather systems - at least on a scale of a few days.


    The issue of blurred lines between politics and science is evidently important. But to what extent do scientists have a responsibility to inform politicians about what they may genuinely perceive as an existential threat? A more unambiguous example might be that, if somebody spotted an asteroid heading directly for Earth you wouldn't expect them to put it on the back burner and go on to the next thing, or keep quiet about it till their paper got published.

    With climate science, scientists might perceive the potential threat and feel that the severity of the risk justifies their making the case with more certainty than is justified by the science alone. I'm not saying this is right or wrong. But I do think we should try to become as aware as we can about the extent to which human activities affect the Earth system.

    Complain about this comment

  • 262. At 8:40pm on 06 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @bowmanthebard #260

    Personally I normally like everyone to get my jokes even if they don't like them. Being misunderstood can be so much hassle. However some individuals like practical jokes and like being misunderstood by individuals outside their circle. Have you heard of 4chan?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan

    I don't know if this situation applies to Wolfiewoods. However I point out that many of Wolfie's posts are very similar to the one you flagged up. But it's only in the wake of "No Pressure" that people seem to be so upset by Wolfie's posts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 263. At 9:28pm on 06 Oct 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    Jane

    Do you know Wolfie...
    Can you read his mind...

    I'm asking Wolfie

    Joke or serious..

    I've met the serious people, being called a deniar, in public, by an activist, with hate in their eyes was NO FUN...

    Complain about this comment

  • 264. At 9:31pm on 06 Oct 2010, desmodue wrote:

    Greenpa says it's "virtually impossible" to find ANY reputable scientists who refute AGW. Try this;OISM.org petition against catastrophic AGW signed by THIRTY ONE THOUSAND reputable scientists here in the States.Your head,sir,is firmly lodged.

    Complain about this comment

  • 265. At 9:35pm on 06 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    JaneBasingstoke #262 wrote:

    "some individuals like practical jokes"

    I gather some also like secret handshakes. Identical sets, I'm guessing.

    BTW, I just traced the source of this well-observed Mill-type thought:

    "watched by a focus group with exactly the same mindset as the filmmakers."

    That is indeed the surest path to error.

    Complain about this comment

  • 266. At 08:04am on 07 Oct 2010, Wolfiewoods wrote:

    Re my 240 post and others – the problems of the world are too serious for me to joke about, some people do not like what I say but they still need saying.

    JaneBasingstoke – I don’t know why you keep on about my past posts, if anyone is interested then just click on my name, some of my early ones were not that cleaver but I was new to blogging then, I think that you will find that that my opinions are fairly consistent.

    Complain about this comment

  • 267. At 08:49am on 07 Oct 2010, Hank4162 wrote:

    #261. At 8:09pm on 06 Oct 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    "...wouldn't you agree that dealing with scientific problems with the constraints you describe stretches the standard null hypothesis driven model to its limit?"


    I also appreciate your honest and insightful replies. The constraints I mentioned don't negate the need for the null hypothesis (0H) test in practice even if the answer is partially achievable or entirely unachievable. Allow me to explain my reasoning in a more philosophical way...

    The 0H is the devil's advocate - a test of truth. By following the hypothesis method, we submit to a systematic check that ensures that what we accept as knowledge has been sufficiently challenged to eliminate doubt. The philosopher Richard Kirkham offered perhaps the most concise definition of knowledge. It is where the “justification for the belief must be infallible.” If any doubt exists or the belief is built on pseudo-evidence, the knowledge cannot be sustained and cannot be held as fact. This is why the hypothesis method is so important in science - science seeks knowledge, knowledge is built on truth. A hypothesis is elevated to truth by the elimination of all doubt. By falsifying the 0H, doubt is eliminated. It is a practical and objective methodology irrespective of how profound or complex the inquiry.

    "For one thing when we are dealing with the whole earth system, there is no control experiment. For another, the proof of the hypothesis - if it can ever be said to happen when there is no control - lies well into the future, by which time (if there are societal implications in our response) it may be too late anyway."

    A double blind experiment (experimental group vs. control group) is one of several ways conduct an experiment but not the only acceptable one. In many situations, such as the climate system, it isn't possible to do a double blind experiment as you astutely understand. In such cases we must use retrospective cohort studies. Such studies seek to obtain past and present longitudinal evidence to falsify the suspected association between cause and effect (the 0H). By falsifying or presenting evidence to the contrary of the 0H we strengthen confidence in the hypothesis. This is the standard practice of climatology as well as many other branches of science.

    "A more unambiguous example might be that, if somebody spotted an asteroid heading directly for Earth you wouldn't expect them to put it on the back burner and go on to the next thing, or keep quiet about it till their paper got published."

    Absolutely! But in this case, we're dealing with verifiable fact, not a hypothesis. So all discussion on theory, peer review, and journal publication are out the window. If I saw the asteroid first, my value system dictates that I have a responsibility to warn all I can and forgo all formalities in the process.

    "With climate science, scientists might perceive the potential threat and feel that the severity of the risk justifies their making the case with more certainty than is justified by the science alone. I'm not saying this is right or wrong."

    The scientist makes a valid judgement call to raise the red flag if a potential threat is perceived even if the state of knowledge is incomplete. I don't think most people have a problem with that. I certainly don't. However, coming from the pre-post normal science school, I don't agree that making the case with more certainty than is justified by the science is recommendable. By overstating the certainty the scientist sets himself/herself up for valid public and peer criticism. In doing so, it creates an unnecessary distraction and controversy that makes the original concern more the side show. That is much of what we are witnessing in climate science now.

    "But I do think we should try to become as aware as we can about the extent to which human activities affect the Earth system."

    I totally agree with your comment. It may surprise you (or maybe not) to know that while my research work is unrelated, I am what might be best described as a lay environmentalist in word and lifestyle. I volunteer and often head up coordination of local environmental clean up projects. I am a supporting member of several environment education organizations.

    Complain about this comment

  • 268. At 08:55am on 07 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @266
    "Re my 240 post and others – the problems of the world are too serious for me to joke about, some people do not like what I say but they still need saying"

    And posts like this are the reason why films like the 10:10 one are so serious. It gives legitimacy to people who ALREADY think they're right and everyone is wrong and damn the consequences.

    It's the absolute certainty that worries me. it really does.

    Re- the scientific method and specifically climate sciences reliance on models/null hypothesis. (paul,hank and bowman).

    There have been many discussions about the null hypothesis, its validity and use and as a scientist of over 10 years practical experience I thought I’d chuck my tuppence worth in. Feel free to skip the rest of this post though as it’s a long one.

    The null hypothesis is an important tool. The limitations highlighted by hank are very important, however that is not reason to discount the null hypothesis. If the experiment and the null hypothesis are unable to tell you what you want (and by this I mean a definitive answer in the context of the experiment, NOT the result you’d prefer) then the design of the experiment is flawed.

    This is the biggest practical issue I come across when working with other agencies/companies; the design of the experiments themselves. Too many people think they can just jump in and start testing random things and then a picture will form for them, from which they think they can draw meaningful conclusions. This is inherently dangerous as it’s often based upon pre-conceived ideas and the ‘conclusion’ can be reached before the experiment is actually finished. I.e. if you’re expecting ‘X’ you’ll stop testing once you GET ‘X’, not carrying on to see if it’s actually X + Y or a pesky Z that looks like X from the side in a bad light.

    Without a decent understanding of the system or mechanism you are trying to test, you are not actually able to test what you THINK you are testing and therefore it is almost certain that the hypothesis/null hypothesis is of little to no use.

    In my day to day life I run numerous stability trials. These are based on years of background knowledge (from a whole team) and the mechanisms are well understood (in this context).

    We can then confidently say for example that:
    If X gives Y stability after Z weeks then molecule Q has a stabilizing affect.

    This then has the corresponding null hypothesis of : if X gives not-Y stability (or R) after Z weeks then molecule Q has no stabilising effect in this context.

    This is the correct application of experiment, hypothesis and null hypothesis; A tightly defined set of criteria with one variable in a well-to-reasonably well known system (though the more scientific amongst us will recognise that even in this tightly defined example, variation is still possible).

    ‘Environmental science’, as we all know, raises its own interesting challenges.

    Someone raised models as a viable experimental technique, however the reliance on models raises their own issues as the assumptions used FOR the models are then compounded by the assumptions in the data and theory; especially given the current understanding of climate. This is why they are junk and why often than not input X = pretty much any damn thing you want it to be, a sure sign that the process is flawed. Models can never replace experimentation. They can augment, but not replace.

    So for climate you CAN use a null hypothesis quite accurately-however the criteria must be tightly defined requiring the actual hypothesis to be equally defined. A main overarching theory built up by lots of smaller, interconnected theories over time; the correct scientific process when faced with a poorly understood system. Climate ‘sciences’ error, in my view, is that they did this the wrong way around. They put forward a large, overarching theory and THEN went about trying to understand the system. As such they were (and are) almost certainly wrong.

    Incidentally- hot off the press:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11480916
    The sun seems to be playing a LARGER role in climate than first thought. Well I for one never expected that.


    Complain about this comment

  • 269. At 09:04am on 07 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 267. good post.

    Complain about this comment

  • 270. At 09:38am on 07 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    The philosopher Richard Kirkham offered perhaps the most concise definition of knowledge. It is where the “justification for the belief must be infallible.” If any doubt exists or the belief is built on pseudo-evidence, the knowledge cannot be sustained and cannot be held as fact.

    This is an utterly hopeless, philosophically backward definition of 'knowledge', from someone who must never have studied philosophy in his life and has stumbled upon the same ideas Descartes STARTED OFF with in the seventeenth century.

    Complain about this comment

  • 271. At 10:00am on 07 Oct 2010, Hank4162 wrote:

    259. At 7:00pm on 06 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "Time-honored scientific methods do not involve "the null hypothesis" -- as you would know if you could talk to Galileo, Boyle, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and many others."


    Well, I must confess I've never talked to Galileo, Boyle, Newton, Darwin, or Einstein. But I have talked to many others and indeed work with them. I would be laughed out of the room if I were to try to convince my peers that "Time-honored scientific methods do not involve "the null hypothesis." I wouldn't be able to get an abstract even submitted to peer review and publication if I didn't provide analysis of probability, confidence intervals, sample powers, etc.. all of which you contend are the hallmarks of pseudoscience.

    Help me understand. If we can't use hypothesis (and it's necessary counterpart null hypothesis), statistical analysis (Chi square, Fisher exact, Student T, Principal component analysis, Poisson probability, ANOVA, etc...) to describe data, can't formulate questions on the basis of observations, exactly how do you propose scientists conduct science convincingly?

    Complain about this comment

  • 272. At 10:24am on 07 Oct 2010, Smiffie wrote:

    @ JaneBasingstoke

    Regarding Wolfiewoods, I can understand why a clever warmist such as yourself would want to disown his embarrassingly forthright opinions, but do you not think that if he were someone trying to sabotage your cause then he would use several different user names. I have read through his posting history as you suggested and I think that his writing style is such that we could easily spot him under a different name. A rose by any other name would smell.

    Complain about this comment

  • 273. At 10:56am on 07 Oct 2010, Hank4162 wrote:

    270. At 09:38am on 07 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "This is an utterly hopeless, philosophically backward definition of 'knowledge', from someone who must never have studied philosophy in his life and has stumbled upon the same ideas Descartes STARTED OFF with in the seventeenth century."


    You talk in circles. René Descartes philosophized that everything is open to doubt. I hardly see where that assertion in any way makes Kirkham's own treatment of doubt in the context of knowledge philosophically backwards. I find it rather disingenuous that you now reach beyond judging the standards for science and seek to judge the scholarly accomplishments of philosophers. It is evident you have no interest in an intellectually honest dialog as you arrogantly chide and offer nothing of value to any resemblance of a discussion. It is "utterly hopeless" to engage you any further.

    Complain about this comment

  • 274. At 11:05am on 07 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Hank4162 #271 wrote:

    Well, I must confess I've never talked to Galileo, Boyle, Newton, Darwin, or Einstein. But I have talked to many others and indeed work with them.

    And does a single one of them not work in inductive statistics?

    (Inductive statistics is pseudoscience!)

    Complain about this comment

  • 275. At 11:21am on 07 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Help me understand. If we can't use hypothesis (and it's necessary counterpart null hypothesis)

    What is normally called "the method of hypothesis" has nothing whatever to do with the "null hypothesis", which is a device used in a narrow area (and extremely doubtful application) of statistics -- the statistics of extrapolating from a sample.

    I'm prepared to say that not a single scientific insight -- not a single one -- has ever been achieved using that method. Like most pseudosciences, it drapes itself with numbers in the hope that that makes it look scientific. (No doubt it is rigorous -- I grant you that; but rigor is not science.)

    The method of hypothesis has been described in detail, and argued over, since the seventeenth century, when Galileo, Boyle and others began to ask what they were doing. It involved a rejection of Francis Bacon's "inductivist" methodology.

    The standard introduction is Carl Hempel's _Philosophy of Natural Science_, but there are many perfectly good descriptions avaiable free on on the web.

    The basic idea is that we start off with a hypothesis -- a "guess" as Feynman honestly put it -- then use deduction to draw out some observational consequence (i.e. literally a prediction) of that guess. Then we check to see if it agrees with observation (in other look and see if the prediction comes true). If it doesn't, doubt is cast on the guess, and we might even reject it outright (it's just "wrong", as Feynman put it). If it does agree with observation, we can be a bit more confident about the guess being right, because it has "got over a hurdle". But we can never have conclusive proof or disproof. Nor do we ever have a numerical measure of how confident we can be in the initial guess.

    Please note that in a genuine test, observation comes AFTER the guess -- the guess isn't BASED ON the observation.

    In my opinion, it is an absolute scandal that so many people pass off the exact reverse of the above (with theory supposedly "based on data") as science. None of the great scientists ever did anything like that. It's the alchemy/astrology/phrenology of our age!

    Complain about this comment

  • 276. At 11:31am on 07 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 275.

    See my post #268

    Also, the Null hypothesis IS a valid scientific method and you catagorically CAN disprove somethign in that manner. You are clearly not a scientist or have worked in a research Laboratory if you think this.

    As for hypothesis based on data. You're wrong. Kind of.

    As a theory is refined or adjusted upon new data of observations you can reach a stage where the theory is either discarded, or significantly altered and a new theory is 'founded'.

    In this case the theory Can be said quite conclusively to be based on DATA. the data that was used to test and discard the initial theory.

    You are making the common mistake of thinking the scientific process, i.e. the way theories are treated is constant throughout. It is not, it evolves along with the understanding of the area of research and changes dependant on the stage.

    You seem hung-up on the starting phase- where your assertions are, to a degree, true. However at the later stages it is not and the null hypothesis becomes much more important.

    Complain about this comment

  • 277. At 11:50am on 07 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ bowman and hank,

    "Please note that in a genuine test, observation comes AFTER the guess -- the guess isn't BASED ON the observation"

    I think i've figured out where the disagreement lies and i think it's just a matter of talking at cross purposes.

    If i'm right, bowman is not asserting that you cannot use data or observation to found a theory, but that you cannot look back at some data or evidence and Then form a theory without further testing to prove that this is the case.

    So with climate 'science' they have the temps, the co2 levels and have formed a theory, but no testing has followed since. This, is not the right way to do it.

    If this is the case then this whole 'debate' is about the difference between a scientists understanding of that one phrase, and an 'outsiders'. I.e. our different perspectives give that phrase different meanings, hence the confusion and the disagreements.

    If that's right, then gravy. If not, then i'm more lost than ever lol

    Complain about this comment

  • 278. At 12:02pm on 07 Oct 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    # 267 Hank4162 wrote:
    "In such cases we must use retrospective cohort studies. Such studies seek to obtain past and present longitudinal evidence to falsify the suspected association between cause and effect (the 0H). By falsifying or presenting evidence to the contrary of the 0H we strengthen confidence in the hypothesis. This is the standard practice of climatology as well as many other branches of science."


    Sure. But isn't the problem here that the climate system is so complex that without models we can never collect sufficient evidence to come down unambiguously on one side or the other. And I'd say that as soon as we start assessing the combined effects of multiple variables we are using models pretty much by definition. What's new is that the power of modern computer systems allows us to run models whose complexity is way beyond anything that any individual can hold in their head. Which may be why some scientists feel they can describe what they do with models as experiments. In your earlier post #253 you said
    "Models can help us to test what we know against data and assumptions to refine our knowledge and improve our assumptions. That said, I personally have a low confidence in their having genuine predictive skills."
    .... whereas LabMunkey #268 just says they're "junk", although he also says that they can augment experimentation but not replace it.

    While I accept that the climate models still have any number of parameterizations in them, so their skill at predicting multidecadal trends is doubtful right now, remember in this case we are looking at the leading edge of modelling (where its dealing with the most difficult challenges). Predictions of shorter term weather systems (of the order of a few days) are much more successful - and the climate models are really extended versions of those meteorological models. To the extent to which they are wrong they provide a baseline for further research - even though in the short term I accept they have to be tweaked.

    Read (if you haven't already) 'A Vast Machine' by Paul Edwards. Its a history of meteorological and climate modeling which gives a good insight into how those fields have developed and how the models and the observed data interact


    It may surprise you (or maybe not) to know that while my research work is unrelated, I am what might be best described as a lay environmentalist in word and lifestyle.

    It doesn't surprise me at all. People on these threads like to build up a massively detailed picture of what their 'opponents' are like on the slim basis of their opinions about AGW. Much easier to insult people than take the time to work out exactly what they are saying and where they are coming from. In fact, where I do get into discussions with people who are on the face of it 'anti-AGW', they often turn out to be quite strongly environmentalist. Usually more environmentalist in their lifestyles than me! ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 279. At 12:04pm on 07 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    LabMunkey #276 wrote:

    Also, the Null hypothesis IS a valid scientific method and you catagorically CAN disprove somethign in that manner.

    But what you can disprove is nothing of interest. That is why so-called "research laboratories" are churning out tons of worthless "research" day in day out that is no better than statistical extrapolation. No insights, no explanations, no predictions. Pure dross. The newspapers are filled with one worthless "study" overturning another worthless "study" from one week to the next, and every sensible member of the public laughs bitterly at where his taxes are going.

    Real science is not that inductivist garbage. There are some real scientists doing modest but valuable observational work in the field, and some real scientists doing some ambitious theoretical work, and even a few experimenters doing some valuable work in laboratories. There is also the occasional conversation between theorists in the pub. All of that is genuine science, and I respect it greatly.

    But not the pencil pushers doing inductive statistics. They are well-paid charlatans and spongers who have never asked a deep question in their lives. They drag genuine science down to the level of chartered accountancy!

    You are clearly not a scientist or have worked in a research Laboratory if you think this.

    You don't know anything about me, and most of your speculations about what I have done or not done as an individual are inaccurate, irrelevant, and diminish your reputation as a thinker.

    Complain about this comment

  • 280. At 12:26pm on 07 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @279
    "But what you can disprove is nothing of interest"

    Excuse me? The 'disproval' is not the end of the process. You don't sit there and go, 'right that didn't work my null, hypothesis is correct, time to go home'.

    The null hypothesis is a tool. If i know for example the molecule Y is no use by testing via null hypothesis, then it allows me to move onto the next mollecule. Often it can be much quicker and much simpler to disprove something than provide significant bodies of evidence to prove something.

    I assume too you are against the peer-review process (when it works natch) where people can deliberatley set out to disprove anothers work? Do you think that's equally worthless?

    " That is why so-called "research laboratories" are churning out tons of worthless "research" day in day out that is no better than statistical extrapolation."

    i think you're completely confused. I've worked in various research laboratories that focus on therapeutics and new novel formulations. Or does the reduction of suffering in the world not class you as worthy research??

    "The newspapers are filled with one worthless "study" overturning another worthless "study" from one week to the next, and every sensible member of the public laughs bitterly at where his taxes are going."
    This is not, often proper science as the same general public if they BOTHERED to look would see that it's mostly re-hashing of other peoples work and almost always relies on tiny sample groups. Tar the whole field with one brush while you're at it.

    "You don't know anything about me, and most of your speculations about what I have done or not done as an individual are inaccurate, irrelevant, and diminish your reputation as a thinker."

    Well thankfully i'm not really concerned about your opinion of my ability to think, reason or perform science. But my assertion still stands; Your 'idea' of how science is performed is laughable and to me betrays a lack of actual experience in a laboratory.

    Complain about this comment

  • 281. At 12:42pm on 07 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    280. At 12:26pm on 07 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    If i know for example the molecule Y is no use by testing via null hypothesis

    I'm wondering if you mean the same thing by "the null hypothesis" as inductive statisticians mean by it.

    To illustrate, perhaps you could tell me how you would go about showing that "molecule Y is no use by testing via null hypothesis"?

    Complain about this comment

  • 282. At 12:45pm on 07 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    LabMunkey #280 wrote:

    I assume too you are against the peer-review process (when it works natch) where people can deliberatley set out to disprove anothers work? Do you think that's equally worthless?

    What people normally mean by the "peer review process" is the initial filtering of papers submitted for publication. Of course I'm in favour of disagreement, and attempts to show that another person's work is flawed, but that's just not what most people call the "peer review process".

    Complain about this comment

  • 283. At 1:07pm on 07 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    LabMunkey #277 wrote:

    If i'm right, bowman is not asserting that you cannot use data or observation to found a theory, but that you cannot look back at some data or evidence and Then form a theory without further testing to prove that this is the case.

    Right, but it goes a lot deeper than that, and I definitely wouldn't use the word 'found' above. We all agree that observation is absolutely vital to science, but any science worth the name doesn't simply note or describe observable things or correlations between observable things -- it explains the hidden mechanisms that lie behind observable things. Instead of describing what we can see directly, it speculates about things we cannot see directly (such as electrons, fields, viruses, the structure of DNA, the mechanisms of evolution, etc., etc.).

    "Data" are observable (typically, they are such things as numerical measurements). The only things that can be "based on data" are more observable things, such as correlations of the sort described above -- stuff that just does not count as science. Great theorists such as Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Feynmen and all the rest of them were doing something completely different from that. Even great observers and experimenters such as Eddington were doing something completely different from that, because they were testing theories, not using "data" to "found" theories on.

    A terrible movement called "positivism" took hold in the twentieth century, emanating from psychology, in which the yearning for certainty made people shy away from the idea that science is all about speculation, and "bold conjecture". Nowadays, it is routine to completely neglect the fact that science explains things by looking behind the observable appearances. That is terrible!

    Complain about this comment

  • 284. At 1:31pm on 07 Oct 2010, johntherock wrote:

    I'm afraid to say that these threads are no longer worth reading. They are crammed with inane rantings from people who are politically opposed to action on climate change. Utterly inconsistent in their alternative explanations from person to person, scientifically illiterate and often downright offensive. I too suspect that a lot of them originate in astroturfing boiler-rooms, onto any climate-related thread like wasps onto rotten fruit.

    If things go really bad climate-wise, I don't know how you will be able to live with yourselves.

    Over and out.

    Complain about this comment

  • 285. At 1:49pm on 07 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    bowman- i think my tones coming across as too accusatory and aggressive. It is not what i'm trying to achieve, so if it looks that way just put it down to my inability to express myself properly rather than an attack.

    re your 281. this ties in nicely to my 277.

    For me (and my colleagues) a null hypothesis is anything that can be used to disprove a current theory. But is usually a specificly designed test.

    To use the example you raised :
    "To illustrate, perhaps you could tell me how you would go about showing that "molecule Y is no use by testing via null hypothesis"?"

    Despite being quite a simple illustration it is actually a very complicated situation and obviously due to confidentiality reasons i'm going to have to be vague- but i'll try my best!!

    You want to stabilise mollecule X. For this example lets use thermal stability as it's probably the most common.

    Depending on the mollecule you'll be looking at different break-down pathways or 'molecular attack' avenues as areas of interest to create stability.

    One way to find out if it works is to put it on a long and thorough stability trial. The theory being that molecule Y imparts thermal stability to molecule X.

    But, you may not have the time/resources/sample quantity to achieve this. So you can figure out what Y needs to do to CREATE stability- for example preventing the breakdown of bond Z.

    To protect bond Z you need active site aZ.

    So in this instance the hypothesis is "that mollecule Y imparts thermal stability to molecule X" and the null hypothesis is that "mollecule Y does not have the aZ active site and therefore cannot impart stability".

    This is how i was trained to and would use the null hypothesis.

    Complain about this comment

  • 286. At 1:50pm on 07 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 282 and your 280.

    i see your point and i think half the disagreements we have are over narrow distinctions interpretted differently. I fomr my background have different definitions that are very narrow for these kinds of things- and i think that's where we're getting into trouble.

    Complain about this comment

  • 287. At 2:57pm on 07 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    http://www.suite101.com/content/legal-defeat-for-global-warming-in-kiwigate-scandal-a294157#ixzz11g0Cjj2e

    as an aside

    Complain about this comment

  • 288. At 3:11pm on 07 Oct 2010, Smiffie wrote:

    Barry Woods @#251 said “Anybody else here have an opinion, or don't they want to get put on a list... (I'm not makin any jokes here)” and “I am actually beginning to regret using me real name on all these blogs”

    Good point Barry, when we signed up to post with the BBC we had to give an email address, I do hope that the BBC keeps that info’ safe, how easy would it be to hack into the BBC given enough recourses? how likely would it be for someone in the BBC to steal the info’? Anyone making lists would be unlikely also to post comments, they would most likely keep very quiet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 289. At 3:17pm on 07 Oct 2010, Smiffie wrote:

    Getting back on topic, the message that the 10:10 team wanted to get over in their “fun” video is this – if you do not have an opinion on climate change then we regard you as the enemy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 290. At 3:33pm on 07 Oct 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    @284 johntherock wrote:

    If things go really bad climate-wise, I don't know how you will be able to live with yourselves.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    I'm wondering when your side will admit their climate models are just plain wrong and in no way reflect reality.

    This little tidbit from 2000 is enlightening of climate models.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

    "However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".


    How did that prediction work out?

    2000-1 - Significant snowfall in Dec, Jan, Feb and March.
    2001-2 - Significant snowfall in Nov and January.
    2002-3 - Significant snowfall in Jan and February.
    2003-4 - Significant snowfall in Oct, Dec, Jan, Feb and March.
    2004-5 - Significant snowfall in Nov, Dec, Feb and March.
    2005-6 - Significant snowfall in Nov, Dec, Feb and March
    2006-7 - Significant snowfall in Jan and February.

    I can't find the stats for the following years, but in 2008 London saw it's first October snowfall since 1934 and as for last winter...

    You ask how we'll live with ourselves. I'll be just fine, thanks. But then I'm not the one pushing a busted flush.

    One of the artcifial humans with artificial opinions, paid for and sponsored by evil and secretive corporations. Proudly in The Lobby.

    Complain about this comment

  • 291. At 4:00pm on 07 Oct 2010, JunkkMale wrote:

    '288. At 3:11pm on 07 Oct 2010, Smiffie wrote:
    Barry Woods @#251 said “Anybody else here have an opinion, or don't they want to get put on a list...


    It has come up before, as there was indeed talk of putting those not 'on board' on lists, when I felt it might be worth posting this...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V3SqxUomwk

    On topic. On topic. On topic! If possibly ironic.

    Complain about this comment

  • 292. At 6:00pm on 07 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Wolfiewoods #266

    Consistency? And not joking? LOL.

    The only way I can reconcile that with your earlier posts is if you aren't a warmist but don't mind it when warmist concerns help push your political agenda. And even that interpretation is difficult considering the way you recycle posts without fixing problems with their wording.

    And the situation when you suggest Manysummits might be "really a part of the lobby" or "having a laugh with us" looks like a deflection given that it is after Manysummits had used your "too good to be true" line ambiguously.

    And no warmist would anticipate significantly "more negative news emerges about the case for warming" in mid May, well after all the "gates". By May, all the embarrassing political stuff was out in the open. And to a warmist the science elements all appeared to be secondary issues like Hockey Sticks, Indian glaciers, and the citations for Amazon drought risks.

    Complain about this comment

  • 293. At 6:22pm on 07 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @bowmanthebard #265

    What source? (You "source" comment piques my interest.)

    My #145 "probably was watched by a focus group with exactly the same mindset as the filmmakers" was what I thought was an obvious response to Paul Butler's #133 "probably needed to be watched by a focus group before it got released".

    I see focus groups as having an obvious potential to behave as echo chambers, and the very term suggests an atmosphere ridden with management-speak. Plus they do seem to be rather good material for satirical comedy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 294. At 6:28pm on 07 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Smiffie #272

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law

    @Barry Woods #263

    "read his mind"

    I can read his old comments, and look at their context. Gives rather a bigger picture than just the comments in this thread.

    As for context you may find the following threads interesting.

    Note the different meanings of "too good to be true" according to context. And the response to one of these meanings.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/ipcc_review_friend_or_foe.html

    Note the trigger for my #57 and the subsequent discussion about Hansen and the 1988 heatwave. This trigger has not been fixed in later near cut-and-paste of the same triggering post. The wording conveniently reminds sceptics of the myth about Hansen overegging the 1988 heatwave, rather than just using the heatwave for dramatic effect. Why hasn't it been fixed in subsequent cut-and-paste repeats.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/climate_party_loses_its_guests.html

    So no, I don't think that his disputed post is anything like the same situation as the controversial 10:10 film.

    Complain about this comment

  • 295. At 6:49pm on 07 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    LabMunkey #285 wrote:

    For me (and my colleagues) a null hypothesis is anything that can be used to disprove a current theory. But is usually a specificly designed test.

    A few thoughts:

    1. In statistics, the "null hypothesis" has a more technical/specific meaning than that. It is more like "the most obvious alternative" to a given statistical hypothesis currently subject to scrutiny. If the "data" stray sufficiently far (a subjective matter) from what that obvious alternative would lead us to expect, the hypothesis in question (i.e. not the "null hypothesis" but the other one) is deemed to have passed a test.

    I need hardly tell you that I think that is a bit of gross intellectual dishonesty, a fine example of the corruption at the heart of much statistics.

    2. What you describe is a much more sensible, honest and less artificial idea. You are talking about the genuine test of a hypothesis, something absolutely crucial to science. I make a very minor correction/addition to what you said here:

    When we work out the observational consequences of a hypothesis, we have to use other hypotheses and make many other assumptions. For example, when we look at red-shifted light from faraway galaxies, and conclude that they are moving away from us, we make assumptions such as that light doesn't get "tired" on its journey and lose energy that way instead. So if an observation doesn't agree with what our hypothesis predicted, it might not be the hypothesis in question that is wrong, but one of those other hypotheses or assumptions. So there's never conclusive disproof of a hypothesis. We already agree that there's never conclusive proof, so there's never either conclusive proof or disproof -- just complicated evidence nudging us this way or the other way.

    3. Tests are absolutely vital, and I think we agree that much climate science avoids them. But a test is not a hypothesis.

    Complain about this comment

  • 296. At 7:33pm on 07 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 297. At 10:23pm on 07 Oct 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    For Jane.. It is on topic 10:10 Comedy Gold

    I had a look at the 10:10 team bios, I'd saved the link which still worked. Even though they blocked acces from the main webpage...

    Lots of comments for consideration recently, so I sent it to Bishop Hill..

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/10/7/1010-comedy-gold.html

    Take Robin Houston for example:

    Robin Houston 10:10 Campaign
    Job title: Technical director
    Actual job: Making sure the web site works. Laughing too loudly at inopportune moments

    Or Jonathan Brown

    Jonathan Brown 10:10 Campaign
    Job title: Press Manager
    Actual job: Making sure as many people as possible know what a great job 10:10 and its supporters are doing...

    The rest of the team can be seen here.

    Barry also makes the very funny observation that 10:10 board member Chris Rose is the author of a book called "How to win Campaigns".

    Complain about this comment

  • 298. At 11:09pm on 07 Oct 2010, Hank4162 wrote:

    # 278. At 12:02pm on 07 Oct 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    Sure. But isn't the problem here that the climate system is so complex that without models we can never collect sufficient evidence to come down unambiguously on one side or the other. And I'd say that as soon as we start assessing the combined effects of multiple variables we are using models pretty much by definition."


    I agree that we can't collect collect sufficient evidence to come down unambiguously on one side or another. The use of models still doesn't allow us to come down unambiguously. They can help us to better understand where the ambiguities lay so we can direct research in those areas.

    I have worked with NOAA in the recent past in the adaptation of hurricane models to more current web based disaster tracking and recovery products for FEMA compliance. I'm actually very impressed with the models. But I think it is important to point out that the hurricane GFS, GEFS, NAM WW3, etc... modelers work in a different world than GCM modelers. They have highly accurate and better QC'd data, the scope of the models are more near term, regional, and they can verify model projections on a regular basis. Yet, we still understand that as the timeline advances into the future, these models become less certain and progressively loose their predictive skill rather rapidly.

    When you look at hurricane track predictions, you'll note that as the projection goes further out in time, the projection creates an expanding cone representing probabilities and uncertainties (and different model parameters). It is important to underscore that hurricane models are working with incredibly accurate and well baselined observational data which is not the case of GCM climate models.

    I think it fair to say that our understanding of the future climate is necessarily built on trusting and modeling paleoclimate reconstructions. That said, reconstructions are of very poor resolution and integrity that, depending on the proxy series, tell many different stories as do the models using them. As data processing methods improve and models improve, more respectable climate scientists are abandoning the eminent doom scenarios as I have done over recent years.

    "People on these threads like to build up a massively detailed picture of what their 'opponents' are like on the slim basis of their opinions about AGW. Much easier to insult people than take the time to work out exactly what they are saying and where they are coming from."

    I entirely agree. I am not a skeptic of climate change in the sense the label is often applied. There are two extremes to the climate debate. I tend to believe, based on my understanding of the current science, that reality lies closer to the middle. Perhaps if I had to wear a label I would be called a luke-warmer. That makes me skeptical of points on both sides of the debate. The downside to such a position is it places you squarely in the crossfire of two warring factions who do more shooting from the hip than actual aiming. If they can't take a good shot at their most antagonistic opponent, they'll settle for the closest target, us guys in the middle.

    Complain about this comment

  • 299. At 11:21pm on 07 Oct 2010, Hank4162 wrote:

    LabMunkey,

    Thank you for better articulating a position that I feel is relatively close to mine. I tend to be a bit pragmatic and walk away from dialogs that make no sense to me rather than prospect for the few hidden gems that may be there. Your willingness to dig and find them is a asset.

    Kind regards.

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.