Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Guardian: The climate change denier - let's help them

Modern tribes: the climate change denier

Besides not being funny (is that the best they can do?), they seem to think that we are all Jeremy Clarkson* clones (the paunch in the graphic is a nice touch.)

They really have no idea. Maybe we can help them?

So please list anything that you think would define you. Background? Education? Previous warminst? Political leaning (as the Guardian loves that)?Sudden Damascus moment, or just a slow build up?

Short and simple and leave out the personal details if you want.

No rules, no "Lew survey". Just keep it SHORT (no blog post equivalents please). Anything you want to say.

And if you are on the other side of the aisle, please do the same if you want. However, this is not meant to be an attack forum, so keep off any discussions like that.

* to those that do know him, reactionary, post midlife crisis issues, conservative, self-confident, speaks but does not listen, dislike of PC, sits at the same place at the bar and drinks real ale. Gets upset if offered a salad instead of steak.

Mar 26, 2016 at 7:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterMedia Hoar

Left-wing with a science degree.
Try to put observation before dogma. Although I am a Christian and so have a bias towards the poor.
Bothered to read the IPCC reports because of family interest and a suspicion that the end of the world may be important.
Found it wasn't.

Well, it's certainly not urgent compared with other issues.

Mar 26, 2016 at 7:25 AM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Working class socialist parents. Guardian reader when it was a serious newspaper. Realised that for myself, Right and Left identifications have no relevance to me. I am what I am. Dislike being labelled ;-)

Engineering degree, IT, Project Management, Financial World, business development, exposure to politicians.

My source was always the BBC and just accepted it without giving it much thought - just accepted the School Text Book level we were being fed.

For me there were two elements to the swing. In the early 2000's, my friend got the Independent each day and I read it after him. He became a committed warmist. I read and thought, "This isn't adding up" and became openly sceptical,

The other was when BBC started to really push it (one of the major IPCC conferences maybe 10 years ago), wall to wall coverage. The one where they came up the "90% due to man figure".

With my multi-discipline experience, I realised early on that it had very little to do with science.

I felt very "alone" with my views. Until Yamal and Climategate in quick succession.

Mar 26, 2016 at 7:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterMedia Hoar

Also offspring of working class, socialist-leaning, parents and brought up in East End of London. First of a large extended family to go to university where I read geology. Have worked in government, industry (oil), and academia and lived in North America for 17 years. Worked in Alaska, Egypt and Australia, as well as the rest of the USA, Canada and the UK. Taught geological-related subjects at the School of Environmental Sciences within UEA for more than 20 years, and dabbled into teaching sceptical climate science, much to the annoyance of CRU (but only fully aware of this following climategate).

Never a warmist, but became increasingly perturbed about my former industrial profession as the tide of climate alarmism became ever more strident. Developed my scepticism after reading Crichton's State of Fear (terrible book, good appendix and bibliography) did the necessary research and never looked back. Continually questioned my sceptical stance (couldn't believe I might be correct in the face of the views of so many of my UEA colleagues) and had many "wobbles" (none recently).

Mar 26, 2016 at 8:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Forgot to add; ardent supporter of the BBC and a Guardian reader to boot.

Mar 26, 2016 at 8:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Do not identify with any “class”, and do not believe that the system exists in the real world; I am, if you will, in a class of my own. Brought to this country while still a child; had many incidents which would now be described as “discrimination”, perhaps even racism/sexism/call it whatever you want, but never let them bother me. Have reached the pinnacle of my career qualifications, and am now just winging it, using my knowledge, skills and charm to get me around the world, occasionally requiring an armed escort (though not always provided). Am used to being viewed with suspicion, if not outright hostility, and have been held at gunpoint for more times than I care to remember.

While Kate Adie’s report on the bombing of Libya opened my eyes to the potential bias within the BBC, I accepted the story of global warming, though my innate scepticism of everything prevented me becoming a full-blown Believer (remember the warnings that we were going to heat up 10°C by the end of this century? A little too much for me to accept, as they were basing their predictions on a less than 1°C rise in a century using thermometers that I knew had an acceptable accuracy of ~0.5°C). Saw the infamous film, and was totally suckered – I had been so wrong! Did some digging to see how I could help ameliorate the situation – the more I dug, the more I found fault. When I asked questions on Believers’ sites, all I got was ridicule and advice to self-harm; asking the same questions on sceptical sites still did not get me the answers I was looking for, but they were a lot more pleasant about it. I accept that we have only just begun proper monitoring of the climate system, so it may take many more years before proper conclusions might be reached on possible scenarios that might develop. While we may not know, yet, what is happening, applying the precautionary principle could cause more harm than good – so, a good precautionary principle is to not apply the precautionary principle, and let us develop as we have done for the past few millennia, much of which has been less harmful to “the environment” than many of the volcanoes or earthquakes that we have seen or know about – those oil sand deposits are the results of oil spills tens of thousands of times the magnitude of the Exxon Valdez.

In 1997, after gloating over the Tory government’s sexual shenanigans (though of little, if any, cost to the tax-payer), the BBC happily gave an excuse for the new Labour government’s sexual shenanigans (costing the tax-payer a lot of money) in a major news bulletin. Since then, I have viewed almost everything the BBC says with the utmost suspicion. I only read newspapers for the cartoons and the letters pages, though do like the Telegraph’s crosswords.

Mar 26, 2016 at 1:35 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Ooooh, a bit wordy... sorry.

Mar 26, 2016 at 1:36 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Ummm.. I thought about a longer reply, but no, I don't think we can help them much.
Other than to say they should be careful about enticing lawyers from Fox Corporation contacting them about possible copyright infringement of one of their characters from the King of The Hill.

The style of a few other of Ben Lamb's other cartoons have struck me as uncomfortably close to 'plagiarism'.

Mar 26, 2016 at 10:58 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

In their support of Mann's Hockey Stick, it is worth pointing out that The Guardian and 97% of Climate Scientists are the dumbest deniers of climate change. The LIA and MWP are pretty self evident, but are impossible according to Mann and his loyal bunch of deniers.

This is a circular tree ring theory, that needs to be squared off, wth a chain saw, which is possibly how Mann entered his data into a computer via the Floppy Disc Drive in the first place, and why so much smoothing, rounding, splicing, dicing and glueing was subsequently required.

Mar 27, 2016 at 6:03 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Lifelong Guardian reader, though frequently disappointed by their rightwing bias (and prefer the Telegraph's crossword and cartoons). Surprised by the ignorance/naivety of their half dozen science/environment correspondents, so started correcting them in comments. Got insulted and banned. Surprised by the ignorance/naivety of the past three Presidents of the Royal Society. With only science A-levels there's little chance of me making it to FRS, so there's not much I can do about that except poke fun at them. Enjoy the company here, and would do so even if we were all as loony as the Guardian thinks we are.

Apr 9, 2016 at 8:25 AM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Alan, don't agree that State of Fear is a "terrible" book. Michael Crichton was an experienced and successful writer (he wrote many books under pseudonyms honing his craft before the ones for which he is well known. When I read State of Fear I identified with the central character and shared his dismissal of the climate scepticism and the arguments, and the skill of writing is that we are gradually won over to the sceptical viewpoint. It is significant that nearly all Crichton's books have been filmed but not this one.

Apr 9, 2016 at 11:44 AM | Unregistered Commentermike fowle

Mike, I'm pleased for you that you enjoyed reading "State of Fear".

For me with my geology background (and contacts with practicing geophysicists) Crichton's science in that book was never convincing. Unlike his other books, which became blockbusters like The Andromeda strain, Jurassic Park, Congo, and Prey, there was always a believable future development from the cutting edge of the then current science for the basic premise of the books to be credible. This was never more so than in Jurassic Park when amber was subsequently investigated to see if DNA could be preserved within it. I'm reasonably certain that Crichton (as a trained doctor) would have known of the fragility of DNA and that it wouldn't be preserved, but what a wonderful concept. For me State of Fear lacked this element.

Like you I have greatly enjoyed Crichton's books. For me State of Fear was a disappointment, but definitely was the book that changed my views about science and influenced the direction my life took.

Apr 9, 2016 at 12:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

I could barely finish 'State of Fear'. The contrast between the seriousness with which he addressed the problems in climate science in the notes, and the frivolous setting of screenplay action was just too much for me to enjoy.

He has several lectures which are much better and more on point.

He missed an opportunity, after he'd done a lot of the work of understanding.

No movie? Not suspicious here; I wouldn't watch it. But there is a movie in the depiction of his quest for climate truth, and in how we've lost our way about it.

Apr 9, 2016 at 2:56 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Certainly there are lectures and essays which are brilliant. But I still think State of Fear would make a superb action movie but Emma Thompson would not approve.

Apr 9, 2016 at 7:10 PM | Unregistered Commentermike fowle

On second thought, I agree, mike fowle. Perhaps it was too lurid and improbable for me; but truth now is even stranger than his fiction, even more dramatic, and just as tragic and absurd. So, perhaps a little adaptation and away we go.

Apr 9, 2016 at 9:24 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

His notes are a treasure of an intellectual journey; there is the movie.

Apr 9, 2016 at 9:25 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Did science fiction inspire the plot of climate science?

Apr 9, 2016 at 10:54 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

gC Probably not, but the reverse is true. For example, Peter Hamilton's early novels (like The Nano Flower) are set in a future warmer world where sea levels have risen so that Peterborough is a coastal industrial complex.

Films as well, exemplified by the execrable Waterworld and that film involving a monster storm that instantly superfreezes New York(?) and whose title I have thankfully forgotten [don't tell me!]. Only Hollywood can make climate science alarmists look reasonable.

Apr 10, 2016 at 6:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Very true, Alan. Hollywood has a lot to answer for. The typical scenario, courageous pioneering scientist (usually with marital problems and lovable kid(s)) takes on scoffing scientific establishment with prophecies of disaster due to climate change. Eventually proved right, of course, but manages to save the world. An absolute reversal of the reality. But, sorry getting off topic.

Apr 10, 2016 at 8:30 AM | Unregistered Commentermike fowle

Alan Kendall, we built a famous lighthouse in Northampton in hopeful expectation that the sea will engulf Peterborough.

Apr 10, 2016 at 9:45 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Michael hart.
I hope your lighthouse stays dark. My wife's family comes from Peterborough. I don't want them to become Cobblers, and if they became Saints they would be unbearable.

Apr 10, 2016 at 9:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

golf charlie (Apr 9, 2016 at 10:54 PM) “Did science fiction inspire the plot of climate science?”

It's the inability of warmists to appreciate science fiction (or any other aesthetic experience) which lies at the heart of climate science.

“What if...?” is a question that is meant to enlarge your imaginative horizons. Some poor folk are so imaginatively impoverished that only a HADCRUT graph with error bars attached will provide a satisfactory answer. We should feel sorry for them. But since they're running the world, we need to combat them. I sometimes think a really good literary critic would be as much help as a renegade scientist. F.R. Leavis would have been with us. Clive James...?

Apr 10, 2016 at 10:26 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

geoffchambers, I think some climate scientists think they are Flash Gordon

Flash a-ah
He'll save every one of us

Just a Mann
With a Mann's courage
You know he's
Nothing but a Mann
And he can never fail
No one but the pure at heart
May find the Golden Grail

(Flash, Flash, I love you, but we only have fourteen hours to save the Earth!)

Maybe he only had 14 days/months/years to save the Earth, but who is now counting anyway?

Apr 11, 2016 at 12:21 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

golf Charlie. I'm sorry but I think you're wrong here. Flash was the good guy. I pondered the possibility of Mann being Ming the Merciless (balding, beard) but that doesnt fit either - much too powerful and welds death rays not hockey sticks.

But Tim the bearded minion, there yeh go. I can't get the image of climate modelers being minions all clustering and milliing around their big computers out of my head. Over to you Josh, but there might be copyright issues. I'm sure Mann has been informed by his new lawyer buddies just how valuable his image is.

Apr 11, 2016 at 6:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan Kendall, climate science is all about personal delusions. HG Wells in War of the Worlds, envisaged the alien invaders being destroyed by bacteria. Now the world is being destroyed by CO2. Allegedly.

Climate scientists are very imaginative about the multitude of different ways that CO2 COULD destroy us all, but to date, evidence does not support the theories.

Perhaps if climate scientists could now come up with a killer meteorite, or death star, they might awaken public interest, after all, they have the support of NASA.

Apr 11, 2016 at 11:26 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie