Seen elsewhere
Twitter
Support

 

Buy

Click images for more details

Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Here come de heap big warmy | Main | That Met Office meeting »
Wednesday
Jun192013

It's not just the Marxists

The Science and Technology Committee has announced a new panel of witnesses for its inquiry into the public understanding of climate science. After hearing from a Marxist think-tank and an ex-Marxist public relations wonk later today, they will also take evidence from some scientivists and some plain activists next week. If the web page is to be believed they are going to do this session at the Science Museum rather than in Parliament.

Climate: Public understanding and policy implications 9:05 am; Science Museum

Witnesses: Professor Nick Pidgeon, Understanding Risk Research Group, Cardiff University, Professor Chris Rapley, Communicating Climate Science Policy Commission, UCL and Dr Alex Burch, Director of Learning, Science Museum Group; Professor John Womersley, Chief Executive, Science and Technology Facilities Council, and Champion for RCUK Public Engagement with Research, Professor Tim Palmer, Vice President, Royal Meteorological Society and Professor Rowan Sutton, Director of Climate Research, National Centre for Atmospheric Science

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (46)

"The Science and Technology Committee has announced a new panel of witnesses for its inquiry into the public understanding of climate science. "

They would be better-served to have, you know, actual Members of the Public, on the panel, rather than those whose income derives from any aspect of Climate/Weather.

Jun 19, 2013 at 10:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterJoe Public

They are still hell-bent on a 're-education' of the foolish public. The still think it's the message and not the product that's flawed.

Jun 19, 2013 at 10:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

In your original article on these committee hearings you said that the Glasgow University Media Group have never actually done any work in the area of climate change. In fact they conducted a large qualitative study (“focus groups”) last year for the UKERC which can be found here
www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=2900
Catherine Happer of the GUMG, who is one of today’s witnesses at the committee hearings, has an interesting article on the subject at
https://theconversation.com/2013-is-the-year-for-scientists-to-speak-up-on-climate-14777
Comments welcome.

Jun 19, 2013 at 10:51 AM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Geoff - I added an update to the original post about this study some time ago.

Jun 19, 2013 at 11:00 AM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

The pathos of that recent hearing in the House of Commons was painful to behold, with invited speakers spanning the gamut from mindless apparatchik to gormless mystic, all to an audience of MPs as out of their depth as you might hope to see in a Gilbert & Sullivan piece on this saga.

Ben Pile was unimpressed by the recent debate in the House of Lords:

For a chamber that is populated by people who are appointed on the basis of merit, replacing the feudal system, it was a very disappointing experience. It’s not simply that I disagreed with many of the comments; the problem is with their total mediocrity. Nigel Lawson and Matt Ridley made good arguments, but the putative ‘rebuttals’, were all of the kind we’re so used to hearing: the deference to the scientific consensus, and the litany of climate catastrophes that await us. The latter invariably consists of cobbled-together factoids. And the former, as ever, allows someone with very little brain power to marshal ignorance against a better-informed argument.

Now we have a new pantomime being staged by the Science and Technology Committee apparently full of people straight out of Central Casting for the Promulgation of Virtue and the Suppression Of Vice on climate change.

O tempora, O mores!

Jun 19, 2013 at 11:08 AM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

"a marxist think-tank"

Groucho Marx?

* He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot.

* Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others.

* Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

* The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made.

Jun 19, 2013 at 11:12 AM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

Pascal Bruckner had a recent essay comparing similitudes and differences between Marxism, Theo-ecologism and other fashionable isms: http://chronicle.com/article/Against-Environmental-Panic/139733/

Jun 19, 2013 at 11:22 AM | Registered CommenterPatagon

SlightlyO/T but this is REALLY IMPORTANT NEWS on public policy implications. see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2343966/Germany-threatens-hit-Mercedes-BMW-production-Britain-France-Italy-carbon-emission-row.html

It would appear that Germany (Europe's most powerful player) has woken up and has now realised the adverse effect of carbon emission restrictions.

I have often commented that Germany will not let its manufacturing struggle as a consequence of such restrictions and/or high energy prices (which Germany is begining to realise is disastrous for its small industries which are the life blood of German manufacturing).

First, Germany is moving away from renewables and is building 23 coal powered stations for cheap and reliable energy.
Second, Germany wants to rein back against too restrictive carbon emissions.

The combination of this new approach is a ground changer in European terms.

Jun 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM | Unregistered Commenterrichard verney

Can't they write a computer model to simulate a committee yet?

Jun 19, 2013 at 11:33 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

I hope very shortly to announce a new panel of witnesses for my inquiry into the understanding of climate science by The Science and Technology Committee.

Jun 19, 2013 at 12:07 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Michael Hart: if a camel is a horse designed by a committee, I shudder to think what a committee would look like, designed by a model.

(shudder)...now I need a brain rinse, preferably 80 proof, and in a tall glass.

Jun 19, 2013 at 12:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterLes Johnson

Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.

The idea that CAGW has been massively over-hyped or just made up is an idea whose time has come, and those on the wrong side of the border are trying to sneak under the wire without being spotted.

Jun 19, 2013 at 12:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

Marxism has nothing in common with Climate Alarmism.

What Marxism has in common with Christianity is the idea that man can bring about his own salvation.
Both believe that it is possible through self help to improve the human condition.

The late period Marxist Maurice Cornforth had much the same philosophical outlook as the Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin SJ

Marxism thinks that irrational capitalism will self destruct and be replaced by a more effective economic system.
This will be based on science and free the productive capacity of people from the constraints of a money economy.

Marxism is a rational belief system but not all rationalists are Marxists.
Large numbers of Rationalists think that mankind will self destruct.
This group are to be found among the most rabid supporters of IPCC 'science'.

Dont write off Marxism by the failure of Soviet Russia.

Mao Tse-Tung when asked what he thought about The French Revolution replied .."Its too soon to say"

Jun 19, 2013 at 1:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterBryan

"Professor Rowan Sutton, Director of Climate Research, National Centre for Atmospheric Science"

Spouted to the media at the Met Office do. NCAS is misleading, there is more and connections.
Might even have co-authored with Slingo.

Look at the bottom of this web page ncas.leeds.ac.uk/people/view/14

Jun 19, 2013 at 2:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterTim Channon

richard verney
Thanks for that link. This is worth repeating (so I shall):
'We should not drive jobs out of Europe at a moment of high unemployment.'
'We should not drive jobs out of Europe at a moment of high unemployment.'
'We should not drive jobs out of Europe at a moment of high unemployment.'
'We should not drive jobs out of Europe at a moment of high unemployment.'
'We should not drive jobs out of Europe at a moment of high unemployment.'

Or indeed at any other time.
But is anybody listening? Anybody other than the Chief Cretin who believes that only by reducing our carbon emissions will we actually improve our competitiveness in the world. 'Alice in Wonderland politics' doesn't start to describe it.

Jun 19, 2013 at 2:22 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

There is nothing left wing about AGW.It is extremely conservative and regressive . Please name one left wing person who supports it. There are literally none.

The fact that individuals were Marxists in the 1970s means nothing. Some of the dirtiest little slimeballs in British political history were left wing. Peter Mandelson, John Prescott, Claire Short, Jack Straw, Mo Mowlam and the dumbest man ever to hold office, David Blunkett.

Everyone in my school who could read was left wing in the 1970s. Apart from me. We had every variation of Marxist and Communist you could imagine. We thought there was a revolution coming. There was - Margaret Thatcher and the destruction of Britain (apart from the City).

Jun 19, 2013 at 2:35 PM | Unregistered CommentereSmiff

I must say I've always equated "the end justifies the means" and the illiberal attitude that seeks to suppress dissent as an essential attribute for a certain section of the Left — the heirs of the Fabians; the control freaks who claim to be "liberal" but definitely not "libertarian"; the ones who claim that "the man in Whitehall really does no best"; the espousers of "Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic socialism and environmental policy."
And I think you need a bit of political retraining, smiffy. Your idea of slimeballs (Mandelson excepted, perhaps) and the destruction of Britain are a little wide of the mark, as even the mainstream left would agree.

Jun 19, 2013 at 4:27 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Bryan on Jun 19, 2013 at 1:10 PM
"What Marxism has in common with Christianity is the idea that man can bring about his own salvation."

What! John 3 v16: Jesus answered, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (v17) For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."

So much for self help, alone!


And do Marxists believe in religious salvation?

Pull the other one!


"Marxism is a rational belief system"

Well, the Marxists think so.


"Mao Tse-Tung when asked what he thought about The French Revolution replied .."Its too soon to say""

That is too close to the Thermal Alarmists to be funny! 17 years 4 months, and counting, is too soon to say.

Jun 19, 2013 at 5:39 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

esmiff -"We thought there was a revolution coming. There was - Margaret Thatcher and the destruction of Britain (apart from the City)."

Of course we should have continued with the Post War Consensus and managed Britain's decline, as was the policy of all types of politicians and trade unionists in the the 1970s. It always amuses me to hear fools talking about how Thatcher destroyed Britain when it was quite clearly the opposite.

Jun 19, 2013 at 6:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterScooper

Scooper

Funniest video on Youtube.

Confronted with a set of employment and economic figures with a distinct resemblance to Hiroshima, Margaret Thatcher denies having ever subscribed to monetarism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuCt_ZdG18U

Jun 19, 2013 at 6:19 PM | Unregistered CommentereSmiff

eSmiff if you can't see that's spin, I am surprised you are not a full-on catastrophist. It is the standard realclimate trick of mischaracterising your opponent's argument - come up with a stupid definition of monetarism and then make out Thatcher is denying she ever followed monetarist policies.

Jun 19, 2013 at 6:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid S

You have utterly misunderstood the entire scenario. I did not characterise monetarism. I will now.

It was a tragically evil and destructive concept carried out in two American client states. Chile and Britain. Maggie and nasty little friend General Pinochet. It originated in the ultra neocon University of Chicago. Milton Friedman was the figurehead.

Jun 19, 2013 at 7:01 PM | Unregistered CommentereSmiff

eSmiff: "There is nothing left wing about AGW. It is extremely conservative and regressive . Please name one left wing person who supports it. There are literally none."

Planet Earth to eSmiff......How about Gordon Brown, Michael Meacher, Barry Gardiner, Hilary Benn, Harriet Harman, Tony Blair, Jedward Miliband brothers, in fact, most of the Labour Party?

Since you have been away on the other planet, Socialist International, (HQ in London), has been very busy on AGW. You might check out their website, http://www.socialistinternational.org/commission.cfm.

You could also check out the report of the Socialist International Commission for a Sustainable World Society, pre-Copenhagen. They describe "the first meeting in London on 19 November 2007, which was hosted by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Leader of the British Labour Party", with a statement by the Commission, which said,

“The earth is demanding the attention of all the planet’s inhabitants and the time for decisive action which will make a difference is now. The warming of the climate system is an indisputable fact. Equally, the substantial impact of human activity on the deteriorating state of the earth’s atmosphere is undeniable.” The Commission underlined that tackling climate change “is the most vital priority before us.”

http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=2032

If you want to find out their global reach, including the US, check out "United Socialist Nations:"

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/un_progress_governance_via_climate_change.html

Jun 19, 2013 at 7:25 PM | Registered Commenterdennisa

Robert Christopher says

What! John 3 v16: Jesus answered, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (v17) For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."

Yes but each individual can find salvation through Christ only by following his commandments.

Robert Christopher says

"And do Marxists believe in religious salvation?"

No they believe in non religious salvation through being good citizens and helping society evolve into utopia.

Christopher I can tell you are not well versed in philosophy but that O.K.

What is not O.K. is this thread that assumes Marxism has some link to Climate Alarmism without a shred of evidence.
Sure some former Marxists believe in Alarmism but Michael Gove and the late George Younger MP were also one time Marxists.
I think that some right wing people think that Climate Alarmism is a left wing plot but the reality is that many more right wing politicians are up to their necks in the scam.

Jun 19, 2013 at 8:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterBryan

Jun 19, 2013 at 1:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterBryan


I'm sorry but you have zero understanding of what marxism is or what capitalism is.

"Marxism has nothing in common with Climate Alarmism.

What Marxism has in common with Christianity is the idea that man can bring about his own salvation.
Both believe that it is possible through self help to improve the human condition."

Doomsday cultists of global warming believe that utopia will be found if we only give the government complete control of let the elites run everything. Marxism is exactly the same. Huge sums of doomsday talk are of the "think of the poor" as well. This is classic marxism.

"Marxism thinks that irrational capitalism will self destruct and be replaced by a more effective economic system."

This is true somewhat in that it is what marxism think.

"This will be based on science and free the productive capacity of people from the constraints of a money economy."

This however is completely not true. Marxism believe the government or a thing that won't be called a government but is a government should control everything... it is impossible in marxism a economy yo be based on science. It is also meaningless to " free the productive capacity of people from the constraints of a money economy." as the fact "money" is simply a show of labor. Be it paper money, gold money or corn based money its in the end still money. Marxism simply wishes to redefine the term money and nothing more.

"Marxism is a rational belief system but not all rationalists are Marxists.
Large numbers of Rationalists think that mankind will self destruct.
This group are to be found among the most rabid supporters of IPCC 'science'."

Marxism is not a rational belief system. In marxism they believe they can control everything and thus make utopia. They also believe that all humans will die if marxism isn't forced on the people. Marxism is simply another doomsday cult.


"Dont write off Marxism by the failure of Soviet Russia."

How about all the other countless times before and after? You do understand that socialism has been tried for 1000s of years and failed badly for 1000s of years. Add in under marxism Soviet Russia was a huge success as was china and countless other "successes".

Jun 19, 2013 at 8:53 PM | Unregistered Commenterrobotech master

Typo Bish.

"wonk"

the 'o' should be an 'a'

Jun 19, 2013 at 8:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterDoug UK

There is nothing left wing about AGW.It is extremely conservative and regressive . Please name one left wing person who supports it. There are literally none.

The fact that individuals were Marxists in the 1970s means nothing. Some of the dirtiest little slimeballs in British political history were left wing. Peter Mandelson, John Prescott, Claire Short, Jack Straw, Mo Mowlam and the dumbest man ever to hold office, David Blunkett.

Everyone in my school who could read was left wing in the 1970s. Apart from me. We had every variation of Marxist and Communist you could imagine. We thought there was a revolution coming. There was - Margaret Thatcher and the destruction of Britain (apart from the City).
Jun 19, 2013 at 2:35 PM | Unregistered CommentereSmiff


Few issues here.
1. You can be leftwing and be conservative and regressive in fact if you are leftwing you are ALWAYS regressive.
Conservative depends on what you are trying to conserve. In the US conservatives try to conserve the US Constitution. Which is of course a very rightwing document thus making them rightwing.
In europe the goal of conservatives is to conserve socialism as socialism has been the "natural" state of europe for 1000s of years.

AGW is insanely socialist aka leftwing aka collectivist. It wishes to forcible bring people into a collective and force them to obey said collective. This is done through oppressive laws and so forth.

Most people due to poor education do in fact leave schools with a hugely collectivist bent. This is why "heros" such a hitler, stalin, mao were worshiped as gods until suddenly the collective decided it was past that point.

The problem is its very hard to get collectivists to even move back to the center let alone for them to become individualist aka rightwing aka capitalists/anarchist. To put simply once an extreme collectivists very doubtful they will be anything other then a less extreme collectivist in the future.

Jun 19, 2013 at 9:01 PM | Unregistered Commenterrobotech master

Bryan on Jun 19, 2013 at 1:10 PM
"What Marxism has in common with Christianity is the idea that man can bring about his own salvation."

You are confusing two concepts and using the same word. Not an uncommon problem in today's world.


Bryan on Jun 19, 2013 at 8:48 PM
"Yes but each individual can find salvation through Christ only by following his commandments."

Unfortunately, it is a little more difficult than just obeying rules!

Jun 19, 2013 at 9:07 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

Jun 19, 2013 at 2:15 PM | Tim Channon

Thank you for the interesting link. When I look at the titles of all the papers Professor Sutton has written I wonder how on earth the UKMO manages to appear to be the department of 'I'm sorry but we haven't a clue'. All that apparent knowledge adds up to, well, nothing.

Jun 19, 2013 at 10:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterBilly Liar

eSmiff, Bryan
There’s not much point in trying to convert the mainly conservative libertarians here to a leftwing point of view. We lefties are a tolerated minority here, like Jews in the better class of Moslem countries, and I see nothing wrong with that.

It’s natural that conservative libertarians should be the first to spot the nasty Orwellian tendencies of alarmism, like canaries in the coalmine. The right is divided between the Delingpoles and the Yeos, and is therefore capable of healthy mutation. On the left there’s nothing except perhaps Graham Stringer.

Everywhere in the democratic world, the left has entered into a suicide pact with Green madness. The coming Miliband government has no policy on energy, fracking, etc except to show that they’re greener than Cameron. I urge you to try and place some scepticism at the New Statesman, New Left Project or the Conversation (or even the Graun until they ban you, as they surely will). It’s more fun than debating dialectic materialism with people who use “marxist” as a rude word.

Jun 19, 2013 at 10:28 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Well, and gently put, Geoff. Chapeau! - as I think they say in France.

Jun 19, 2013 at 10:52 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

Its very hard to find any difference in substance between the three main UK parties.
Each party leader has some slogans to throw about to mobilise the faithful.
In reality the Governing Party (of whatever colour) ends up doing much the same thing
That some can get terribly excited about some perceived left-right difference is touching.

Jun 20, 2013 at 12:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterBryan

"It’s more fun than debating dialectic materialism with people who use “marxist” as a rude word.

Jun 19, 2013 at 10:28 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers"

But marxist is so much simpler and easier to type then "genocidal, racist, closed minded, bigoted, freedom hating nutbags".

Jun 20, 2013 at 12:22 AM | Unregistered Commenterrobotechmaster

dennisa and geoffchambers

The British Labour Party is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Has everyone forgotten that already ? They are no more socialists than Nigel Lawson or Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher said her greatest legacy was Tony Blair. Maybe not.


John Pilger

The "values we share" are celebrated by a shadowy organisation that has just held its annual conference. This is the British-American Project for the Successor Generation (BAP), set up in 1985 with money from a Philadelphia trust with a long history of supporting right-wing causes. Although the BAP does not publicly acknowledge this origin, the source of its inspiration was a call by President Reagan in 1983 for "successor generations" on both sides of the Atlantic to "work together in the future on defence and security matters". He made numerous references to "shared values". Attending this ceremony in the White House Situation Room were the ideologues Rupert Murdoch and the late James Goldsmith.

http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/how-the-anglo-american-elite-shares-its-values-

My MP Douglas Alexander, shadow foreign secretary is a member and a graduate of Philadelphia. Univ. He's a naughty boy.

Jun 20, 2013 at 1:17 AM | Unregistered CommentereSmiff

"Rupert Murdoch. Has everyone forgotten that already ? They are no more socialists than Margaret Thatcher.

Jun 20, 2013 at 1:17 AM | Unregistered CommentereSmiff

Both murdoch and thatcher are pretty centrist... i would argue center left. While they are not communist aka hard core/purest socialists they are hardly raging capitalists. They expand government and support the expansion of government at a time when they had to much and still to this day not have 100x more then then of which we had to much.

Jun 20, 2013 at 1:31 AM | Unregistered Commenterrobotechmaster

robotechmaster

Who would you consider right wing in British / American politics ?

Jun 20, 2013 at 1:48 AM | Unregistered CommentereSmiff

robotechmaster

Who would you consider right wing in British / American politics ?
Jun 20, 2013 at 1:48 AM | Unregistered CommentereSmiff


I always use science definitions for left/right aka collectivist(total government/socialism) is leftwing and individualism(zero government/capitalism) is rightwing.

Politics like to refine everything into retarded land to push the propaganda of the day...

Jun 20, 2013 at 1:52 AM | Unregistered Commenterrobotechmaster

eh I suppose that doesn't really answer your question directly. I can't really think of any person who would be considered rightwing for the most part. I would consider like a ron paul to be close but more center-right. Same with nigel lawson i would generally consider them centrist or center right at the most extreme. In history i would consider people like many of the founders of the US to be rightwing.

Jun 20, 2013 at 2:33 AM | Unregistered Commenterrobotechmaster

It is a pretty odd hearing when they do not bother to listen to those who the promoters claim are not understanding the message.
In effective marketing, one always seeks to understand those who reject that which is being marketed.
Now in religious/ideological extremist evangelization, one indulges in shouts, hate and bashes to silence, intimidate or destroy those who are perceived as uncooperative.
Which behavior best describes our AGW friends?

Jun 20, 2013 at 4:43 AM | Unregistered Commenterlurker, passing through laughing

Jun 19, 2013 at 10:51 AM | geoffchambers

Catherine Happer of the GUMG, who is one of today’s witnesses at the committee hearings, has an interesting article on the subject at
https://theconversation.com/2013-is-the-year-for-scientists-to-speak-up-on-climate-14777
Comments welcome.

I had followed Paul Matthews' link to this from unthreaded - without realizing that Happer was one of the presenters of "oral evidence". Although her name did ring a vaguely familiar bell, so I should have remembered this ... and now that I've seen them, I obviously must have missed the import of Andrew's updates, as well! Anyway ...

As I had noted in my own blog post regarding her Conversation piece ...

The main objective [of the IPCC's AR5] is to direct international climate policy and negotiations, not to inform the public.
[...]
Add Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth into the mix, and the world into which the fourth assessment report was released was uniquely receptive. The report – so unequivocal in its pronouncements of a warming planet – was met with a general lack of criticism, and a shared Nobel Prize.

Is Happer aware, one wonders, that even the IPCC has not been so stupid as to (openly) declare that its pronouncements are designed to “direct international climate policy …”. One also wonders if her omission of “Peace” in “a shared Nobel Prize” was by accident – or by design, intended to mislead an Uninformed Lay Person (ULP) into thinking that this laurel had been conferred for some scientific endeavour or other.

Jun 20, 2013 at 7:32 AM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

Political bias can reduce the thinking process of a person so much so that they cannot look at a matter of fact without distorting it.

Example

Will increased atmospheric CO2 cause a significant rise in global temperature.

This will eventually be determined one way or another by science.

If your answer depended on your political perspective think then what are you going to do if reality proves you make the wrong choice?

Will you then change your political party?

The idea that Marxism which is associated with 5 year plans of rolling industrialisation is synonymous with Carbon Taxes to return us to a rural green stone age is preposterous.

I attended a meeting in Glasgow addressed by Jim Sillers (left wing former MP) and Christopher Monckton(right wing).

Both were in almost complete agreement about so called global warming.
Thats how it should be.

Attempts to turn a matter of fact issue into a left/right bun fight is unhelpful, to say the least.

Jun 20, 2013 at 9:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterBryan

Although the BAP does not publicly acknowledge this origin ...
The eternal get out of the conspiracy theorist. We have identified a bogeyman. We have no evidence that he is a bogeyman but in true leftist* fashion, "we don't need no stinkin' evidence". Of course he doesn't admit he's a bogeyman. Apply the Rice-Davies manoeuvre ("he would say that, wouldn't he?).
Mud thrown. Job done.

*Sorry, Geoff, but I don't know another word for it. Would 'fascist-left' be better? There has to be a way of differentiating between the sensible political left and the nut jobs! :-)

Jun 20, 2013 at 9:24 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Mike Jackson

You should be a lawyer. You could the defence. 'My client said he didn't do it. You is a conspiracy theorist. I demand he be set free.'

The CIA and New Labour

http://tinyurl.com/c92wv

It mentions a lot of people you've never heard of and a lot of events that you didn't know happened.

Be rest assured. The people don't exist and the events never happened. The author made it all up to annoy you. The truth must be paid for. Only an employee who must do what he/she is told knows the truth.

Noam Chomsky told Andrew Marr that no intelligent or honest human being would be employed as a journalist.

Andrew Marr vs Noam Chomsky

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1LU4obkBmw&p=00B66338181AF8B3

If you think Andrew Marr is an intelligent and honest human being, then that is the reality you inhabit.

Jun 20, 2013 at 1:18 PM | Unregistered CommentereSmiff

Happer’s research sounded quite reasonable. People know nothing about climate change, confusing it with pollution and the hole in the ozone layer, and they don’t trust what they hear in the media. Then the researchers gave them some information on the scientific consensus and they felt more motivated to do something. Then six months later the motivation had gone, due, thought Happer to exposure to scepticism in the media (the same media which she’d just said people don’t trust). It’s amazing what a non-stop diet of Delingpole and Booker on BBC TV can do.
Sheldon spoiled his entry rather. The chairman asked him: “What do you think of the research?” and he replied: “We don’t do research”. What better proof that environmental journalists listen to no-one but themselves?

Jun 21, 2013 at 7:15 AM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

It's mostly about saving Marxism ?

Jun 22, 2013 at 7:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterJon

Session is being live-tweeted by @CommonsSTC now.

Jun 26, 2013 at 9:28 AM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>