Contempt for Parliament - an effect or an enabler of CO2 alarmism?

A Lord Marland disgraces the House of Lords with his blatant contempt for a fellow peer.  But it is a sign not merely of yobbishness on his part, but of the absurdity and indefensibility of the Climate Change Act.  It is out of the question that it can be complied with, and this particular exchange merely serves, as did the climategate revelations, to reveal the low calibre of some of those who create, or collaborate with, alarm about CO2 in the atmosphere.  This vacuity at government level is unsettling but not surprising - there being so little substance to the case for such alarm. An alarm that is now part of the curriculum in our schools.  

(Photo: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/about/lord_marland/lord_marland.aspx)

Extract from the proceedings of the House of Lords, 20th October 2010
(http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/101020-0001.htm#10102041000398)

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the chairman of the Government’s own Green Investment Bank commission has authoritatively stated that the cost of meeting our current carbon reduction commitments in this country is somewhere between £800 billion and £1 trillion? Does he not agree that, with the best will in the world, this mind-boggling cost cannot be justified except in the context of a binding global carbon reduction agreement? Therefore, in the absence of such an agreement being secured at Cancun, does he not agree that it is only commonsense to suspend the Climate Change Act until such time as a binding global agreement is secured?

Lord Marland: My Lords, when I bumped into my noble friend in the Corridor and he said that he was catching the train to York I was rather relieved. Sadly, he will be catching a slightly later train than I was hoping for. I have now forgotten entirely what his question was.

Hat-tip: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2010/10/21/lord-marland-shames-parliament.html

Food for thought: Lord Monckton on Canute, Communism, Climate, and Conspiracies

Greenpeace and communism.  Maurice Strong and world government. Climate scientists suborned and suborning.  And more.  Well worth an hour of your time, and if  you are a teacher or in educational administration or leadership, food for thought as you reflect on whether you want to be part of the deliberate scaring and misleading of the young about what we know and don't know about climate variation.


This is part 1 of a 5 part set of YouTube videos capturing an  interview/presentation with Lord Monckton published by Alex Jones on Prisonplanet.tv.  The links to the entire set are here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHyMYEzRyf8 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUUcb36a_4I 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA0xEM1KwG4 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7o1S4m5mCw 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieC7HYC5cto

Hat-tip: Sailboi on Google Group 'Climate Science'.  http://groups.google.com/group/climate-science/browse_thread/thread/ab4cec19ffba20ac#

Further credits: http://www.infowars.com/

Now this broadcaster, Alex Jones and his site are new to me.  He seems to be attacked by the establishment as a  'right-wing conspiracy site', and of course as such any posting using his materials will risk being attacked as well.  Well, so be it.  My examination of his site suggests to me that he is democratic, libertarian, and a believer in the Constitution of the United States.  So far, that's good enough for me.

Note added 10 June 2013   A YouTube video revealing Alex Jones as an unhinged oaf: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgBq6q4x8Fw

Wikipedia stalls one CO2-agitated editor, giving hope of a broader treatment of climate debates

'William M. Connolley topic-banned (R3)

5.6) William M. Connolley is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3.

[snip]....

It has become clear, during the case itself, that the topic area has become too personalized and polarized around a number of editors who are, frankly, incapable of working together. While I may not agree that all editors involved have the same severity of misbehavior, I can appreciate that a forcible fresh start is probably going to help — with gradual return on merit as the editors involve themselves in other areas of the project. — 

[snip]....

Sad, reluctant support. I dislike intensely the idea of separating a knowledgeable editor from editing in the field of his expertise. My instincts impel me to say that I would, if possible, prefer a more carefully tailored, nuanced sanction or set of sanctions that could preserve the value of William M. Connolley's editing while addressing the problems that exist with it. (This is an observation I've made about some of the other editors who are being topic-banned as well.) We have also acknowledged that some of the specific assertions made about him previously were inaccurate or taken out of context. However, the "enough is enough" consensus of the committee is clear, and given the entire record here I can hardly say that the overall structure and outcome of the final decision is an outlandish one. Given the result, I hope that William M. Connolley can refocus his dedication to the project in other ways, while addressing the concerns that have been expressed so that he can return to this topic area in due course.'

See full announcement here, with supporting references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#William_M._Connolley_topic-banned_.28R3.29

Hat-tip: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2010/10/14/going.html


A step forward, but so many years of misleading innocent readers will not be so readily corrected.  Wikipedia, like other utopian ventures, has always been vulnerable to those with few scruples about pursuing their own self-interest with ruthlessness.  Even if we see no more Kyoto-style over-reaction to CO2 such as that captured in legislation in the UK (and that seems over-optimistic given the huge momentum of interested parties wanting more of it), there remains the damage to the standing of science and to the practice of both politics and education.  I suspect that an oppressive burden of gloom has been imposed on wave after wave of children passing through their school years, with a diet of alarmism based, ultimately, on the speculations of a handful of climate modellers.  Speculations that have been contradicted by many observational and theoretical studies, but which nevertheless survive and are vigorously promoted by those for whom they are like a dream come true.

If Wikipedia may be at least pausing its own part that promotional effort, and if even the BBC and the Royal Society have recently indicated at least a tiny embarrassment at their part in it, I like to think, in my optimistic way, that progress is being made.

But meanwhile, in schools and other organisations aimed at children throughout the world, the deliverables of this narrow,  'science is settled', doom-laden agitation about CO2 are pushed at the young.   A dream come true for some, a nightmare for others, not least the children.

10-minute trainers on climate nonsense: materials for at least 94 of them

Pierre Gosselin's list of climate nonsenses reached 94 in August.  I suppose at least one '10-minute trainer' could be produced from each and every one of them.  But who has the freedom to make use of them in a classroom?  Will a group of dissident teachers/schools emerge, or must we wait for government approval?

'No science produces more controversy, exaggerations, distortions, follies, and falsehoods than climate science does. In this new list we’ve got

94 climate-gates total
28 new gates
145 links to reports with details.

The new gates on the list are designated with “NEW!” to make them easy to spot. Thanks to a number of readers who have given me tips.'

The first 10:

1. Acceleration of sea level rise-gate 
Claims of accelerating sea level rise are misleading.
2. African agriculture claim-gate
IPCC wrongly claims that in some African countries yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent by 2020.
3. AIT-gate and British High Court
35 errors or gross exaggerations are found in Al Gore’s Oscar winning documentaryAn Inconvenient Truth.
4. NEW! Alaskan glaciers-gate
Loss of glaciers in Alaska was grossly exaggerated.
5. Amazon rainforest-gate and  here (NEW!) and here (NEW!) 
IPCC cites “robust” source: green activist organisation WWF. WWF’s source was merely an anonymous brief on forest fire risks posted in 1999 and taken down four years later.
6. Antarctic sea ice-gate
Antarctic sea ice underestimated by 50%.
7. NEW! Authoritarian science-gate
The science says… Science is increasingly used as an instrument of authority to impose public policy.
8. NEW! Australia-gate Australia temperature adjusted upwards to show more warming.
9. Bangladesh-gate
IPCC inflates Bangladesh doomsday forecasts in 2007 4AR.
10. NEW! Biofuel-gate
Efforts to save the planet by using bio-fuels are in fact rapidly destroying it.

Link to them all: 

http://notrickszone.com/2010/08/03/climate-scandals-list-of-94-climate-gates/

RIP Phillip and Tracey, virtual victims of 10:10's murderous intolerance

The use of children as political fodder for spreading alarm about CO2 is bad enough.  Showing them being murdered in cold blood for having parents who do not share that alarm is disgusting.  At a time when many people are under daily threat of renewed attack by other intolerant bombers, also obsessed by their cause to the point of losing any trace of humanity, the 10:10 movie was particularly odious.

It served to give us insight into their attitudes, and for that we may be grateful.

Delingpole has a bitter-edged post on suggested actions for today, the 10th of October, 2010:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058296/1010-who-are-you-going-to-kill-to-help-save-the-planet/
It begins:
'Hey kids, the big day’s here. It’s 10/10/10 and that if you’ve been following the campaign of Franny Armstrong, Richard Curtis, Eugenie and all their other nicely-spoken, privately-educated, Daddy-funded, Guardian-reading trustafarian chums at 10:10, you’ll know that means just one thing: Climate Action.'




The first comment I saw posted under that piece, by 'scientificanomaly' is the inspiration for the title of this one:
'This post is in loving memory of the young martyrs Phillip and Tracy. May they rest in peace. They shall never be forgotten, we shall honour their memory by re-doubling our efforts to consign the AGW climate scam to the dustbin of history and by driving all the deranged eco-bullies out of positions of influence.'