Morphing the climate game

June 27, 2012 31 Comments
By

Many climate sceptics and political commentators see climate change as a dead or dying issue. The science is embarrassing in its strident naivete. The apocalyptic predictions haven’t materialised, Climategate exposed the scientific culture as biased and corrupt, abject failure is the fate of every model prediction.

But the major players have too much to lose, so we still have climate laws and treaties in force with no scientific basis. The game is not about to be called off merely because the science turned out to be garbage.

Minor players have much to lose as well.

  • In the UK we have two influential news outlets, the BBC and the Guardian newspaper, both with a great deal of their threadbare credibility invested in climate scare stories. They are never likely to admit how grotesque their journalistic failures have been.
  • Institutions such as the Royal Society and the Royal Society of Chemistry have been embarrassingly naive in their approach to climate change. They will accept with quiet gratitude any face-saving diversion that comes their way.
  •  The intensity of climate propaganda has left us with an unknown number of people who still believe the climate scare stories, many seeming baffled by what has happened to scientific integrity. Middle class enthusiasts for Green Lite – lost souls still clinging to the wreckage.

This is just the tip of a UN sponsored iceberg, a gigantic political investment, far too big to fail. So the UK government dutifully behaves as if the science is still sound and the climate threat real, because the shape-changing mega-fraud is morphing again, just as global warming morphed into climate change.

Climate science is being shoved to one side as settled, and as it festers away on the shelf, the game morphs into sustainable development, a much more flexible bogey to wave in front of the children. This move seems to have been planned for some time, so for once somebody in the UN made an accurate climate prediction.

Sustainable development will be more problematic for sceptics – because who supports unsustainable development? The Hydra grows more heads. The same people who now support climate change will grab the lifebelt with both claws. They will be just as strident, just as unprincipled about indoctrinating children, just as vicious towards dissent.

So that’s something to look forward to isn’t it?

31 Responses to Morphing the climate game

  1. Jack Savage
    June 27, 2012 at 8:13 am

    “Sustainable development will be more problematic for sceptics – because who supports unsustainable development?”

    Will it, though? Surely this change of events puts the whole question where it belongs…in the field of POLITICS. The political arguments will rage as to what constitutes sustainable development, which is as it should be.
    The menace of “global warming” and “climate change” was that it was a way of shutting out political argument by saying that the “science” said we had to follow one clear course or we would all die horribly real soon.
    The battle against creeping statism, the wackier and political aspects of faux-environmentalism and the EU and UN’s ambitions of control will continue, yes, but a weapon will have been wrested out of our opponents hand.
    The collapsing of the global warming debacle has a long way to go, but I really now can allow myself to think it will happen.
    And it feels good.

    • June 27, 2012 at 3:51 pm

      “And it feels good.”

      It feels good to me too. A battle won even though the war goes on.

  2. Greg Tingey
    June 27, 2012 at 8:45 am

    I would love to say liar,but I can’t.
    But you really are deluded, are you not?

    Really – you DON’T BELIEVE The Royal Society, and EVERY equivalent body on the planet?
    Why not?
    Because you don’t like it?
    Tough.
    Try looking in the telescope at the moons of Jupiter!

    There is a concerted campaign by certain big money (Two oil companies, Exxon & I think, Texaco) & a couple of super-rich neo-fascist multibillionaires (The Koch Brothers) to decry the science.
    ANd you have bought this.
    This is the Big Lie.

    More to the local point, look up “Phenology” and “Nature’s Calendar”. You will find references to a mass-observation project (Tens of thousands of record-takers, me included) loggin natural events, and correlating with past years and records.
    Because of the huge original data-sets, the error-bars are going to be very small.
    The results are conclusive.

    I suggest you grow up.

    • June 27, 2012 at 11:39 am

      Tingey you are a cretin. Sorry, but that is clear. Are you aware that the goblin like Koch Brothers are funding BEST? Because they want the issue settled for once and for all. So what you write about them is ARSE of the highest order. I am amazed your mother lets you out in the morning. Remember, in that light, socks – and THEN shoes?

      OK?

      link to en.wikipedia.org

      The Koch Foundation (along with the Folger Fund, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (created by Bill Gates), the Bowes Foundation, and the Getty Foundation) is a major funder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, an effort to address the criticism of records of the earth’s surface temperatures

      • June 27, 2012 at 12:08 pm

        Sorry Jeremy but slap on the wrist for ad hominem. Greg may have indeed said cretinous things but we can’t call him a cretin. Just because your case on “sustainable development” and the Kochs is actually correct does not mean we can attack the man personally.

    • David A. Evans
      June 27, 2012 at 12:04 pm

      I second Jeremy Poynton.

      Did you know that Exxon Mobil funded Michael Mann for a recent study on malaria I think it was?

      As for national societies, societies don’t have opinions, PEOPLE do!

      Sea level rise of one FOOT?

      The fact is, big oil is as much behind the AGW scare as anyone with funding for Greenpiss, WWF and others.

      DaveE.

    • June 27, 2012 at 3:58 pm

      Huge data-sets don’t necessarily lead to narrow error-bars. It depends on other factors such as whether or not you have one or more populations and a stationary or non-stationary variance.

      There are other factors with trends such as where you select the starting point. The operative word here is “select” because the natural world does not provide you with one. This is where much cherry-picking comes in.

    • June 28, 2012 at 4:50 am

      Did I miss something? What are we going to see should we look at the moons of Jupiter?

      • June 28, 2012 at 6:47 am

        An obelisk.

        • June 28, 2012 at 10:29 am

          Elvis driving a London bus.

          • June 28, 2012 at 4:02 pm

            So that’s what happened to him.

            • June 29, 2012 at 5:17 am

              Nah, ‘e works in a chippy, innit?

  3. DerekP
    June 27, 2012 at 9:20 am

    ‘Sustainable development – fewer politicians’
    now, now, now!

    ‘Sustainable development’ – fewer politicians, fewer civil servants, no quangos, no state-funded ‘chariteeees’, because we can’t afford the counter-productive costs of impractical ideologies and their tax-dependent parasites.

  4. DerekP
    June 27, 2012 at 9:26 am

    Greg Tingey – ‘deluded’ – ‘suggest you grow up’.
    Resorting to ad hominems in your first post? Feeling the pressure, at all, of being asked for proof for your religion?

  5. Furor Teutonicus
    June 27, 2012 at 10:47 am

    Can someone not take Tingey out and shove him full of carbon dioxide, or something he would obviously enjoy?

    I would, but I would HATE to increase my “carbon footprint” travelling to the chosen arena.

    • June 27, 2012 at 11:12 am

      I like Greg, FT. I seriously do. ;-) Witness his latest where he has a go at me. It’s all part of life’s rich pageant. This is going to sound strange coming from me but I believe Greg has a good heart, if his ideas are a bit … hmmmm … different. I’d seriously not like to see him go … unless his comments would lose the other guys such as the commenters on this thread. Hang in, boys – worse things happen at sea.

      • June 27, 2012 at 11:19 am

        Indeed, we can’t always agree on everything. I disagree with Greg on this one and do not consider myself remotely deluded, but still want to see him around.

  6. June 27, 2012 at 11:09 am

    Climate science is being shoved to one side as settled, and as it festers away on the shelf, the game morphs into sustainable development, a much more flexible bogey to wave in front of the children.

    Yes, yes and yes. That’s exactly what is happening.

  7. June 27, 2012 at 11:35 am

    “sustainable development”, as a group of African farmers noted to Cfact at Rio-20, for us means poverty and malnutrition.

    That, really, is ALL you need to know about “sustainable development”. It is another former of Western Imperialism.

    I had a lass going on to me yesterday about how she was 90% “off grid” and how proud she was of herself. I pointed out to her that billions were “off grid” like her, but had no choice in it, and would far rather be “on grid” with all the benefits that that brings with it.

    Stunned silence. She hadn’t looked at it that way.

    The Greens are the ultimate spoilt children. Legalised smacking is what they need (and then a fucking good kicking whilst they are down).

    • David A. Evans
      June 27, 2012 at 12:12 pm

      If she has a TV or a cooker, she’s at least as “on grid” as me.

      DaveE.

      • June 27, 2012 at 12:46 pm

        I wonder if her phone works by magic imps and she goes to the shaman instead of the doctor.

        • David A. Evans
          June 27, 2012 at 1:53 pm

          That’s the other thing they never think of,
          the amount of electrical power needed for all the support infrastructure around them!

          DaveE.

    • June 27, 2012 at 1:12 pm

      The Greens are the ultimate spoilt children. Legalised smacking is what they need (and then a fucking good kicking whilst they are down).

      LOL. That’s classic.

    • brentfordian
      June 28, 2012 at 4:59 pm

      Trying hard to be as ‘off-grid’ as I can, so I sympathise with your ‘lass’. In my case it’s economic: hens mean free eggs, a woodburner and (luckily) free wood means free heat and hot water. If the veg’ll do their stuff it’ll get better (admittedly not much sign yet). So: green loony and Western Imperialist?

      Hardly – if I’m ‘off-grid’ I get to keep more of my money and buy more of the things I want. It’s a greedy, self-indulgent lifestyle. Hell, I can even invest the spoils in a tax-avoidence scheme.

      My point – don’t be so judgemental. Maybe your ‘lass’ is saving up for the latest ipad?

  8. June 27, 2012 at 2:29 pm

    As I point out in my report on the Royal Society and Climate Change, the society was rather surprised by the idea that they should actually ask their fellows for their opinions on global warming before issuing position statements on the subject.

    Most of what the society has said on the subject of AGW represents the opinions of a small group of activist fellows.

    • June 27, 2012 at 3:49 pm

      The Royal Society of Chemistry behaved in a similar manner although they did publish some dissenting letters in the RSC magazine. Even so, in the end I felt I had to resign my membership.

      I read your report with interest and although I can’t say I’m surprised at your findings, it still comes as a shock when you recall what the Royal Society once was.

  9. June 27, 2012 at 6:55 pm

    Global warming may have run its course, but we in the UK are still left with the legacy of a carbon price, so will forever have a hidden energy tax – which I suspect was the object of the excercise from the start.
    Not to mention the tons of unsightly useless industrial generating machines which have despoilt many of our virgin areas of countryside.

  10. June 28, 2012 at 8:36 pm
  11. Greg Tingey
    June 29, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    Sorry, but you are seriously deluded.

    I’ve just sent off my six-monthly form of climate-related minor observations, along with tens of thousands of other volunteer observers … (Google “Nature’s Calendar”).
    A warmer climate means a more extreme climate – so one would expect records to be broken (in both directions).
    And what has happened this year?
    Driest, warmest March, wettest April & onwards …
    etc.
    This is, of course, NOT conclusive, but the trend does seem to be persisting.
    Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean it can’t be true, OK?

    • Dave_G
      June 29, 2012 at 10:08 pm

      One swallow does not make a summer…..

    • David A. Evans
      June 29, 2012 at 11:13 pm

      Being 59, I can conclusively state that climate has changed, We’re now getting the extreme weather events I’ve rarely seen since the mid ’60s when our school quadrangle flooded to a depth of 6″ in about 10 minutes.

      The “flood plain” near the village I was born in flooded a few years ago, I thought the clue was in the name flood plain but apparently not. :roll: Oh well, we live and learn that just because nothing has happened beyond our personal experience doesn’t mean it’s not exceptional.

      DaveE.

United Kingdom Time

Subscribe

Email us at contact orphans of liberty [all one word] at gmail dot com

Authors

For more about these renegades, click on the name to go to a short profile:

AK Haart
Churchmouse
James Higham
JuliaM
The Quiet Man

Orphans logo


Feel free to take this for your sidebar.