I was invited to be on the Murnaghan programme on Sky News this morning – which I always find a great deal more intelligent than the Andrew Marr alternative on the BBC. I declined because I did not want to get up and get a 7.30am train from Ramsgate on a Sunday morning. I had a meeting until 11.30pm last night planning a conference on human rights in Balochistan [I still tend to say Baluchistan], and I have a newly crowned tooth that seems not to want to settle down. But I am still worried by my own lack of energy, which is uncharacteristic. Is this old age?
I also have some serious work to do on my Burnes book, and next week I shall be staying in London to be in the British Library reading room for every second of its opening hours. So there may be a bit of a posting hiatus. I have in mind a short post on an important subject on which I suspect that 99% of my readership – including the regular dissident commenters – will strongly disagree with me.
This is a peculiarly introspective post, perhaps because my tooth is hurting, but I seem to have this curmudgeonly spirit which wishes to react to the huge popularity of this blog by posting something genuinely held but unpopular; a genuine view but one I don’t normally trumpet. The base thought seems to be “You wouldn’t like me if you really knew me”.
Similarly when I wrote Murder in Samarkand I was being hailed as a hero by quite a lot of people for my refusal to go along with the whole neo-con disaster of illegal wars, extraordinary rendition and severe attacks on civil liberties, sacrificing my fast track diplomatic career as a result. My reaction to putative hero worship was to publish in Murder in Samarkand not just the political facts, but an exposure of my own worst and most unpleasant behaviour in my private life.
I am in a very poor position to judge, but I believe the result rather by accident turned out artistically compelling, if you don’t want to read the book you can get a good idea of that by clicking on David Tennant in the top right of this blog and listening to him playing me in David Hare’s radio adaptation.
Anyway, that’s enough musing. You won’t like my next post, whenever it comes. Promise.
Glenn, I knew you’d speak up for the modern stuff, but as soon as we invent the Star Trek inertial damper, we’ll take all the fun out of it. Have you read the great steam locomotive race in Iain M Banks’ Feersum Endjin? I love The Culture!
Thatcrab, an electric bike is something I’d love to try. An old friend of mine made electric remote-controlled model boats; the acceleration blew all the internal combustion models out of the water. But not much range or running time.
Hey, Ben, I sent you a coded message about that earlier. Shall I say more here?
Ben:
https://panopticlick.eff.org/
“Nuff said, Clark. Thanks.
Chris: I can’t help but notice (in reply to your 20 Sep, 2012 – 2:06 am post) that references you use are all firmly in the GCC denial camp. SPPI is funded by EXXON, and that innocent sounding name is just like those euphemistically titled “Family Research Council”, “Focus on the Family” and all the other BS agencies, Institute for American Values, Americans for Mom & Apple Pie, and so on.
Take a look at this quote from Phil Lesley as he explains the role of useful “sceptics”:
“People generally do not favour action on a non-alarming situation when arguments seem to be balanced on both sides and there is a clear doubt. The weight of impressions on the public must be balanced so people will have doubts and lack motivation to take action. Accordingly, means are needed to get balancing information into the stream from sources that the public will find credible. There is no need for a clear-cut ‘victory’… Nurturing public doubts by demonstrating that this is not a clear-cut situation in support of the opponents usually is all that is necessary.” (Lesly, ‘Coping with Opposition Groups,’ Public Relations Review 18, 1992, p.331)”
Your next referenced source of information is Anthony Watt’s wattsupwiththat.com . A committed “sceptic” and GCC denier, he has no qualifications whatsoever, is not a scientist, and gets paid by the Heartland Institute – yet another “think-tank” funded by right wingers/ heavy industry.
The “petition project” was originally the Oregon Petition which had some serious problems – it pretended to be a National Academy of Sciences paper (which it had to later admit it had nothing to do with). It was originally about the Kyoto agreement anyway, could be signed by anyone claiming to be a “scientist”, who had no learning whatsoever in the field of Climate Science. That’s like asking anyone with an A level to their name, to sign a petition concerning the death penalty, and using that as “proof” of your side of the issue.
Most of the Petition Project people – according to Scientific American, the Seattle Times among others – found it worrying dubious.
Don’t you look into your sources before believing what they want you to believe, and using them as references?
Holy Shimoles. I have 21.21 bits. Clark, that info is awesome. Total energy !
Ben, here’s a service you might find useful. Doesn’t work with TOR, though; it’s just for testing your firewall etc. Useful information on the site, too. Tell Windoze users the bit about MICE.
https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2
Is your prospective employer asking for your CV in M$ Word .doc format, by any chance? There’s a reason for that:
http://www.computerbytesman.com/privacy/blair.htm
M$ Word “metadata” can give away more than that, too. In a worst-case scenario, the entire edit history or “undo” data can be included.
Bed time for me. Goodnight, folks.
I wish i could help you more to see past your own predisposition and see the bigger picture Geoff but i can’t keep pointing you towards the truth – my arm’s hurting. Have a look at my previous post above regarding the IPCC and how the IAC admit in their own words that the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed
I just popped back to say; I only gave examples of security and privacy problems with Micro$oft software, but don’t go getting the impression that Mac is any better. The iPhone was caught making a log of everywhere its users took the things; yep, longitude and latitude from its GPS system.
All proprietary software can contain hidden malware “features”. The only guarantee that your software can be set not to spy on you is if the source code is published so that all the world can see. Transparency. That means Free software, ie. software under the GNU GPL (General Public License) or one of the other Free licenses.
Give-away “freeware” is also non-Free software. It’s a matter of freedom, not money or price.
Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/
“The ultimate goal of the study was to better understand what the future of climate change may look like,” said Feakins, an assistant professor of Earth sciences at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences. “Just as history has a lot to teach us about the future, so does past climate. This record shows us how much warmer and wetter it can get around the Antarctic ice sheet as the climate system heats up. This is some of the first evidence of just how much warmer it was.”
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/antarctica20120617.html
“High carbon dioxide levels during the middle Miocene epoch have been documented in other studies through multiple lines of evidence, including the number of microscopic pores on the surface of plant leaves and geochemical evidence from soils and marine organisms. While none of these ‘proxies’ is as reliable as the bubbles of gas trapped in ice cores, they are the best evidence available this far back in time. While scientists do not yet know precisely why carbon dioxide was at these levels during the middle Miocene, high carbon dioxide, together with the global warmth documented from many parts of the world and now also from the Antarctic region, appear to coincide during this period in Earth’s history.”
Emphasis mine.
There is no consensus on “man made” climate change. The climate fluctuates and it always has. CO2 levels also fluctuate.
{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation}
Zoologist: Recent examinations of core samples taken in the antarctic show that ferns used to grow there. Is that the sort of climate you’re saying was just dandy (which – perhaps incidentally – was not conducive to an inhabitable planet for human life)? Perhaps you think this NASA reference has provided you with another “gotcha” – sadly it does not. It rather proves the opposite.
Don’t you find it strange that your climate “sceptic” leaders want to reference 1998 all the time on one hand, but prefer vastly longer timescales (by several orders of magnitude) when talking about anything beyond 15 years?
Your wikipedia ref – like the references from pretty much everyone on the GCC denial end of the argument – are utterly useless. You will not find a wikipedia entry in any scientific paper by way of reference. You, and Billy, keep churning out new quotes instead of ever responding directly to direct responses. The “Internets” are positively heaving with quotes and references to anything at all you want to establish, but make it no more true.
*
I’ve asked ScouseBilly & Chris Jones about why they are so earnest to convince the rest of us that there is nothing to worry about. Just carry on, business as usual. I’ve not even received an acknowledgement of the question, less still a reply. Maybe you can be the first – why are you putting such effort into denying the obvious fact of man made GCC?
(Before you bat the question back – I’m concerned that we’re turning this planet into a lifeless cinder, and would rather that we did not. Your position happily coincides with that of the cash-heavy fossil fuel industry, and their right-wing corporate shills and stooges, not to mention their legion of useful idiots.)
Memo from Cameron to Mitchell.
Andrew you must be nicer to the plebs/morons at the gate. David.
http://news.sky.com/story/987708/andrew-mitchell-denies-calling-police-plebs
The paper reported a source who quoted Mr Mitchell as saying: “Open this gate, I’m the Chief Whip. I’m telling you – I’m the Chief Whip and I’m coming through these gates.”
His bike with the wicker basket looks like Miss Marple vintage.
‘G4S should forego its £57m management fee after failing to supply the required number of Olympics security staff, a committee of MPs has said.’
G4S should …… but will they and who will make them?
Wonder if Craig produced any comic gems from his postings?
John Major’s gift horse… and other Foreign Office tales
Andrew Bryson Producer, BBC Radio 4’s The Spanish Ambassador’s Suitcase
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19653492
The Spanish Ambassador’s Suitcase begins on Monday 24 September at 1100 BST on BBC Radio 4.
Mark Golding, thank you for raising awareness of why Dr David Kelly was dispensible. I’ve reposted this on the ‘Re-Open the Inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly’ Facebook page.
http://www.facebook.com/groups/193075719823/
@Glenn:
For the layperson, i think the argument is not worth getting into. Scouse Billy’s contribution can be ignored. If you go back to one of his very early posts, it is obvious that he has no foundation for comment as he confuses the very elementary word, molecule, used in his post to describe an ionic, crystalline substance.There were other glaring errors that would not be made by a C pass GCSE in Chemistry . He also shows no capacity to come to terms with scientific literature, and simply passes opinions gained second hand from dubious sources-hearsay.
In fact I have some scientific credibility in this matter, as I was involved in research into the range and distribution of various organisms in this country, and contributed to papers written in that field. However it was 35 years ago and i would hesitate to rely on such material. It will certainly be superseded by more up to date information, and techniques have changed and improved.
There was a distinct trend that could be picked up then by the laborious processes of mapping and surveying over long periods of time. The story seemed to suggest that the range of many animals, insects mainly, and some plants, was drifting northwards and some animals numbers were increasing in areas previously where rare, and declining in areas previously abundant.
Of course there are and were many conflicting factors and although it is tempting to relate such changes to climate change, it is impossible to survey or control many factors that influence these numbers.
On the other hand the finding was repeated often, and over time there emerged a strong sense that the changes could probably only be attributed to some overriding factor that was affecting numerous species. In other words,some rather large influence, rather some other factor(s) that might create more local changes or particular changes confined to a few species.
However the point i am trying t make is that credibility is served not by the force of the conviction (as in Scouse Billy and others) but by hesitation in making strong pronouncements.
If anyone is actually dealing with the science, it induces reservation and caution, because it requires the person involved to try to analyse often conflicting and contradictory data. When the work is actually done by someone, it induces a degree of appropriate humility and respect for the work of others.
I have tried to get to grips with the physical science of climate change. I have some background in Chemistry and Physics and I can follow some of the papers, (but not all) however the idea that i can apply an analysis of that work and pronounce it false or otherwise is ludicrous.
I am not sure of much but i am pretty sure that Scouse Billy should observe the principle of keeping the mouth shut. you may look a fool by doing so, but better that than confirming it by speaking.
There is little doubt in my mind that there also a great capacity to conflate ideas to promote a belief or political perspective or sympathies that are acquired in a rather complex way, during our development, a rather curious mix of fantasy, reasoning, prejudice and disposition, and try to use the validity that science has enjoyed to promote this curious set of beliefs. i think everyone is susceptible to some lesser or greater degree to this process.
What has happened however is that any reputation for validity or reliability in Science is being eroded. This erosion has been going on since the late seventies when Social Science researchers started investigating the way that scientific research was conducted. There were many contributors to this process,(including Foucault) but the essence is that there are a lot of reasons to doubt the neutrality and objectivity of Science, and it is arguable that virtually all science must be attached to some sort of health warning or even some kind of statement of the interests and background to the researchers. Of course that process is mostly impractical.
It is also becoming clear that ‘scientists’ are not the pure souls they were once taken to be. I personally know of a well thought of researcher who was guilty of blatant fraud in experimental work in order to get a grant.from the SRC. I also know of a Ph.D in molecular Biology that was largely fabricated.
These situations are not uncommon, although not quite universal, however they are also unspeakable. I cannot name a person who was guilty of such behaviour without creating huge trouble for myself. The Ph.D fabrication became obvious at a meeting. There was genuine shock that it had slipped through the system, but it seemed to me that at the time, there was a sense that the person involved (then on a post-doc elsewhere), was having her cards marked. The word would go out, and any work she produced would be scrutinised much more diligently than otherwise.
The ‘well-thought’ of researcher ( an Oxford graduate) was rather discriminatory. He knew that the grant application would not be scrutinised as deeply as a formal paper, and while i don’t doubt his capacity for fraud, i think he would have been aware of the limits of what it was possible to get away with, and the consequences of being found out. I suspect he would have drawn a line at the falsification of published results. There was too much to lose, and the work was almost certainly co-authored, and would require some collusion,which is verty difficult if not impossible to achieve.
Obviously this whole situation is as complex as any activity system, as complex and as potentially as corrupt, as, say, a diplomatic service.
For what is is worth, i met one of the IPCC contributors recently and had an opportunity to discuss some matters. His attitude was quite impressive and convincing, in that he was able to summon up arguments and data with great ease. He was extremely studious and had a highly recognisable academic perspective and followed his area of Science with great diligence. It was quite obvious why he would be an IPCC member.
He was certainly not a polemicist but I sensed that he was pre-disposed (psychologically) to a particular perspective-distinctively English intellectual-liberal and tolerant, in the best sense, and perhaps rather non-conformist Christian, although not involved in organised religion. He had strong principles and a very clear sense of propriety. i am certain he would not deliberately falsify material. His integrity is/was without doubt. However people cannot escape their background and neutralise that background.
chris jones wrote at 21 Sep, 2012 – 2:39 am
Thanks for trying, but could you help me to understand what exactly is my predisposition? I can’t help feeling that this would be the key to my moving on.
Just over 10 mins that summarises the climate science issues as I see them evinced succingtly by Dr Tim Ball:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttnXh66VL94
Try not to play the the man but hear him out.
Talk about out of touch.
Lord Young, an economic adviser to David Cameron, provoked controversy last night as he questioned whether Britain really was in recession.
This specimen is an advisor, and he has the ear of the Cameron, what are the basis of his “sound judgement”?
“I am not sure the Government can actually measure the economy any more. The internet has had such a tremendous effect on business the last few years. I’m not sure for example sales through Google, eBay, ever get measured. One of the things I think we are doing if we are not careful is we are going to talk ourselves into a recession.”
Well his Lordship full of piss and wind has adduced to be optimistic and stop the pessimism that is causing the depression that is optimistically called double dip recession (Orwell ought to be turning in his grave). This is akin to the other Lordship Willy Whitelaw whom pontificated; people must top going around the country and spreading apathy!
Democracy, dounchyou love its smell in the mornings?
O/T like so much here. Update on the Independent PCC campaign in Norfolk
Hilarious, the apparent Friday talking point here in Norfolk today is the Ex police chair of the authority resigning his seat, because he failed to become the Cons. candidate, he decided to re-brand himself as Independent.
He’s leaving his job to campaign and has reigned his lifelong membership of the Conservative party.
Thin is this talking point is being censored heavily, with the public vote going heavily against him, the article has now been pulled from the front pages and disappeared into the background.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/friday_talking_point_as_police_authority_chairman_resigns_do_you_agree_with_commissioner_plan_1_1524432
This is my reply as yet to appear….
“”If Steven Bett has always been an Independent, why did he contest the Conservative party hustings? Only when he failed did he become the default Independent. Steven used his Authority meeting as an election platform and has left Norfolk taxpayers without a chair for the next month., rather than handing over his responsibilities in an orderly manner. Mervin Lambert on the other hand has been an Independent candidate some 20 years ago and still is. The EDP has refused to print Mervin Lambert’s condolences to the two police women killed, they are refusing to print his official campaign photos, in short they are trying their best to keep true Independents out of the contest, whilst many Norfolk voters are fed up with such machinations of the electoral process.”
Scousebilly
You ask people not to ‘play the man’ – an inherently reasonable request but one i intend to ignore, for reasons I will explain.
Firstly – I will reiterate, as my point seemed to be lost by Chris Jones – I have NO position on whether or not AGW is real. I am not qualified to judge. Nor will you find me taking a position on its veracity in here, although I suspect you will believe you do.
I watched the video with, at least initially, an open mind, ready to try to absorb the scientific arguments he was about to make. However, he didn’t make any. All he did was make accusations about corruption and deceit, therefore it’s hard to respond without making it ‘about him’ as there was no substance. Here are the problems I have with taking him seriously:
The first minute and a half of the video is concerned with the interviewer trying to establish his credentials, making big play of him being ‘Dr’ without explaining what he’s a doctor of, holding climate change advocates such as Al Gore up to scornful reference and silly comments about dancing polar bears. This is a good way to close my mind to what follows, however I struggled on. Later in the piece, the interviewer says (without correction from Dr Ball) that ‘Man made global warming is an oxymoron’ This is nonsensical bias, just trying to say anything negative. Regardless of whether or not AGW is ‘real’, how is it an oxymoron? Why wouldn’t Dr Ball correct him on this?
Tim Ball’s opening line didn’t make it any better “They started with global warming because they wanted to focus on CO2. They accuse people like me”. Who is this ‘they’? Why did they want to focus on CO2? HE just sails on as if this is some self-evident truth. He repeatedly talks about ‘they’ without explaining. To me, thats analogous to the use of “The Illuminati” which is used by certain people to explain everything wrong in the world.
On both sides of the argument, there are a wide variety of people. Some people on either side will argue from strong personal conviction. Some (many?) people on either side will have reached their conclusion and see the other side as ‘the enemy’. Using this generic ‘they’ plants the entire ‘opposition’ into one homegeneous lump, indistinct from each other. This switches sceptics off, enrages AGW advocates and cheers the deniers.
Quickly, I will address the terms ‘sceptic’ and ‘denier’. Dr Ball wishes to be called a sceptic rather than a denier. He says that the term ‘denier’ brings an association with Holocaust deniers. Now I will admit there is some unfortunate element of truth in that, but I don’t know a better word to use than ‘denier’ for someone who denies something. Sceptic is not the right term. I believe I am a sceptic as I haven’t taken a position and I refuse to take a position on something I don’t understand, and I doubt all that is put in front of me. People such as Tim Ball, and with respect yourself, do not stand in a position of doubt, which indicates an open mind, but rather specifically deny that AGW is real. Whether you are ultimately proved correct in that stance or not makes no difference – you are no sceptic when you absorb one side of the argument unquestioningly and make knee-jerk refutations of the other.
Preposterous claims were made such as the only funding that is available goes only to scientists who are trying to prove that CO2 is the cause of climate change.
He quoted Canada’s Auditor General as saying that 6 billion dollars went to funding science to demonstrate the reality of AgW and none to disprove it. It sounds very damning the way he puts it, but it doesn’t sound like the kind of claim that would come from that office, at least not phrased like that. I looked through their reports but couldn’t find any such claim. Do you have a source for that, or do you simply accept him at his word? If you do accept him at his word, then fine, but try to reconcile that with any notion of being a sceptic for a minute. I’d certainly be interested to see the report so I could read it myself rather than take one side’s spin on it.
He finished with a diatribe about the IPCC being a political tool to cut oil supplies and prevent development, and how AGW was being turned into a religion. All very dark and awful, but irrespective of his lack of evidence, he fails to mention what the possible motive for this would be, and also fails to address it’s utter failure in it’s aim of curbing oil use. Clearly ‘they’ haven’t been very successful. If you, he or anyone else can demonstrate the truth of this claim to me, I will listen, but I need more than an evidence-free assertion in order to believe it.
I was very interested to read Mark Golding’s comment on 20 September (10.27 pm) regarding the death of David Kelly. For some time I’ve wondered whether Dr Kelly’s demise was linked with the post 9/11 anthrax attacks in the US and what he knew about them.
Apart from avoiding an under oath inquest the Hutton Inquiry might have been seen by the establishment as a valuable diversion from the truth with its focus on Gilligan’s broadcast, the 45 minute claim, Dr Kelly’s appearance at the FAC and so on.
My new Dr Kelly blog has so far concentrated on the more forensic evidence to demonstrate the cover up perpetrated by police, politicians and judiciary. When more of the truth comes out about Dr Kelly’s death then the repercussions could be seismic. I think that the motivation to consider perverting the course of justice in this case has been extremely high.
http://drkellysdeath-timeforthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/
Chris Jones, you wrote: “…but i can’t keep pointing you towards the truth”.
Hmmm. You can’t do that, because no one can. We can only point out evidence. You, Chris, seem to think that you know “the truth” and where to find it. I have tried to avoid making such assumptions on my own behalf since I overcame being a Jehovah’s Witless [sic]; back then, I not only “knew” The Truth, I was “in” it.
How well anyone can know a truth is a matter of personal familiarity with the question. On a matter of, say, the location of my wristwatch, I may know that it’s not in my briefcase, whereas Mr I Pinchstuff claims that it is. I can know, truthfully, that my watch was in my briefcase, because that’s where I put it. But I can’t then claim the status of “truth” for my assertion that “Mr Pinchstuff stole my watch”; there are other possible explanations. Mr Pinchstuff can know the truth or falsity of whether he took that watch or not. But he can’t even assert as truth “I stole Clark’s watch”, because he doesn’t know whether that watch was actually mine.
That’s how complex it gets with just two people and two objects. There are 30,000 signatures on that petition you cited. I think, Chris, that you need to review your ideas about truth.
@Chris Jones –
I took up your challenge to “Have a look at my previous post above regarding the IPCC and how the IAC admit in their own words that the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed”.
I downloaded the entire report – for good measure, I made sure it was the pre-publication one from the site you recommended, as you seemed to place more weight on that one. I then did a search on the word ‘peer’. I suspect you have not done this as I almost immediately found the following: “IPCC’s peer review process is elaborate, involving two formal reviews and one or more informal reviews of preliminary text.”, “The assessment relies on observations, global models, and on peer-reviewed literature” and for balance: “Working Groups II and III rely more heavily on non-peer-reviewed literature”. On page 18 it then explains why this was necessarily so.
The IAC even specifically condones the inclusion of non-peer reviewed material: “The primary source of information is intended to be peer-reviewed literature. Where such literature is not available, appropriately considered and documented non-peer-reviewed literature… …may be used.”
Now how does that square with your representation? Sure, some of the 47 instances of the word peer refer to usage of non peer-reviewed material, but it is clear that they do not condemn this practice, but simply recommend that the IPCC is more transparent about when they do include material of this nature.
A failing of the IPCC, but nothing even remotely like the one you are asserting.
Oy vey! bin Laden’s driver suspected in the frame that murdered Ambassador Stevens. Urrm is that Salim Hamdan? I thought he was in Yemen. Hold on!!- it was a bearded mutation called Sufyan Ben Qumu according to The Mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206105/Libyan-attack-U-S-consulate-White-House-admits-raid-act-terror.html?openGraphAuthor=%2Fhome%2Fsearch.html%3Fs%3D%26authornamef%3DMichael%2BZennie
Although not according President Obama who believes the killing was executed by inflamed extremists in a spontaneous assault.
Obama, a lawyer, is wise enough to keep al-Qaeda under wraps or in the bottle considering his proxy war in Syria is crumbling in the main media who are struggling to hold onto the Syrian government atrocity line in the frame of heinous nefarious foreign(Saudi)terrorist bombing of innocent women and children perfectly captured in images by an exSAS British mercenary. Thank-you.
As Joseph Postma points out,
“For Earth, the blackbody temperature works out to 255K (-18C), and in fact, this is exactly what the temperature of the planet Earth is! The temperature of the Earth is exactly the temperature it is supposed to be. But what the alarmists do is mix up two different physical metrics and phenomena: they compare the blackbody temperature of the Earth to its surface temperature, when these are completely different phenomena.”
Anybody that is scientifically competent realises that the 33 degrees difference between the average surface temperature of c. 15 degrees C and planetary temperature of -18 degrees C is not down to some mythical greenhouse blanket. Clearly the average planetary temperature would lie not at the surface but somewhere between surface and top of atmosphere.
Energy in = energy out – the sun drives our climate, we don’t.
This is the nub of the scientific fraud feeding a political depopulation agenda.
@ Geoff
These polemics (let’s call them), such as the Ball’s, complain that he is called a ‘denier’ while he is guilty of using similar language himself and not actually answering any of the points, based on observational facts. He simply say that the theory is wrong. He occasionally ‘cites’ a few common sense idea,s items such saying the sun changes(flickers) and affects the climate and that there is an ongoing process called climate change and that all current observations fits easily within the established pattern of variability. However that is not correct. The science revolves around trying to identify signals which are distinct and different to that which might be expected from historical or other data and does take into account known changes in the energy which is striking the earth and other phenomena such as variations in ocean currents.
Admittedly this process is extremely difficult due to the complexity of the system and it involves mathematical thinking which I can guarantee he does not follow, because, if he did, and had identified an analytic error, he would triumphantly expose it by writing a paper about it, because he would be aware of the great benefit to him as a scientist to be able to do such a thing .He prefers a dodgy web based TV outfit because he knows he will be paid, but not challenged, on any of the substance of his position He does not answer any observation, such as the changing ranges and distribution of various organisms. In other words he does not provide any plausible and sensible alternative thesis.
He talks about ‘truth’ but that just gives the game away. George Bush talked about truth (and liberty), meaning the sel-attributed truth of his religious convictions, and the liberty of the grave and shopping in Wal-mart.
Bush was a deeply sophisticated man and narcissistic but also deeply stupid.
Ball is simply adopting a position in the culture wars that have been ongoing since at least Raegan, not talking science. This culture war has dragged many people, including scientists, into adopting a polarised position, and unfortunately some people, followers, feel obliged to also position themselves, regardless of their ignorance, and worthlessness of their op[inions, on one side or other. However such tub thumping is simply a sign of the same profound ignorance that Bush displayed.
Scouse Billy and many people (me) on this thread will be dead before this issue is definitively resolved scientifically.
Deepgreenpuddock
Yes, I find it depressing as I would like to read some genuine, sceptical assessment. I would recognise such a piece instantly, as it wouldn’t claim to reach a definitive conclusion in a few short paragraphs.
Unfortunately, presentations that are short on anything beyond ‘preaching to the converted’ such as the Dr Ball clip are omnipresent and held up as evidence by the credulous. When I ask a question about it, the presenter generally moves on wordlessly to the next topic as scousebilly demonstrates immediately prior to your post.
Oh well, such is life.
Geoff – it was a short interview on youtube not intended to be a scientific paper with references and I said that it summarises my position.
I hardly moved on – I simply pointed out the fallacy of the Trenberth-Kiel energy budget diagram that epitomises the greenhouse myth.