Sunday
Mar292015
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill An unbalanced panel
Mar 29, 2015 BBC Climate: WG3 Ethics Greens I'm in Bath at the moment, appearing on BBC The Big Questions. The show was broadcast live at 10am here, but we are asked not to mention our involvement ahead of time. It should be on iPlayer in due course.
The subject is:
Are we right to impose environmental costs on future generations?
The show's panel also features Tony Juniper, Ben Harris-Quinney of the Bow Group and Hannah Martin of Christian Climate Action. This is what Helen Czerski would refer to as an "unbalanced" panel, no doubt.
Reader Comments (123)
Ben,
I'm not a green and, yes, William was right. If Tol's comment was well-meaning, it was a very ungracious response (it would probably be a first if Tol was being well-meaning though). What's your point? That I may not always behave as I would like doesn't suddenly validate/excuse how someone else behaves.
The sad thing is that these alarmists haven't thought through the real social, political, and economic consequences. They are just too absorbed in their unwarranted fears of the future.
==========
Ken Rice What's your point? That I may not always behave as I would like doesn't suddenly validate/excuse how someone else behaves.</i?
Someone else giggled at the wrong moment.
Call the cops.
Kim -They are just too absorbed in their unwarranted fears of the future.
It's narcissism, through and through -- the inability to understand the difference between failing to assert their will on the world and the end of the world.
@stewgreen the Twitter guest list I missed... I did go look at the prog's feed too - headscratcher that....
For the sake of my blood pressure I will give it a swerve.
The counter question is "Is it fair to burden our descendants with the economic debt by exporting our emissions to India and China with the detrimental effect on emissions that that might cause"
I don't think we will see that discussed on the BBC, or anywhere else.
Next, you will be supporting the idea that working to improve the lives of humans in general by the supply of affordable energy to the lowliest of individuals is contrary to advancement… Oh. You already do: “… or do you think that groooowwwwwth always comes first?”
Oh, yes, Mr Physicist, the Bish was accused of being pseudo-scientific, not “pseudo-skeptic”. Not sure how you mis-heard that, but it makes your continuing complaints that others misinterpret what you write a bit silly. You really should not blame others for not understanding what you write, you should try to ensure that what you write has a clear, unambiguous meaning:
Certainly, that is one that you use with a-gusto! (“That wasn’t actually what I meant.”)How to invest millions..lol.
Connie Hedegaard thinks if windmills do not produce a carbon dividend, at least it is "fun" to build them.
She doesnt know that a million invested in crpa is a million NOT invested in healthcare, stable jobs, innovative products, better roads..
It seems an insight many a liberal retturd does not seem to want to grasp..maybe time to put off their Upton Sinclair glasses.
Okay, my apologies. Pseudo-scientific then (not quite sure why that would be wildly different from being a pseudo-skeptic, but happy to be corrected).
Are we right to impose environmental costs on future generations?
We are certainly imposing other costs on future generations. The Labour Party when it was in government went on a spending spree in order to buy support from the voters and the expense of our children and grandchildren who will inherit the greatly increased national debt.
Wrecking the economy by attempting to decarbonise it won't do future generations any favours. If the Greens and their supporters in other parties have their way the next generation might be the first in Britain for centuries that is poorer than their parents' generation.
Roy: you are being too cautious – there can be little doubt that the next generation WILL be poorer than their parents’ generation, if the policies presently pursued so enthusiastically by the likes of aTTP et al are not reined in
"I refer you to the answer that you ignored earlier,on dd/mm/yy"
......Is there any ATTP comment that cannot be answered that way ?
h/t Ben Pile
39% of the wwww is porn
but 40% of the www is answers that ATTP has ignored
"Wow he's come up up with a point, that is so easy to refute". tap tap tap
you are playing a slot machine, that is never going to pay out.
stewgreen, aTTP expects us all to bow down and accept he knows best.
His revered physics cannot explain the pause/hiatus/halt in global warming, if CO2 was the cause of any rise.
If CO2 was not the cause of the rise, then aTTP's physics and career, require crisis management.
Therefore aTTP is in denial. There can be no room for scepticism about it, faux or real.
Like with his fellow Walker, Daimon, I was having fun 'til I realized I was talking to myself.
================
Only just watched the programme, It's uncanny how "97% of scientists" etc etc continues to survive and be accepted unquestioningly by the Tony Junipers, John Birds and Hannah Martins of the world. A true zombie meme. And how such intelligent people seem incapable of looking at the background of 97%.
Kim, aTTP does not know who Daimon is. This is a fact, because Russell said so.
Unless of course, one or more of them thinks lying and deceit are normal in climate science. After all, they all do it, don't they?
They all knew about the 97% consensus but had never heard of the pause. Funny that.
Can any of the 97% of scientists point to any period in time when atmospheric CO2 has been the thermostat of our earth's climate or are they just taking it on faith that one day after the pause is ended the great AGW will appear for the first time?
Once it is established that man made CO2 is not what drives the climate, it will be difficult to find 3% of scientists to admit they ever believed it was anyway.
Politicians will lay the blame, on their scientific advisors.
The public may observe that politicians only 'get' what they want.
Compilation of King Charles III's first Honours list, will make for some interesting correspondence, with Downing Street.
Foxgoose pointed out : "Christian Clmate" girl @Hannah_RM was really a Greenpeace activist undercover
- I wonder how many real (non-GP stooge) members "Christian Climate" has ?
- As I pointed out earlier a quick Google shows her links : "Hannah Martin (on behalf of No Dash for Gas) ", "Greenpeace campaigner Hannah Martin said" , "Hannah Martin is a campaigner and activist with Reclaim the Power"
............................
- It's worth remembering the utter deviousness of CAGW Alarmists like Skeptical Science secretly rewriting history by rengineering their blogpages and comments to cover their mistakes ..2011 article
"I should bear in mind, .... given that this post isn’t really about you, I’ll probably just start deleting your comments. They don’t add much, typically disrupt the thread, and I quite enjoy doing it :-) Whine to your heart’s content, if you wish."
If the Bishop wrote this on his blog, directed at aTTP,. can you imagine his response? On second thoughts, don't bother.
stewgreen, being a Christian and a member of Greenpeace are not mutually exclusive.
It's not my form of the Christian faith but I know members of my own church who see the world differently to me.
We can still be in communion with each other because my Methodist church is not fundamentalist and is willing to accept diversity of opinion.
That is my form of the Christian faith.
.
After all, I might be wrong, they might be wrong or indeed, we both might be wrong.
@MCourtney you misconstrue, the point is she was introduced as the girl from an org called "Christian Climate", whereas she is really a Greenpeace activist and this was not mentioned
as I mention above ..she puts on the T-shirt of different orgs when she appears in the media