David Campbell Bannerman MEP, UKIP’s Deputy Leader and Head of Policy, has announced that he is withdrawing from the UKIP Leadership race with immediate effect, to concentrate on completing a full set of party policy papers and on writing a radical General Election manifesto that offers the British people genuine and positive change. Commenting on his decision, David said: "With the Irish vote and the dangerous Lisbon Treaty a step nearer, and the General Election right on the horizon, I believe it is in the best interests of the party, that I should stay focused on my work as Deputy Leader and Head of Policy, which includes the launching of our remaining policy papers and on writing the next manifesto - which is a massive and critical task. I also want to continue helping with the strategic direction of the party in preparing for the General Election and our bright future beyond it.
"Though I will work harmoniously with which ever Leader the members choose, I will be giving my full support to Lord Pearson of Rannoch as the next Party Leader. I have a great deal of respect for Malcolm's brave, principled and well argued promotion of our cause in Westminster. I believe he can very effectively highlight inexcusable Tory fudges over Lisbon and the EU."
"I would like to thank the great many members who have asked me to stand, and my hard working advisers. I hope they will understand that I have always put the best interests of my country and my party first. Although this has been a difficult decision, I do believe it is the right one."
Josh O'Nyons is a former UKIP member.
Posts
265 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 265 of 265 Newer› Newest»-
-
-
21 November 2009 at 16:53
-
-
-
22 November 2009 at 00:48
-
-
-
22 November 2009 at 08:57
-
-
-
22 November 2009 at 10:07
-
-
-
22 November 2009 at 11:32
-
-
-
22 November 2009 at 13:01
-
-
-
22 November 2009 at 18:50
-
-
-
23 November 2009 at 16:35
-
-
-
23 November 2009 at 17:07
-
-
-
23 November 2009 at 18:32
-
-
-
23 November 2009 at 19:49
-
-
-
23 November 2009 at 20:00
-
-
-
23 November 2009 at 20:19
-
-
-
23 November 2009 at 22:48
-
-
-
23 November 2009 at 22:59
-
-
-
23 November 2009 at 23:06
-
-
-
23 November 2009 at 23:09
-
-
-
23 November 2009 at 23:15
-
-
-
24 November 2009 at 15:21
-
-
This comment has been removed by the author.
-
24 November 2009 at 15:21
-
-
-
24 November 2009 at 15:26
-
-
-
24 November 2009 at 16:33
-
-
-
24 November 2009 at 16:59
-
-
-
24 November 2009 at 19:10
-
-
-
24 November 2009 at 21:17
-
-
-
24 November 2009 at 21:55
-
-
-
24 November 2009 at 22:58
-
-
-
25 November 2009 at 07:37
-
-
-
25 November 2009 at 12:50
-
-
-
25 November 2009 at 12:53
-
-
-
25 November 2009 at 13:17
-
-
-
25 November 2009 at 13:44
-
-
-
25 November 2009 at 14:00
-
-
-
25 November 2009 at 15:22
-
-
-
25 November 2009 at 15:32
-
-
-
25 November 2009 at 16:50
-
-
-
25 November 2009 at 17:33
-
-
-
25 November 2009 at 17:38
-
-
-
25 November 2009 at 17:38
-
-
-
25 November 2009 at 17:50
-
-
-
26 November 2009 at 17:51
-
-
-
27 November 2009 at 18:28
-
-
-
27 November 2009 at 19:19
-
-
-
27 November 2009 at 20:24
-
-
-
28 November 2009 at 10:43
-
-
-
28 November 2009 at 11:33
-
-
-
28 November 2009 at 15:03
-
-
-
28 November 2009 at 15:10
-
-
-
28 November 2009 at 16:03
-
-
-
28 November 2009 at 16:14
-
-
-
28 November 2009 at 16:41
-
-
-
28 November 2009 at 16:47
-
-
-
28 November 2009 at 16:57
-
-
-
28 November 2009 at 17:25
-
-
-
28 November 2009 at 17:43
-
-
-
28 November 2009 at 17:52
-
-
-
28 November 2009 at 18:59
-
-
-
28 November 2009 at 19:11
-
-
-
4 December 2009 at 22:56
-
-
-
4 December 2009 at 22:57
-
-
-
8 December 2009 at 22:53
-
-
-
9 December 2009 at 09:58
-
-
-
8 January 2010 at 11:21
-
-
-
11 January 2010 at 12:17
-
-
-
2 February 2010 at 08:56
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 265 of 265 Newer› Newest»Dear Huw & Libertarian,
Do you realise that this exchange has been going on for about 6 weeks now? Huw's latest post confirms to me that this has become a circular argument. Wonkotsane gave up on it weeks ago I notice.
Huw you don't seem to want to comment on the CRU hack/leak when invited by Libertarian? I have read through many of the comments on the realclimate.org website most of which trivialise the disclosure. The common argument is that everyone is less guarded sending emails to colleagues compared with other written communications. Most completely ignore possible breached of FoI act and instances of politics apparently leading the science rather than the right way around.
None of us is any farther forward so I shall only comment again if I think I can contribute something that will change Huw's mind or something he says that changes mine (both unlikely!).
Huw Huw Huw
I can't work out whether you are unable to grasp a simple fact, obtuse, scared, or just putting out what you are told.
I actually bothered to read your link ( I don't normally) .
First the clue is in the title of the document it's an assessment report. It's just theory and opinion.
If man made Co2 causes catastrophic global warming you would be able to show it in an experiment. It is that simple. The trouble is you can't and the reason you can't is that even John Tyndall recognized when he first uncovered the phenomenon was that greenhouse gases only heat up so much and then stop working.
HUW
Please either answer the question or give up, because keep pointing me at the opinions of climate scare mongers is pointless. Oh and by the way did you notice half way down the first page it told it's first big fat lie ( one that IPCC themselves were forced to highlight)
HUW
I think the weight of evidence is against you now and I agree with Animal Magic, this has gone on far too long. If you really do want to debate lets move it to a Green blog, at least I might get some more imaginative argument.
Huw
ps Whilst reviewing video of Al Gore and his 2,000,000 degree temperature claim I also came across one where he claims to have invented the Internet as well. The man is a pathological liar .
Animal Magic, this is a summary of Mark Lynas' '6 Degrees', which looks at the effects of each degree rise.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/14/climate-change-environment-temperature
'Danger of "runaway warming", perhaps spurred by release of oceanic methane hydrates. Could the surface of the Earth become like Venus, entirely uninhabitable? Most sea life is dead. Human refuges now confined entirely to highland areas and the polar regions. Human population is drastically reduced. Perhaps 90% of species become extinct, rivalling the worst mass extinctions in the Earth's 4.5 billion-year history.'
If this is what Lynas is projecting for the earth as a whole, then I would imagine most Malians would regard the prospect as worse than a hundred year drought.
You did ask.
As for the hack attack, this only confirms to me that some people have a massive vested interest in making Copenhagen a failure.
I will wait until the veracity of the e-mails is confirmed before commenting.
I have been countering disinformation on climate change and exposing the provenance of disinformation for such long time now that a couple more days won't matter that much and it may provide more reliable information to discuss.
By the way, Animal Magic, wonkotsane left the discussion after claiming on 09 October 2009 07:22 that he considered Fred Singer's denialist views about climate change to be superior to that of the US National Academy of Science, and then claiming later that he didn't know who Fred Singer is.
He also claimed on 27 October 2009 18:24 that there were people in the UKIP leadership race who did not subscribe to the bizarre climate denial we have witnessed on this thread. However, he was unable to provide a single name to substantiate this argument.
What is it about UKIP that makes you interested in joining, Animal Magic?
Is it the disinformation about Jonathon Porritt, Al Gore or James Hansen, which you can read back over on this thread?
Is it the 'Hey, everything's fine on the Isle of Oxney' attitude towards the lives of millions in the poorest countries in the world?
Or is it UKIP activists' emotionalising of the issue?
(Libertarian and his son ROFLMA about peer-reviewed climate science when it is so obviously volcanoes, or Paul Woolf and wonkotsane calling me names.)
What exactly is it about this party which gets your heart drumming, Animal M?
Huw
I said I wouldn't comment again, but you've goaded me into it!
I read your link about Lynus' impact of temperature rises. I can quite believe that a 6degC temperature rise might result in our demise, but that just isn't going to happen is it? Or do you still believe in the hockey stick?
some people have a massive vested interest in making Copenhagen a failure
...as a opposed to the political elite that have a vested interest in stealing taxpayer's money!
To answer your question about why I am thinking of joining UKIP. I'm have not entirely made up my mind, but I will almost certainly vote for them in the GE. My main concern is of course the EU rather than climate change although the two are inextricably linked. I want the UK to get out of the EU before it totally destroys us as a nation. None of Lib/Lab/Con will take that route and as 4/5 of our laws come from Brussels it doesn't matter which of them is in government does it? Putting my X against UKIP will make me feel better and if they get some MPs to ask awkward questions in the Westminster "regional council" chamber so much the better.
As for the hack attack, this only confirms to me that some people have a massive vested interest in making Copenhagen a failure.
It confirms to me that some people (they like to call themselves scientists but actually they're just propagandists that whore themselves round governments) have a vested interest in keeping the global warming myth going. The tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers money they've getting in exchange for making stuff up, massaging figures, covering up the truth and bribing and threatening publications and scientists that don't agree with them proves that the whole global warming scam is nothing more than a very expensive, politically motivated conspiracy involving national governments, one world socialists and of course the so-called "scientists" and wannabe politicians such as yourself Huw Peach, Green Party spokesman.
We all have a vested interest in making sure Copenhagen fails because if the liars and fraudsters and communists get their way, we all be seriously screwed.
Hi Huw
Socialist teacher to the toff classes.
You don't do answers very well and you keep repeating a mantra in the hope that we will just give up and believe you.
Old Etonian J Porritt lied on prime time radio ( I even provided a full transcript of the program with the lie in it)
Al Gore lied when he claimed to have invented the internet
Al Gore lied when he claimed that tempratures at the Earth's core are 2 million degrees
Phil Jones of East Anglia University CRU has lied and falsified data
Michael Man has been exposed by so many real scientists about falsifying his hockey stick graph
Yet you go to one of your Green awareness indoctrination classes and then come on here smear and libel every credible scientist that provides some science that may disprove your religion.
You claim graft and corruption when Al Gore is tipped to be the worlds first carbon scam millionaire
You then scream babies, poor, hungry, dead when in fact
Green policies are causing the rainforest to be cleared to plant palm oil, fairtrade is nothing of the sort and you blight the environment and wildlife with your fucking silly propellers on a stick.
VOTE GREEN GET THE STONEAGE
but a communist version of it.
The emails leaked from East Anglia are the final nail in the coffin for this disgusting perversion of science and the Green Facism on offer by Huw Peach and his band.
Why vote UKIP you ask.
Well open and local democracy by referenda
Fair and simple tax structure
An end to mass unemployment
quality schooling for all through a grammar school in every town and vocational schools for 14-19 year old ( not just for those who can pay)
Choice in health care that is free at the point of need using a voucher scheme
An end to our troops fighting in illegal, unjust overseas wars
An end to multicultural manipulation and social engineering
What do the Greens offer? Socialist Fascism, a return to the dark ages, one world government, and vegetable pot noodle
Libertarian, thank you once again for your warm words.
Greens offer a Green New Deal,
a) to create jobs (renewables create more than conventional or nuclear)
b) to make energy conservation and sustainable energy a national priority
c) to tackle the current vulnerability of our economy to peak oil
d) and to create an affordable future for our children and grandchildren.
Our climate policies are based on the best scientific information available (IPCC).
However, according to UKIP’s bizarre worldview, the entire canon of climate science ( see Naomi Oreskes’ history of climate science video or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science ) is ‘wrong’, ‘manipulated’, ‘falsified’ by scientists who are part of a ‘conspiracy’.
This paranoid scenario may play well with some people for some of the time.
In the same way, insulting opponents like me may work for a bit.
But is dismissing the entire canon of climate science a sensible and sustainable strategy for a political party?
Huw,
Yes I think it is sensible for a political party to fight the canon of corrupt, falsified,lying, hectoring false science peddled by a cabal of vested interests.
I see you ignored my riposte to your preposterous assertion that Mali farmers are suffering under horrendous conditions due to global warming when in fact production has ACTUALLY gone up year on year.
Have you read the HARRY files yet? Boy oh boy...dynamite. No only are your IPCC "expert" happy that opponents are dead, not only are they prepared to falsify data and manipulate peer review but take a look at the actual data. I will give you time to review and prepare before I comment further.
Do you think that people will want to vote for a political party that wants to do away with personal transport, cheap available energy, medical equipment, mass entertainment, mobile phones and advanced medicine in order that we can live in a hippy utopia?
I think not
So, when in the whole 150 history of climate science does UKIP think the 'conspiracy' started, libertarian?
Huw,
As you know full well because I published a piece on this at the start of our debate.
I do not believe it's an orchestrated conspiracy. It's a bandwagon like all the rest of the scares. They gather momentum because it's easy for people to join in with such things. In psycholgy it's called herd instinct or peer pressure. You see it in all walks of life. I suffered it myself when I was viscously attacked over "denying" the millennium bug. 1,000's of computer scientists, Microsoft, IBM etc all said it was a problem. IT WASN'T.
You give the game away yourself though. Considering the planet is 4.5 billion years old and major climate change has happened consistently through the history of the Earth. Why would you cite just the last 150 years?
It is not conspiracy it's orthodoxy. It's someone getting a tax payer budget of £13 million needs to be pretty sure that they keep the funding coming.
As usual though Huw you try to move the goal posts. You never answered my question. When you libelled Plimer claiming he was being paid by mining companies for his views you never told me what advantage "denying" climate change has for a mining company.
Talking of conspiracy theories a couple of posts ago you were whining that "big oil" had got at leaders to make Copenhagen a failure. I guess "big oil" didn't pay them enough as they all seem to be going.
By the way Huw,
You seriously said that Green renewables would create more jobs than conventional and nuclear power generation. Really, care to provide some evidence. Care to commit to a number? You see I know what the numbers are for real jobs.
Huw
Prof Philip Stott thinks that man does affect climate change.
Do you agree with him?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZBP-JYzQKg&NR=1
Libertarian you said 150 years of climate science is not a 'conspiracy', but a 'bandwagon'.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I think, though, that you need to have a gentle chat with wonkotsane whose last post ( 22 November 2009 13:01 ) made abundantly clear that he thinks 150 years of climate science were a 'myth' and a 'conspiracy' and that any scientists who said otherwise were 'whoring around'.
So, please let us know if UKIP thinks it's just a 'bandwagon' or if it's back to the 'conspiracy' that we've had for the rest of the thread.
Could you also clear up in which year UKIP thinks the science of climate change suddenly went from being proper, UKIP-approved climate science and then suddenly became non-UKIP-approved climate science?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science
Could you also tell us what your son, the Earth Scientist said when he saw your statement about John Tyndall apparently recognising that 'greenhouse gases only heat up so much and then stop working'?
According to the IPCC 2007 report:
"About 50% of a CO2 increase will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, and a further 30% will be removed within a few centuries. The remaining 20% may stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years."
Sorry not to give that reference for Ian Plimer and the mining industry earlier.
This is an extract from an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation from November 2008, where Plimer explains that the mining industry is against carbon regulations, probably because of the energy implications:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/business/items/200811/s2416977.htm
TICKY FULLERTON: What do you think the Emissions Trading Scheme is going to do to the mining industry?
IAN PLIMER: It will probably destroy it totally, it'll create massive unemployment and we'll have a change of Government. That's the very clear message...
TICKY FULLERTON: That you're getting that from the industry?
IAN PLIMER: Yes, very much so.
Please let me make it clear that I think these are valid opinions, as long as people are straight about his vested interest in the outcome of the debate.
http://www.prwatch.org/node/8686
You said I was talking of a conspiracy, too.
No, I was talking about the Global Climate Coalition.
The history of this organisation is well-documented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition
Sharon Beder has a chapter on the GCC in her excellent book, Global Spin, if anyone out there is interested.
The New York Times has an article in April showing that the GCC ignored the scientific advice of its own advisors at the height of its lobbying.
I don't see this as a conspiracy.
But I do think it is a part of the debate that should at least be acknowledged.
Source for point about CO2 sticking around for a long time: Nature magazine:
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html
NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=1
You wanted the figures for green jobs creation.
Here is an important article outlining the numbers.
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment/environment-and-rural-affairs/comment-how-labour-and-the-tories-stole-green-clothes-$1259344.htm
The author is Professor John Whitelegg, who is the GP spokesperson on sustainable development for the Green party of England & Wales. He has worked with local and national governments in the UK and abroad as a transport, environment and development consultant and has held professorships of sustainable development and sustainable transport at UK universities. He is currently one of twelve Green party councillors on Lancaster City Council.
If you want to discuss Whitelegg's sources I am willing to follow it up, and hear your challenges.
Huw,
Do you even bother to read the stuff you post?
There is nothing what so ever in this article. It's by a bloke who is a local councillor with NO EXPERIENCE, KNOWLEDGE or anything interesting to say about the jobs market. It's just a collection of unsubstantiated numbers.
Plus you have completely failed to factor the Green Party induced job losses by closing down the industries that you don't like.
As a taster
Your policies as posted on here by you Huw would result in 4.3 million people losing their jobs. That's just in the financial services and nuclear/coal/gas generating industries. I've been kind to you and not even mentioned people who make, service, repair and support the petrol driven car and lorry businesses.
Sorry Huw but the Green Party live in a fantasy land. The ONLY way that you could achieve ANY form of remotely sane economic activity in the UK is to remove two thirds of the population. Is that the real plan?
Huw,
As to the mining stuff and climate change.
Plimer makes NO reference to climate change at all.
It's the "man made" Cap and Trade Carbon trading scheme. This will destroy every industry and every country as is insanity of the highest order. Considering it was invented with the help of Enron exec's no wonder !
So are you saying that the Emissions Trading Scheme (see Plimer interview extract post above) has nothing to do with climate change, libertarian?
Yes Totally and absolutely nothing what so ever to do with stopping, starting, proving, disproving, helping or in any way connected with climate change.
It's a scam for ripping off poor countries.
Did you know that Climate Camp agree with you about carbon trading?
http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/get-involved/get-educated/carbon-trading
No I didn't as it isn't my kind of normal hang out, but glad they have decided to listen to UKIP.
But the question is Huw do you believe in it?
I was saving this for later but I may as well mention it now. I also think the Green Party are being very naive about big oil and energy companies.
You keep saying that they are backing deniers and paying scientists to dispute warming.
However the oil/energy companies stand to make 100's billions from warming, it's actually in their interest to have scares about peak oil, shortages and warming. As any free marketer will tell you it's about supply and demand
Huw Peach, Green Party spokesman. What is the Green Party policy on the many tankers full of oil that are refusing to dock and offload their cargo because they're speculating on the ever increasing cost of oil thanks to climate hysteria?
Is this something the Green Party approves of despite the harm it does to the economy and the devastating increase in the cost of food and other essential items because it forces people not to use cars?
Or is it something the Green Party disapproves of because it damages the economy and will lead to the illness and death of many poor and vulnerable people because of the high cost of food and heating?
Do you and your colleagues in the Green Party care more about the security of our country and the health of our vulnerable citizens or the pursual of economically devastating "green" policies that will lead to national insecurity, poor health and death of vulnerable people? I'm genuinely interested in which is the lesser of two evils in the eyes of a climate change propagandist.
You both identify our economy's addiction to oil, but UKIP thinks moves to make our economy more sustainable and less dependent on fossil fuels are 'pointless'.
The Achilles Heel you have identified will be immensely costly to the UK's prosperity when we hit peak oil and prices start rising.
That is why the Green Party wants a Green New Deal to reduce our economy's vulnerability to the shocks ahead.
While UKIP is busy spreading corporate-sponsored disinformation and telling the British public that John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius and Guy Stewart Callendar were all part of a 'conspiracy' and that today's climate scientists are all 'whores', the Green Party is promoting constructive policies, which treat the best science we have available (IPCC reports) and those who have gathered the data with the respect and seriousness which they are due.
The Green Party wants to ensure that the measures brought in are socially just and help the most vulnerable.
We want massive government investment in energy conservation to create jobs and to bring energy use down.
Free insulation is one of the 6 key policies featured on our website. There's even a short video there if you feel like watching. It's very short and there's no vegetable pot noodles or fair trade sandals in it as far as I can make out.
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/policies/free-insulation.html
Carbon emissions from homes added up to 21% of total emissions in the UK in 2005. Free insulation can cut that by 25% and simultaneously ensure that vulnerable groups like pensioners have warm homes.
The oil tanker scenario you portray will be happening in 80 years' time if we carry on denying there is a problem and don't bring in locally-generated, decentralised renewable energy on a massive scale.
Apparently putting forward these sorts of policies and backing them up with reputable sources makes me 'hysterical' in UKIP's eyes.
I'm sorry if this is the impression you think I have given.
Huw Peach, spokesman for the economically illiterate Green Party.
You are being dishonest, just like the Green Party, just like the "scientists" that provide you with your material. This is why you are a good Green Party spokesman.
UKIP is very much in favour of renewable electricity and on reducing our dependency on fossil fuels but unlike the economically illiterate Green Party, UKIP understands that windmills and solar panels will never produce enough electricity to meet our basic requirements, let alone allow us to live the comfortable lifestyle we have collectively worked so hard to provide for ourselves. UKIP would replace coal, oil and gas fired power stations with nuclear power stations but wouldn't take the Green and LibLabCon approach of shutting down fossil fuel fired power stations before alternatives are in place resulting in electricity shortages.
You talk of UKIP repeating corporate sponsored disinformation but you don't seem to have a problem with the Green Party's manifesto being entirely based on government sponsored disinformation. You even quote the IPPC reports as "the best science we have available" but as we've seen over the last few days, the IPPC report was based on false and manipulated data, it was politically motivated and the predictions were fraudulent.
You also talk about social justice but the Green Party is full of people who preach about social justice from their big, expensive houses. You're one of those people aren't you Huw Peach, socialist eco-warrior? You live in a big historic Georgian town house in an expensive part of our county town don't you Huw? You can afford to pay the green taxes and increased fuel, power and food costs that your party's policies would bring about can't you Huw?
Hypocritical one world socialists like you and your colleagues in the Green Party will return us to the dark ages. Not in my name.
Stuart Wheeler, the multi-millionaire, who this year donated £100,000 to UKIP, lives in a castle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilham_Castle . We can talk about that and the reasons why Wheeler likes the idea of a flat tax, if you want. However, I think most people will be more interested in the POLICIES that he and Lord Pearson of Rannoch are proposing rather than how comfortably they or I are living. Maybe I’m wrong on this and other UKIP bloggers can put me right.
I support the Green Party, because I believe its policies will make people’s lives better.
The move to a low-carbon economy will not happen as a matter of course.
It should be made as easy as possible for rich and poor and the policies should be practical and popular.
I recognise that I should contribute more than people on lower incomes.
Insulating people’s houses for free is a practical policy, which will make people’s lives better. It will cut carbon, create jobs, cut people’s energy bills and make people’s houses warmer.
Apparently, according to some scare-mongers I know, policies like this will take us back to the Stone Age.
I know UKIP thinks that global warming is a ‘conspiracy’ and a ‘myth’, wonkotsane, but could you explain why helping people to insulate their homes for free or to install renewable energy is a step towards the Stone Age?
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/policies/green-energy.html
To me it seems a positive move, which will increase communities’ energy independence and –when feed-in tariffs come into force in April 2010- will be popular with the public, who can sell surplus energy back to the grid.
I would like to see policies in place which ensure that my taxes help Britain go green as fast as possible and that the measures introduced are socially just.
The Green Party is the only mainstream party that is saying that you cannot have infinite growth in a finite world.
Could you explain why this is economically illiterate, wonkotsane?
You made the ridiculous charge that the IPPC report was based on 'false and manipulated data, it was politically motivated and the predictions were fraudulent.'
You also repeated your appalling slur that scientists are 'dishonest'.
Do you realise how ridiculous it makes UKIP look to be loosely flinging around words like 'fraud', 'conspiracy' and 'myth' in the blogosphere, when the canon of climate science has been built up by scientists over at least 150 years.
Were Tyndall, Arrhenius and Callendar involved in this 'communist' 'conspiracy' to 'take us all back into the dark ages', wonkotsane?
While I have to concede that the use of the word ‘trick’ in one e-mail from the CRU is undoubtedly VERY damaging and needs further investigation and perhaps -if proven- a dismissal, we have to remember that there are THOUSANDS of people who are involved in this work, whose integrity UKIP is impugning in the most irresponsible way.
The CRU hack was clearly timed for maximum damage before the Copenhagen conference, and coincides nicely with the aims of vested interests, who have a stake in weakening any outcome.
The corporate-backed flak attack on the CRU reminds me of the government-backed flak attack on the BBC's Andrew Gilligan.
I hope civil society will wake up and realise what is going on here.
Huw
I would like to respond to a couple of your points if I may. They represent my own opinion, and are not necessarily those of UKIP (I am not a member).
Insulating people’s houses for free is a practical policy, which will make people’s lives better. It will cut carbon, create jobs, cut people’s energy bills and make people’s houses warmer.
All fine and dandy except that it isn't for free is it? You are proposing stealing hard earned money from the taxpayer. In some instances you then give it back to them in which case you have just forced them to spend their own money on insulation (and government administration costs) when probably they had better things to spend it on. In other cases you are handing out taxpayers money to work shy benefit scroungers. Of course taxpayers that have already shelled out on insulation are the real losers. Extreme socialist wealth distributing crookery!
With regard to AGW. Even George Monbiot of the Guardian Global Warming rigged? has cottoned on that something is amiss. Do you not have the slightest doubt that perhaps Al Gore et al have been a little economical with the actuality?
You're right that it is serious, Animal Magic, and I have just said so in my last post.
Are the 'conspiracy theories' the thing which draw you to UKIP, Animal Magic?
Hello Huw
I'm not really sure what you think I am right about as I didn't say anything was serious, although of course it is all pretty serious.
As to what is drawing me to UKIP. As I have posted on this site before I have always been of a Conservative persuasion, but am not taken with David Cameron's leadership or the party's current policy on the EU. I believe that if we stay in the EU for another 5 years then the UK will be obliterated. It will not exist, it will be an ex-country. It will have been split into a number of EU regions governed entirely from Brussels. London's financial markets will have been destroyed in favour of those of Frankfurt and Paris.
No, I am not a believer in global conspiracy theories. I don't think there is any global conspiracy of scientists to fake AGW in order to line their own pockets. What I think has happened is that some scientists came up with some results that showed the planet was warming up a bit as it tends to do periodically, the politicians and certain global industries latched on that this was a good way to extract more taxes and make more profit. As a result the scientific community, mainly funded out of the public purse, found itself under quite a bit of pressure not to dig too deeply into alternative theories. I wouldn't call that a global conspiracy exactly, just the political class and big business doing what the always do - try to relieve us of our money.
Huw
If you haven't already seen this it might lighten up your day.
Hide The Decline"
Translation of Animal Magic's laughable 'some scientists came up with some results':
These prestigious scientific bodies, after analysing ice core data, snow and ice data, glacier melt, sea-level rise, surface and atmospheric temperature, made statements that climate change is very real and that humans are contributing to it through the release of greenhouse gases:
the IPCC, the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the UK and the USA, as well as the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences; European Academy of Sciences and Arts; Network of African Science Academies; the International Council for Science; the European Science Foundation; the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the Federation of American Scientists; the World Meteorological Organization; the American Meteorological Society; the Royal Meteorological Society (UK); the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society; the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society; the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences; the American Geophysical Union; the American Institute of Physics; American Astronomical Society; the American Physical Society; the American Chemical Society; the National Research Council (US); the Federal Climate Change Science Program (US), the American Quaternary Association; the Geological Society of America; Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia); the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London; the European Geosciences Union; the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics; and the International Union of Geological Sciences.
'Some scientists came up with some results'?
Do you really think that these institutions are unaware that 'the planet tends to warm up a bit periodically'?
Do you really think that these institutions have not factored that into their calculations, and need a corporate-sponsored disinformation campaign to tell them so?
What is your view when you see the activities of ExxonMobil, the most profitable company in the world, and its financing of think-tanks and PR campaigns to confuse the public about the science of climate change?
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php
I notice in your creepy video, Al Gore is behind bars.
Do you think I should be locked up for saying the things that I am saying about climate change?
Is this really what UKIP-supporting libertarians feel about free, open, democratic debate? If so, what is libertarian about it?
If you think people should be locked up for their views on climate change, why not reveal your real name, Animal Magic?
You must be pretty confident of your position.
Do you not think climate deniers would have more credibility if they gave their real names, so that we can test their credibility in 10/20/30 years' time, when the science is stronger, and the missed opportunities are clear to their grandchildren?
Oh Huw!
It wasn't "my" video, I came across it and thought it was quite funny. I thought you might have a sense of humour too. Never mind.
With regard to revealing my real name. If you can think of a method whereby I can reveal my identity to you without revealing it to all and sundry and you promise not to pass it on do let me know. Quite happy to do that. It's OK for you to use your real name because you are a politician and the more exposure you can get the better for your party. As for me, my views may rile people that would do harm so I won't do it on the internet.
Your long list of AGW supporting instituations is very impressive. Incidentally you missed out the European Weather Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts ECMWF. You keep spewing out this kind of information which we have all seen before. There are a lot of signatories to the Manhatten Declaration that are prestigous indivuals and beg to differ. This argument will not be settled here.
Do I think you should be locked up for the things you say about CC? No of course not, unless you have an agenda that you haven't disclosed and I don't thinkthat you do. Al Gore is not a scientist and doesn't seem to live a very green lifestyle, so do you think there just might be a hidden agenda?
wv: fiblyst = pure coincidence!
Huw
"The Green Party is the only mainstream party that is saying that you cannot have infinite growth in a finite world.
Could you explain why this is economically illiterate, wonkotsane?"
Dunno about Wonko, but I can tell you why it's economically illiterate, because you like most socialist are talking nonsense. The reason is that we do NOT have a zero sum economy. It is in fact infinite. You can create something out of nothing, an idea, a song, a work of art a performance.
The world is NOT finite, and as we progress with new discoveries, ideas and technology new things happen. Is the internet ( as Al Gore he invented it apparently) finite?
That's the single biggest issue that socialists never ever understand they assume that rich people who live in castles MUST have stolen the money off a poor person.
WATERMELON
Sorry Huw I got the link wrong!
ECMWF
Huw,
Can I come and walk round your house please?
You can walk round Stuart Wheelers Castle, it's open to the public, he uses his own money to maintain a national monument for the nation.
I love all the shrill faux indignation about your lot of lying fraudulent cheating crooked charlatans. The Green Eco mentalists have been name calling sceptics for years. Pulling disgusting tricks like trying to equate climate sceptics with holocaust deniers. You yourself have libelled very eminent scientists on this board . Well you've been caught red handed, in Al Gore's words, emotionalising and spiritualising the argument oh as well as making it up as you go along.
Start work on your next scare story, this one is dead in the water now, even the BBC mention the scam on every climate change story now
@Huw
It would appear that the Kiwi's have been a bit enconomical with the actualities too:
Global Warming NZ
I think the whole scam is now busted wide open.
Here's another one
Eduardo Zolita
A member of the IPCC and a contributor to the IPCC reports has called for Michael Mann and others to be sacked
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/
Huw Peach
Spokesman for the science is settled there is no dispute we are all going back to live in the stoneage by order of the Arch Angel Al Gore....seems to have gone quite.... Do you think he may have been recalled to HQ for a crash indoctrination and reprogramming course so that he can come back with the new whitewash on message spin ?
Libertarian
I was wondering where he had gone. Quite possible that he is being reprogrammed I suppose, but I think Huw is so blinded that he can't see the truth when it is staring him in the face so probably isn't vulnerable to further programming. We shall wait and see whether he returns.
Hi Animal,
Huw doesn't strike me as the type to give up even when faced with the blindingly obvious. He is a dedicated Green and as I have accused him of earlier it is a religion for him so it's an article of faith rather than truth or science.
If it was suddenly announced someone had invented a device that removed all man made co2 he wouldn't be happy because that isn't actually the end game for Greens. Greens are what happened to the late baby boomer CND/CHE T shirt wearing hippies from the 70's and early 80's they are all control freak socialists
Thanks for all of those friendly comments during my absence.
The reason I haven't been posting is that this part of the thread was mysteriously unavailable to post on for a couple of days.
I assumed -wrongly as it turned out- that wonkotsane had had the comments deleted.
The idea of locking people up for expressing their views is not something I associate with libertarians.
This reminds me of anti-libertarian views in another discussion I had about climate change with some American über-right-wingers a couple of years ago.
http://spectator.org/archives/2006/03/30/americans-in-service-to-americ/3 Look under 'CONSERVING FREEDOM'
I asked what the American Spectator, a so-called 'conservative' magazine (opposed to climate-protecting regulation) was in favour of conserving?
A correspondent called Craig C. Sarver, from Seattle, Washington, prefaced his response by saying that my internet access should be restricted.
George Monbiot wrote an interesting article about attempted censorship by climate change deniers:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/jul/30/climate-change-deniers-monbiot
In what way is all the above libertarian?
I think it is an important question.
You probably didn't notice that Blogger only shows 200 comments on one page and you have to click the "Newer" link to move to the next set of comments.
I clicked that, wonkotsane, but there was nothing there.
Thanks for resuming the service, though.
Huw
Welcome back. I too had trouble getting to the 2nd page. To get there I had to click on "Post a comment" and then click "Newest" on that page. Gremlins I expect.
With reference to Libertarian's remarks about you being a dyed in the wool greenie. What would it take to change your mind? For me to become a believer in AGW (as distinct from Climate Change) would require proof from far more sophisticated mathematic modeling than UEA/CRU etc. currently appear to adopt.
I was expecting to see that UEA/CRU were using a climate simulation approach with 1000s of variables (including volcanic, industrial and traffic emissions etc.) But all they appear to be doing is a basic statistical analysis using unreliable temperate data. Could probably have done that in an Excel spreadsheet. Pity I didn't get invited to bid for some of those lucrative contracts!
By the way, wonkotsane, I know that UKIP's new leader, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, thinks cutting carbon is 'pointless', that UKIP bloggers think scientists are 'dishonest' and that 150 years of climate science are a ‘conspiracy’ and a ‘myth’.
However, could you explain why helping people to insulate their homes for free or to install renewable energy is a step towards the Stone Age?
Large numbers of pensioners die every year due to poor insulation and fuel poverty. This policy would surely help those people, cut their costs, cut carbon and improve their lives, wouldn't it?
Why do you think it would take us into a Stone Age?
And would you please make it clear to casual readers whether you think people who advocate this policy should be put in prison or have their internet access restricted?
Animal Magic's video showed Al Gore in prison.
I clicked 'Newest', Animal Magic.
But it didn't work.
This lasted for a couple of days, so I assumed that wonkotsane had followed up on his comment about getting my comments deleted.
Like you said, Gremlins, I expect.
You asked what it would take me to change my mind about climate change.
Answer: Reasoned, polite, fact-based discussion with credible people, who used their own names, who were concerned with truth and the welfare of others, admitted it when they got things wrong, and were able to source their comments from reputable, well-known sources.
I don't know what it is about UKIP that attracts you, but if the arguments are strong in the first place, then why the need for anonymity (which removes accountability) and why the need for personal vilification and name-calling?
I can see the attraction of no-nonsense straight-talking, but do you think Libertarian calling people like me a 'watermelon' or a 'lying fraudulent cheating crooked charlatan' is going to get people signing up to UKIP in their droves?
By the way, Animal Magic, do you REALLY think that the CRU or the IPCC or the science academies of all those different countries had never considered the idea of VARIABLES (like 'volcanic, industrial and traffic emissions etc')?
Do you really think that no scientist in the last couple of hundred years has ever thought of what occurred to you and your Excel spreadsheet?
Huw, anyone on a low income can already get free loft and cavity wall insulation so your flagship vote winning policy (I'm assuming it's a flagship policy as it's the only one you can give details of) is just a continuation of something that's already available.
Huw
I don't think I resorted to personal vilification and name calling did I? If I did I apologise. Very unlike me.
You said:
Reasoned, polite, fact-based discussion with credible people, who used their own names, who were concerned with truth and the welfare of others, admitted it when they got things wrong, and were able to source their comments from reputable, well-known sources.
I would make four points:
1) Anonymity. I answered this before. I sure don't mind about you knowing my identity, but there are some nutters out there that I don't want bothering me.
2) Welfare. I am very concerned about the welfare of others. In particular the tax payers that will have to cut back on necessities to pay for carbon credits etc to developing counties and useless windfarms dotted around our beautiful countryside and coastline.
3) I told you in an earlier post what it would take to make me change my mind about AGW. If/when that happens I will make a grovelling apology to you personally if you like.
4) I think many of the links that Libertarian, Wonkotsane and I have provided are reputable sources. The fact that they are not so well know is due to the MSM's supression of their views. How much coverage of climategate has there been? Virtually nothing in the Times or Telegraph. Surprisingly a half-hearted apology from George Monbiot in the Guardian. The biased BBC is concentrating on the awful crime of hacking into a computer system, even though it is most likely an internal leak.
Huw
With regard those august academies and their modeling capabilities to refer to.
To be honest I don't know whether such a sophisticated model exists, but given what has been revealed by the leaked UEA/CRU files it looks pretty certain the no such model exists therein. For the amount of dosh that has been bunged their way I think the quality of their work and lack of data/code management has been abysmal. However, I don't think it is that unusual for academia. I would hope that more professional outfits such as the Met Office would be better organised.
Even so I am very doubtful that any really sophisticated model exists. I am referring to the level of sophistication placed into models used in the design of aircraft etc. I am talking about advance mathematical programming methods.
I don't think you quite got my point about the Excel spreadsheet. We are being told that the journal file harry_read_me.txt is all about some programs cobbled together to produce some cover art. I just astounds me that anyone would contemplate writing such a programs in IDL and Fortran when such could be performed in Excel with far less effort. Obviously not cover art, but part of the propaganda suite.
Huw, of course these "scientists" have considered variables and we've seen they are in possession of the facts and are fully aware of the fact that their predictions are incorrect and falsified. They have also considered the tens of millions of pounds of grants courtesy of the taxpayer that they would never get without the global warming scam and the considerable wealth of people like Al Gore who is close to being the first global warming millionaire. They have chosen to forsake their scientific principles in exchange for personal wealth and fame. History will remember them for the damage they are selfishly doing to society for personal gain.
Welcome back Huw
How was the indoctrination reprogramming class? Lots of good sound bites I hope.
So first things first.
You ignored all of our posts when you did return ( can't say I blame you, not a lot to say when you are caught red handed)
Then you trotted out that tired old accusation that we all think it's a conspiracy theory. Even someone as stubborn as you Huw should only need to be told half a dozen times it's a bandwagon not a conspiracy.
Then you snuck in your 150 year bit as if Tyndall finding how greenhouse gases work somehow started climate and the 4.5 billion years before that don't count.
Straight from the NULabou book of smear you then intyroduced a whole thread about a libertarian in the USA, trying to imply I know, agree or even care about this bloke or his views.
Not sure what the locking up bit was about.
So as I say welcome back. I see Zonita and Hulme (IPCC types) have now both called for Mann and Jones to be sacked. I guess you will tell me one of them owned shares in a sunlounger company so their science can be dismissed too.
I see the Aussie Liberal Party aren't too happy, the Senate committee gave 2million degree Gore a grilling and didn't much care for his bull, the main stream press and the BBC are all running stories about climategate and THE GREEN PARTY have now moved from warming,then AGW, to climate change and now it's just pollution. Nice one, you don't need any science to be against pollution, everyone knows pollution is bad.
So what's it like being a cooling denier ?
Hi Huw
On your guff about name calling , please learn to pay attention. I was referring to the climate warming fraudsters in that list of accusation. That is unless I've missed something and you played an integral part in manipulating the data personally rather than just being a propoganda mouth piece.
I do hold my hands up to calling you a Watermelon though but then you repeatedly called me a liar....so ya boo schucks to you
I guess we won Huw as you just couldn't answer anymore
Huw Peach, Greens give up after climategate ?
http://www.desmogblog.com:80/oily-echo-machine-behind-climategate
Huw
You must be able to do better than that. You sound like Monbiot calling us all morons.
Shell, Exxon and BP are all main sponsors of Copenhagen and donate billions to Green causes. Us climate realists aren't as gullible as you Green Socialists. We understand vested interests on all sides it's only Greens that whine "why would x scientists agree if it's not so ?" Vested interests. Being a realist means being a realist about as much as possible.
Anyway now I know you are still reading I'll keep posting
New Zealand fudged figures
Darwin station fudged figures
1938 admitted as warmest year
Another 23 feet type moment with 2350 being promoted by Greens as 2035...ha ha ha emotionalising the issues...ha ha
Al Gore bottling Copenhagen
How much carbon has been expended there Huw ?
47% of people now do NOT believe in AGW.
The days are numbered for the cooling deniers
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/50-reasons-why-global-warming.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/aug/19/oil-firms-warned-over-us-lobbying
Everyone has their favorite way of using the internet. Many of us search to find what we want, click in to a specific website, read what’s available and click out. That’s not necessarily a bad thing because it’s efficient. We learn to tune out things we don’t need and go straight for what’s essential.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
Post a Comment