Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Apr 24 - harryjkevin91
on
Seeking Help With Dissertation -
Apr 18 - chricton123
on
The Benefits of Using Tutorbin for Custom Writing Services
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Bishop Hill
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (22)
Sir, can't you make Josh do something on the IAC. I have done my homework and on all of them, (except the chineese member), I have found they has been working or speaking for the Global Climate Change agenda.
Thank you !
Fortunately there seems to be little danger of this econut billionaire being elected. Fingers crossed.
Rolf, do share your homework. Happy to take a look.
I was watching UK Channel Four's Alternative Election programme and they brought on trendy, all-over-telly-at-the-moment, Prof. Brian Cox and asked him what we SHOULD be worried about. He had a list of five things and as I was expecting the obligatory CAGW, probably as No.1 "threat", I frankly zoned out a bit but shockingly, amongst super volcanoes, plagues and asteroids, I don't think there was a single mention of global warming. Even when he came to his No 1, human stupidity, I didn't hear anything about AGW.
Did my ears deceive me? Anyone else catch this? Doesn't he realise that even the fact of not mentioning AGW will cause him to be banished to the wilderness - or is he a closet sceptic? Surely if he was a believer, AGW would be in his top 5 threats to humanity?
Dear Bishop
I am surprised you haven't covered the latest 'open letter' on the guardian yet.
It is here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/06/climate-science-open-letter
"All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts."
The Goldsmith family - fascism for the 21st century.
Black Shirts in Green Trousers
By George Monbiot, April 30, 2002
The previous editorial team split with its founder Teddy Goldsmith after he addressed a meeting of the hard right Groupement de Recherche et d’Etudes pour la Civilisation Europeene. Goldsmith, whose politics are a curious mixture of radical and reactionary, has advocated the enforced separation of Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda and Protestants and Catholics in Ulster, on the grounds that they constitute “distinct ethnic groups” and are thus culturally incapable of co-habitation.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2002/04/30/black-shirts-in-green-trousers/
Guardian and New York Times journalist Jonathan Freedland wrote
It came apart again when it emerged that Zac Goldsmith – a Green & Blacks organic chocolate bar in human form – had been a non-dom,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/09/smoothies-party-rich-tories-brand?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments
Millionaire Goldsmith supports the left and the extreme right
All over Europe New Right ideologists are seeking contact with left-wing activists to build together a movement against, for instance, the destruction of nature or against "globalisation". (1) In this way the extreme right also hopes to become accepted again. The British ecologist Edward Goldsmith supports them in this endeavour. He sponsors and works together with dozens of progressive organisations and is one of the driving forces behind the international campaign-networks against "free trade". At the same time he is becoming a more important factor within the extreme right.
http://www.savanne.ch/right-left-materials/millionaire-goldsmith.html
Goldsmith's close friend John Aspinall wanted to wipe out most of the world's population. With James Goldsmith and Lord Lucan, he discussed the overthrow of Harold Wilson and James Callaghan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Aspinall_(zoo_owner)#Politics
John Aspinall
Some of us are now drawn to believe that a demo-catastrophe will be an eco-bonanza. In other words, a population readjustment on a planetary scale from 4000 million to something in the nature of 200 million would be the only possible solution for the survival of our species.and of the eco-system or systems that nurtured us.
http://tinyurl.com/ydgb2ed
Desperate Lucan dreamt of fascist coup - Murder mystery earl bought Mein Kampf and listened to Hitler's speeches
There is no suggestion Lucan was in any way anti-Semitic or supported the Final Solution. But he and his associates, who included casino owner and party host John Aspinall, and the tycoon Sir James Goldsmith, were increasingly convinced Britain had fallen victim to a socialist conspir acy. Daily Express journalist Charles Benson, one of Lucan's friends, said: 'He was very right wing and never watered it down in front of liberals. He would talk about hanging and flogging and niggers to get a reaction.'
According to former MI5 officer Peter Wright, a group of his colleagues, including Margaret Thatcher's mentor Airey Neave, began discussing a political coup. According to Wright, they believed that the Labour government had been infiltrated by the KGB and should be overthrown. He also claimed they were backed by a right-wing financier. Goldsmith always denied he put the money behind the group or discussed MI5 matters with former intelligence officers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jan/09/politics.past
Looks like Goldsmith was elected.
Shub:
Looks like the letter is the usual appeal to authority. It is a most unscientific letter. As a scientist, I would be extremely embarassed to have my name associated with such propaganda and lies.
Looks like Zac Goldsmith has won in Richmond Park, narrowly beating the LibDems. There's also a win for the Greens - Caroline Lucas in Brighton Pavilion. Some interesting times coming up.
Zac Goldsmith indeed won against the Lib Dems but then so much more unexpectedly did a Tory against Evan Harris, one of the two rabid CAGWers on the Select Committee (the other, Tory Tim Boswell, was already retiring, like Bob Spink and Phil Willis). Caroline Lucas of the Greens gained in Brighton, as expected. Gisela Stuart unexpectedly held on in Birmingham (something I was very pleased by because of her stance on the Lisbon Treaty though I don't know where she is on CAGW). A totally mixed bag, definite hung parliament, very individualistic per constituency, with potentially much more power given to the 'mavericks and oddballs'. That has to be the best outcome for us, given the official stance of the three main parties.
Every main party knows whoever is in charge is going to have to put up taxes, and carbon is the best excuse in town, even though CAGW is complete utter rubbish. Enough people seem unable to think beyond what they are told is "the scientific consensus". So putting up taxes to save the planet will be the mantra. Same applies to "tax and spend" governments everywhere: carbon tax is more palatable than income tax, property tax, and pleasurable substances taxes.
The whole climate science-fraud-farce has only ever been about money. Not money for science - thats chickenfeed - but money for government hiding behind "the environment" excuse. "We're doing this for your own good. Now hand it over"
There's no votes in good science. There was no anti-environment anti-fake charity pro cheap non-renewable energy Party to vote for. There is no good election result. The battle will continue until they find something else to tax.
Correction to my earlier report: Bob Spink, the independent MP who according to the Bishop voted strongly for carbon controls, didn't retire but lost his seat to the Tories. All the best to him in his future career! But another MP on the select committee in that category, Conservative Nadine Dorries, has held on to her seat, as I guess will also be true of Rob Wilson. Of those a bit better in their voting records, Brian Iddon and Desmond Turner have retired, Gordon Marsden and Roberta Blackman-Woods have retained their seats. The best of the bunch by a long way at the hearing, Graham Stringer, is reported to have held on to his seat in Manchester. That's just what I've picked from the Beeb and Wikipedia (which has mostly leld the Beeb!)
I don't agree with your point of view Andrew. For one thing, is there ever a difference between parties on the size of government and thus the total tax burden? I think that sometimes there is. In which case I'm for the smaller government party. I don't care much about a simple carbon tax as an alternative to an increase in VAT, given the size of the deficit. What I greatly dislike about the CAGW dogma is that in its extreme forms it justifies continual increases in the power of governments and the skewing of the false market in carbon by anyone close to government. But I don't see this as premeditated on the part of most democratic politicians though. It's mostly a matter of false belief, just as naziism and bolshevism were. So we have to go back to the science and show it to be that - and that isn't a waste of time.
We probably agree on quite a lot - I just don't think it's futile to make the argument from the science. Though patience sure is required.
@Josh
You will find one note on everyone of the IAC people here
My chineese reading is very very limited so I did not try to find anything on him, but you will find the rest of them is very carefully "cherrypicked". You will also be able to say they have exactly the qualification to meet the IPPC requirements.
If you need more I can publish more of my references on most of them.
Rolf
Goldsmith has the money to buy himself a place in the government if the evil ones end up in power. Lab/lib coalition would be ideal in the sense it would result in future coalition governments, which means no Tories.
Margaret Thatcher set down the markers for the future. No Tories, no scientists.
Rolf: Fang is an alarmist too.
"natural forests have lost an additional 0.14 petagram of carbon, suggesting that carbon sequestration through forest management practices addressed in the Kyoto Protocol could help offset industrial carbon dioxide emissions."
http://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/5525/2320
there's also a powerpoint presentation at the Global Carbon Project : Homepage www.globalcarbonproject.org
where the conclusion was (paraphrasing) "positive feedback will result in increased temps"
search him on http://pipl.com for a fuller list
artwest
Yes, I caught that! Having seen Brian Cox speak on this matter a few times I was expecting that number 1 on his list would have been AGW. Like you, I zoned out but was amazed when I heard none of the normal rhetoric. Whether he believes it or not, who knows, but it was a nice little way of trying to convey the same message whilst covering his back. Just in case!
Ok, some of the indications is a little weak, but it all suggest we have a panel of 100% alarmist at our hand. So I think we can be sure there is another (white)washing forecast for August. If we look further into what the panel is expected to achieve they is not expected into the different papers and who did what. They will mostly look into procedures and "policy".
I just don't think there is anything to do. The only power we seem have is the tiny little vote.
Ross, thanks for that. I was questioning my sanity.
You may well be right about Cox wanting "deniability", but it was almost as surprising that Jimmy Carr didn't bring it up - especially during the "human stupidity" section. It's difficult to imagine, say, David Mitchell not bringing it up, or especially Marcus Brigstocke, if they had been interviewing Cox. It's almost compulsory for youngish comedians to scoff at "deniers" even without any excuse. I am sure they would have smugly expected agreement if they had mentioned AGW to Cox.
Perhaps there isn't anything to read into this, perhaps Carr is coincidentally sceptical, or it could just be that Carr, in the unfamiliar role of interviewer, didn't think of it, but I have to wonder if, just possibly, there wasn't an agreement to avoid the issue and potential embarrassment.
E Smith
Would that be the Margaret Thatcher who set up the Hadley Center?
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/Speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=108102&doctype=1
Shub
285 scientists and a polar bear.
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/2010/05/climat-lettre-de-258-membres-de-lacad%C3%A9mie-des-sciences-us.html
Back to artwest's original point - sorry I've been trying to process the election in other ways till now - it's seemed obvious for a while that Brian Cox doesn't have anything like the same passion about the high profile findings of climate science so-called as he does about physics, astrophysics and the like. He's a force for good as an educator, in my view - not just a political placeman, he really cares about his subject. Such people we need first to persuade to advocate level one of Open Climate - open data and code for all papers in climate science, on publication. That's a realistic goal, especially for someone with that background, where such standards are taken for granted. After that it gets complicated and we all have much to learn.
It may be of interest to know that Brian Cox argued elegantly against Sir David King on Newsnight on the evening of the opening of the LHC. I would not be surprised if he is not just a bit sceptic. But I could be wrong.
Check it out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shGI-kpnMgY