Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
PRTVR said:
mybrainhurts said:
First the Germans, now the BBC. What's going on, has the Beeb sold its pension schemes investments in the global warming industry?
I refer to Radio 4 news this morning, in which Ed Parrot Davey was given a (bit of) a grilling over the award of new contracts for wind and biomass that are going to increase our bills by 2%.
Then there was the Radio 4 programme on Monday 21 April called Start The Week, in which George Monbiot was pitched against James Lovelock and Joanna Haigh. Moonbat was being ever-so-polite and doing his usual condescending job, although even he seemed to be bending his position somewhat. Whilst listening and thinking this is one of those mental does-not-compute moments, his subliminal I am right message came through loud and clear. Having said that, his discomfort, frustration and annoyance were palpable.
Which was nice...
I missed the last half hour of the programme, so I'm going to listen again here. It's well worth listening, purely for the pleasure of hearing Moonbat squirming and in obvious pain and distress. I imagine he's taken the BBC Director General to task by now for allowing dissent to penetrate the Great Chamber Of Bias.
So, what's going on at the Beeb? Is this a change of direction, or a couple of loose cannons slipping past the censor?
My thoughts are that they are starting to get a hard time over a lot of things, people are starting to call for change in the BBC, bias over climate change being is just one area, the call for change is causing them to change direction in the hope that calls for radical change go away.I refer to Radio 4 news this morning, in which Ed Parrot Davey was given a (bit of) a grilling over the award of new contracts for wind and biomass that are going to increase our bills by 2%.
Then there was the Radio 4 programme on Monday 21 April called Start The Week, in which George Monbiot was pitched against James Lovelock and Joanna Haigh. Moonbat was being ever-so-polite and doing his usual condescending job, although even he seemed to be bending his position somewhat. Whilst listening and thinking this is one of those mental does-not-compute moments, his subliminal I am right message came through loud and clear. Having said that, his discomfort, frustration and annoyance were palpable.
Which was nice...
I missed the last half hour of the programme, so I'm going to listen again here. It's well worth listening, purely for the pleasure of hearing Moonbat squirming and in obvious pain and distress. I imagine he's taken the BBC Director General to task by now for allowing dissent to penetrate the Great Chamber Of Bias.
So, what's going on at the Beeb? Is this a change of direction, or a couple of loose cannons slipping past the censor?
If there is no "cunning plan" behind this it would be truly remarkable in my opinion.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2611215/En...
who knew, they are going to lose the election over this if nothing else
who knew, they are going to lose the election over this if nothing else
Apache said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2611215/En...
who knew, they are going to lose the election over this if nothing else
I have to wonder, will Ed Davey even have a party after the next elections, as their electoral significance now is smaller than miniscule, isn't it?who knew, they are going to lose the election over this if nothing else
Apache said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2611215/En...
who knew, they are going to lose the election over this if nothing else
Yes indeed, whoda thunkit!who knew, they are going to lose the election over this if nothing else
Pinocchio said:
charges would be higher without going green
Apache said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2611215/En...
who knew, they are going to lose the election over this if nothing else
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27137184who knew, they are going to lose the election over this if nothing else
But less tax wasted on subsidies?
Gogoplata said:
Subsidies for onshore yes, how about offshore subsidies though...targets must be met etc.Article said:
Energy Minister Michael Fallon said any project not granted planning permission before the election would not get funds as the UK would already have enough wind power to meet 2020 EU targets.
He also said councils in England and Wales would be given the "decisive say" on new onshore wind farms from 2015.
The Lib Dems said they had blocked such changes being made by the coalition.
Good old LibDems He also said councils in England and Wales would be given the "decisive say" on new onshore wind farms from 2015.
The Lib Dems said they had blocked such changes being made by the coalition.
I rather think there is a lot of obfuscation going on w/r disturbines and stuff - "green" subsidies in general.
Try this from the DM Comment column
"Winds of change
About time, too. Yesterday the Tories pledged that, within six months of an election victory, they would end all future subsidies for onshore wind farms and restore the right of veto to local councils.
Thus, they become the first major party to recognise how hugely unpopular these monstrosities are with those who have to live with them, while opening up clear blue skies between themselves, Labour and the Lib Dems.
If they were more honest, they might also acknowledge that apart from scarring the landscape, wind turbines have proved ruinously expensive and inefficient – an utterly inadequate answer to our energy crisis.
Indeed, this paper looks forward to a day when one solitary wind farm remains on British soil – as a permanent monument to the vanity and folly of our political class."
Somethin' strange going on with the interpretation of words? Or is this pressure politics?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2611765/...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Try this from the DM Comment column
"Winds of change
About time, too. Yesterday the Tories pledged that, within six months of an election victory, they would end all future subsidies for onshore wind farms and restore the right of veto to local councils.
Thus, they become the first major party to recognise how hugely unpopular these monstrosities are with those who have to live with them, while opening up clear blue skies between themselves, Labour and the Lib Dems.
If they were more honest, they might also acknowledge that apart from scarring the landscape, wind turbines have proved ruinously expensive and inefficient – an utterly inadequate answer to our energy crisis.
Indeed, this paper looks forward to a day when one solitary wind farm remains on British soil – as a permanent monument to the vanity and folly of our political class."
Somethin' strange going on with the interpretation of words? Or is this pressure politics?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2611765/...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Shale Boom Sends USA Crude Supply To Highest Since 1930s
The U.S. is stockpiling the most crude since the Great Depression, thanks to the shale boom that has boosted production to the most in 26 years. Inventories rose 3.52 million barrels last week to 397.7 million, the highest level since 1931, according to Energy Information Administration data going back to 1920.
Mark Shenk, Bloomberg, 23 April 2014
The U.S. Department of Energy plans to work with private U.S. companies to help Ukraine develop its shale gas resources. The White House outlined a new $50 million aid package to Ukraine during a visit to the country by Vice President Joseph Biden. The aid package pushed by the White House will include visits in the near future to Ukraine by officials from U.S. government agencies intent on helping the country improve its energy security.
Charles Kennedy, OilPrice News, 23 April 2014
Europe's Leaders Prepare Ground For Return To Energy Realism
Britain's Energy Minister Michael Fallon says today is the kick off in the development of shale gas in the UK
Department for Energy & Climate Change, 24 April 2014
Energy minister Michael Fallon was today urging the Lancashire community to get behind shale gas as latest estimates said “fracking” could be worth £33bn to the UK economy, creating 64,500 jobs over 15 years. Mr Fallon said: “I want this report to be a call to action for the UK supply chain for small and large companies, whether in Lancashire or Lowestoft, whether in the steel industry, the chemical industry or in other manufacturing and services. The message is: get ready for shale.”
Lancashire Evening News, 23 April 2014
Over one third of the UK’s energy will come from shale gas in the next decade, with 4,000 wells set to be drilled across the country by 2032, a new report claims today. An astonishing 20m homes could be powered by shale gas, according to the government-backed study commissioned by the UK Onshore Operators Group and undertaken by EY. The UK’s burgeoning shale gas industry will attract £33bn of investment across the supply chain and create 64,000 jobs, the report says, with 50 drilling rigs needed to accommodate the soaring growth.
Suzie Neuwirth, City AM, 24 April 2014
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk says the country’s giant coal fields should become a cornerstone in Europe’s defense against a newly aggressive Russia. As politicians wrestle with how to respond to the crisis in Ukraine, Tusk argues Europe needs to “rehabilitate” coal’s dirty image and use it to break Russia’s grip on energy supply. “In the context of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the overriding objective is to lessen the dependence on Russia,” said Mujtaba Rahman, an analyst at Eurasia Group in London. “Climate objectives will be absolutely secondary to that.”
Ladka Bauerova, Bloomberg, 24 April 2014
The Russian invasion of Crimea is making Alberta's oil and gas more attractive in European capitals, says Poland's ambassador to Canada. Poland supports the idea of importing Canadian oil and gas, envoy Marcin Bosacki said Wednesday prior to the start of a two-day visit to his country by Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird. "This point of view is being shared in a growing number of European capitals in the last two months since the Crimea invasion," Bosacki said. "Of course, we are absolutely in favour of increasing the abilities of ... western Canada oil and gas to be exported also to Europe."
Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press, 23 April 2014
Despite its doubters and haters, the shale revolution in oil and gas production is here to stay. In the second half of this decade, moreover, it is likely to spread globally more quickly than most think. What is unfolding in response is nothing less than a paradigm shift in thinking about hydrocarbons.
Edward L Morse, Foreign Affairs, June 2014
The U.S. is stockpiling the most crude since the Great Depression, thanks to the shale boom that has boosted production to the most in 26 years. Inventories rose 3.52 million barrels last week to 397.7 million, the highest level since 1931, according to Energy Information Administration data going back to 1920.
Mark Shenk, Bloomberg, 23 April 2014
The U.S. Department of Energy plans to work with private U.S. companies to help Ukraine develop its shale gas resources. The White House outlined a new $50 million aid package to Ukraine during a visit to the country by Vice President Joseph Biden. The aid package pushed by the White House will include visits in the near future to Ukraine by officials from U.S. government agencies intent on helping the country improve its energy security.
Charles Kennedy, OilPrice News, 23 April 2014
Europe's Leaders Prepare Ground For Return To Energy Realism
Britain's Energy Minister Michael Fallon says today is the kick off in the development of shale gas in the UK
Department for Energy & Climate Change, 24 April 2014
Energy minister Michael Fallon was today urging the Lancashire community to get behind shale gas as latest estimates said “fracking” could be worth £33bn to the UK economy, creating 64,500 jobs over 15 years. Mr Fallon said: “I want this report to be a call to action for the UK supply chain for small and large companies, whether in Lancashire or Lowestoft, whether in the steel industry, the chemical industry or in other manufacturing and services. The message is: get ready for shale.”
Lancashire Evening News, 23 April 2014
Over one third of the UK’s energy will come from shale gas in the next decade, with 4,000 wells set to be drilled across the country by 2032, a new report claims today. An astonishing 20m homes could be powered by shale gas, according to the government-backed study commissioned by the UK Onshore Operators Group and undertaken by EY. The UK’s burgeoning shale gas industry will attract £33bn of investment across the supply chain and create 64,000 jobs, the report says, with 50 drilling rigs needed to accommodate the soaring growth.
Suzie Neuwirth, City AM, 24 April 2014
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk says the country’s giant coal fields should become a cornerstone in Europe’s defense against a newly aggressive Russia. As politicians wrestle with how to respond to the crisis in Ukraine, Tusk argues Europe needs to “rehabilitate” coal’s dirty image and use it to break Russia’s grip on energy supply. “In the context of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the overriding objective is to lessen the dependence on Russia,” said Mujtaba Rahman, an analyst at Eurasia Group in London. “Climate objectives will be absolutely secondary to that.”
Ladka Bauerova, Bloomberg, 24 April 2014
The Russian invasion of Crimea is making Alberta's oil and gas more attractive in European capitals, says Poland's ambassador to Canada. Poland supports the idea of importing Canadian oil and gas, envoy Marcin Bosacki said Wednesday prior to the start of a two-day visit to his country by Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird. "This point of view is being shared in a growing number of European capitals in the last two months since the Crimea invasion," Bosacki said. "Of course, we are absolutely in favour of increasing the abilities of ... western Canada oil and gas to be exported also to Europe."
Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press, 23 April 2014
Despite its doubters and haters, the shale revolution in oil and gas production is here to stay. In the second half of this decade, moreover, it is likely to spread globally more quickly than most think. What is unfolding in response is nothing less than a paradigm shift in thinking about hydrocarbons.
Edward L Morse, Foreign Affairs, June 2014
LongQ said:
I rather think there is a lot of obfuscation going on w/r disturbines and stuff - "green" subsidies in general.
Try this from the DM Comment column
"Winds of change
About time, too. Yesterday the Tories pledged that, within six months of an election victory, they would end all future subsidies for onshore wind farms and restore the right of veto to local councils.
Thus, they become the first major party to recognise how hugely unpopular these monstrosities are with those who have to live with them, while opening up clear blue skies between themselves, Labour and the Lib Dems.
If they were more honest, they might also acknowledge that apart from scarring the landscape, wind turbines have proved ruinously expensive and inefficient – an utterly inadequate answer to our energy crisis.
Indeed, this paper looks forward to a day when one solitary wind farm remains on British soil – as a permanent monument to the vanity and folly of our political class."
Somethin' strange going on with the interpretation of words? Or is this pressure politics?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2611765/...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
The comments sections on anything to do with MMGW have changed over the last few years,once over they were filled with comments from water melons, now the comments are mostly against windmills etc, would any paper not pick up on this and change the way they deal with the subject? Try this from the DM Comment column
"Winds of change
About time, too. Yesterday the Tories pledged that, within six months of an election victory, they would end all future subsidies for onshore wind farms and restore the right of veto to local councils.
Thus, they become the first major party to recognise how hugely unpopular these monstrosities are with those who have to live with them, while opening up clear blue skies between themselves, Labour and the Lib Dems.
If they were more honest, they might also acknowledge that apart from scarring the landscape, wind turbines have proved ruinously expensive and inefficient – an utterly inadequate answer to our energy crisis.
Indeed, this paper looks forward to a day when one solitary wind farm remains on British soil – as a permanent monument to the vanity and folly of our political class."
Somethin' strange going on with the interpretation of words? Or is this pressure politics?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2611765/...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
LongQ said:
I rather think there is a lot of obfuscation going on w/r disturbines and stuff - "green" subsidies in general.
Try this from the DM Comment column
"Winds of change
About time, too. Yesterday the Tories pledged that, within six months of an election victory, they would end all future subsidies for onshore wind farms and restore the right of veto to local councils.
Thus, they become the first major party to recognise how hugely unpopular these monstrosities are with those who have to live with them, while opening up clear blue skies between themselves, Labour and the Lib Dems.
If they were more honest, they might also acknowledge that apart from scarring the landscape, wind turbines have proved ruinously expensive and inefficient – an utterly inadequate answer to our energy crisis.
Indeed, this paper looks forward to a day when one solitary wind farm remains on British soil – as a permanent monument to the vanity and folly of our political class."
Somethin' strange going on with the interpretation of words? Or is this pressure politics?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2611765/...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Some people, DC's father in law for one, think they are wonderful...apologies for the Mail linkTry this from the DM Comment column
"Winds of change
About time, too. Yesterday the Tories pledged that, within six months of an election victory, they would end all future subsidies for onshore wind farms and restore the right of veto to local councils.
Thus, they become the first major party to recognise how hugely unpopular these monstrosities are with those who have to live with them, while opening up clear blue skies between themselves, Labour and the Lib Dems.
If they were more honest, they might also acknowledge that apart from scarring the landscape, wind turbines have proved ruinously expensive and inefficient – an utterly inadequate answer to our energy crisis.
Indeed, this paper looks forward to a day when one solitary wind farm remains on British soil – as a permanent monument to the vanity and folly of our political class."
Somethin' strange going on with the interpretation of words? Or is this pressure politics?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2611765/...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2027708/Sa...
turbobloke said:
Andy Zarse said:
Anyone seen this load of old toff purporting to be serious science?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/14041...
Having just read the paper in full it embodies so much of what we indicate on here regarding the annals of true belief that we could have written it ourselves given a sufficient motive to do so. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/14041...
It would be most interesting if, instead of taking only one pre-industrial period as 1500–1900 they also took both of the equally pre-industrial 400 year periods 4200BP to 3800BP and 11500BP to 11100BP for the purpose of comparison. Proxies are proxies.
At one point Tanth is stated as having a main contribution from CO2 and that Tanth is proportional to RF(CO2). Obviously any study into whether anthropogenic carbon dioxide has had any influence on global temperature in recent decades would naturally assume the core belief associated with this idea to begin with. Missing heat anyone?
Also where have we seen before a methodology that tags one approach for the post-industrial era on the end of a different approach for the pre-industrial era...we'd definitely use that if we were the authors.
Finally, the paper and therefore the link provided a few posts ago say "the statistical rejection of a hypothesis cannot be used to conclude the truth of any specific alternative". Indeed.
Talking of alternatives, what if the dominant climate forcing mechanism(s) operating over several 400 year periods were different, so that the true extent of natural variability and its origins could not be represented adequately by a single 400 year interval used in a statistical study. That would be really Steve Davis interesting.
As would a situation where by chance (m)any or all of the dominant natural forcing(s) remained constant over one chosen period of 400 years but not another period of the same length.
There are a great many climate forcings together with couplings and feedbacks, and the IPCC SPM list has very few - of the few natural forcings listed there is a generally low LOSU (level of scientific understanding) and never mind those natural forcings that are omitted completely.
The gospel according to Gaia may have something general to say on how your sin of omission will eventually find you out, but I haven't read that piece of doctrine.
Coverage of Friends of Science response over at ICECAP said:
Lovejoy Global Warming Paper 100% Wrong to Omit Previous Natural Warm Periods Say Friends of Science.
A recent paper published by Shaun Lovejoy of McGill University, that claims 99.9% certainty of Anthropogenic Global Warming, is flawed from the outset, according to Friends of Science due to Lovejoy’s omission of known climatic variations reliance on the discredited “Hockey Stick” graph.
And natural cold periods, variability is variability.A recent paper published by Shaun Lovejoy of McGill University, that claims 99.9% certainty of Anthropogenic Global Warming, is flawed from the outset, according to Friends of Science due to Lovejoy’s omission of known climatic variations reliance on the discredited “Hockey Stick” graph.
Hopefully in their full treatment they picked up on all the other issues as well.
More on Back to Black
What more could one want? It is cheap and simple to extract, ship and burn. It is abundant: proven reserves amount to 109 years of current consumption, reckons BP, a British energy giant. They are mostly in politically stable places. There is a wide choice of dependable sellers. Other fuels are beset by state interference and cartels, but in this industry consumers are firmly in charge, keeping prices low. Just as this wonder-fuel once powered the industrial revolution, it now offers the best chance for poor countries wanting to get rich.
The Economist, 19 April 2014
Though China is pushing nuclear energy and renewables hard, coal will be the fuel of the world's most populous, and polluted, country into the foreseeable future. To combat worsening greenhouse-gas emissions and pollution, China aims to raise its nuclear capacity to 200 gigawatts by 2030, from only 14.6 gigawatts last year. But it probably won't reach that goal, energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie forecast in a report Monday—which will mean opportunities for miners to supply huge amounts of additional coal to make up the power shortfall.
Simon Hall, The Wall Street Journal, 28 April 2014
Why Are We Waiting
In Texas, it takes seven days to get a permission for hydraulic fracturing of shale. In Britain, the wait has been going on for a whopping seven years. In 2007, Cuadrilla was granted a licence for shale gas exploration in Lancashire. Seven years later, not a single cubic foot of gas has been extracted. Compare this with the Vaca Muerta shale basin in Argentina, discovered just over three years ago. The first horizontal well was drilled within 12 months. One year on, it produced over 20,000 barrels of shale oil per day.
Benny Peiser, City AM, 25 April 2015
What more could one want? It is cheap and simple to extract, ship and burn. It is abundant: proven reserves amount to 109 years of current consumption, reckons BP, a British energy giant. They are mostly in politically stable places. There is a wide choice of dependable sellers. Other fuels are beset by state interference and cartels, but in this industry consumers are firmly in charge, keeping prices low. Just as this wonder-fuel once powered the industrial revolution, it now offers the best chance for poor countries wanting to get rich.
The Economist, 19 April 2014
Though China is pushing nuclear energy and renewables hard, coal will be the fuel of the world's most populous, and polluted, country into the foreseeable future. To combat worsening greenhouse-gas emissions and pollution, China aims to raise its nuclear capacity to 200 gigawatts by 2030, from only 14.6 gigawatts last year. But it probably won't reach that goal, energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie forecast in a report Monday—which will mean opportunities for miners to supply huge amounts of additional coal to make up the power shortfall.
Simon Hall, The Wall Street Journal, 28 April 2014
Why Are We Waiting
In Texas, it takes seven days to get a permission for hydraulic fracturing of shale. In Britain, the wait has been going on for a whopping seven years. In 2007, Cuadrilla was granted a licence for shale gas exploration in Lancashire. Seven years later, not a single cubic foot of gas has been extracted. Compare this with the Vaca Muerta shale basin in Argentina, discovered just over three years ago. The first horizontal well was drilled within 12 months. One year on, it produced over 20,000 barrels of shale oil per day.
Benny Peiser, City AM, 25 April 2015
turbobloke said:
More on Back to Black
What more could one want? It is cheap and simple to extract, ship and burn. It is abundant: proven reserves amount to 109 years of current consumption, reckons BP, a British energy giant. They are mostly in politically stable places. There is a wide choice of dependable sellers. Other fuels are beset by state interference and cartels, but in this industry consumers are firmly in charge, keeping prices low. Just as this wonder-fuel once powered the industrial revolution, it now offers the best chance for poor countries wanting to get rich.
The Economist, 19 April 2014
Though China is pushing nuclear energy and renewables hard, coal will be the fuel of the world's most populous, and polluted, country into the foreseeable future. To combat worsening greenhouse-gas emissions and pollution, China aims to raise its nuclear capacity to 200 gigawatts by 2030, from only 14.6 gigawatts last year. But it probably won't reach that goal, energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie forecast in a report Monday—which will mean opportunities for miners to supply huge amounts of additional coal to make up the power shortfall.
Simon Hall, The Wall Street Journal, 28 April 2014
The idea that there's only 109 years worth of coal reserves sounds like a massive understatement at least in our case being that UK reserves were stated as being more like 1000 years worth in 1984 during the battle to save Britain's coal mining industry.What more could one want? It is cheap and simple to extract, ship and burn. It is abundant: proven reserves amount to 109 years of current consumption, reckons BP, a British energy giant. They are mostly in politically stable places. There is a wide choice of dependable sellers. Other fuels are beset by state interference and cartels, but in this industry consumers are firmly in charge, keeping prices low. Just as this wonder-fuel once powered the industrial revolution, it now offers the best chance for poor countries wanting to get rich.
The Economist, 19 April 2014
Though China is pushing nuclear energy and renewables hard, coal will be the fuel of the world's most populous, and polluted, country into the foreseeable future. To combat worsening greenhouse-gas emissions and pollution, China aims to raise its nuclear capacity to 200 gigawatts by 2030, from only 14.6 gigawatts last year. But it probably won't reach that goal, energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie forecast in a report Monday—which will mean opportunities for miners to supply huge amounts of additional coal to make up the power shortfall.
Simon Hall, The Wall Street Journal, 28 April 2014
Meanwhile the global warming propaganda continues with exaggerated claims of daily temperatures within the forecasts.With the constant reminder that high teens C temperatures would supposedly be 'above normal' for late April and the actual low mid teens that we're mostly getting are 'normal' for the time of year.With a long range forecast that actually shows a colder,more unsettled than average trend,well into what is technically early summer considering the date of the mid summer solstice.That trend unfortunately also seeming to apply at least as far south as mid Italy,well into in May at least.With temperatures and conditions forecast for the Misano GT event more like those which I'd expect at that time of year at Brands Hatch or Goodwood and that's with prevailing forecast Southerly winds let alone if it was blowing from the North.Going by that I'm expecting that Le Mans and the Le Mans classic will probably be yet another relatively cold washout this year based on a typical cold north westerly or north easterly airflow that we seem to be getting so much of in recent years in western europe and if not it'll probably just be a fluke of relatively warmer air blowing in from North Africa etc.None of which seems to point to the bulls
t idea of global warming let alone warming poles. Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 28th April 17:55
Engaging us is like wrestling with pigs. Apparently...
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/4/28/a...
Another clown chasing the limelight.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/4/28/a...
Another clown chasing the limelight.
mybrainhurts said:
Engaging us is like wrestling with pigs. Apparently...
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/4/28/a...
Another clown chasing the limelight.
Indeed. As Chris Morris would say 'Fact me till I fart' - http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/4/28/a...
Another clown chasing the limelight.
Anyway you can all easily contact Stephen Harrison and ask him to provide some evidence as to why us climate change skeptics still have not been been provided with any causal links to human activity whilst we are all squabbling in the mud.
I'll let you know if he replies. But him being a fully fledged Professor and all that, I doubt he'll risk his time or career telling me anything.
Still, if fifty of us contact him asking for information as to why we are to be regarded as mud-wrestling-pigs it will likely block up his inbox for a while.
ETA. And hopefully shut him up.
Edited by TheExcession on Monday 28th April 22:47
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff