The rhythm of political drums

I see settled science has settled again. Anthropogenic Climate Change (AGW) is a bore and its believers even bigger bores, but what sustains it? Is it the harbinger of a new religion – or rather an ancient, pre-rational religion in a new guise? Check out these bonkers quotes to test the idea.

There are shed loads of this stuff – much of it even more bizarre and extreme than the examples above.

Yet why do people claim to believe in AGW when their lifestyles give the game away just as emphatically as the silliness of their words?

How many AGW cult members have moved to a carbon neural lifestyle? Or is it merely self-serving rhetoric – asking nothing from middle class believers in the way of inconvenient lifestyle adjustments?

How many refuse to consume electricity, fossil fuels, plastics and powered transport? How many eat no food produced beyond walking distance? How many do without clothes, mobile phone, computer, fridge, freezer, heating, lighting, bricks, mortar, water supply or sewage disposal? How many refuse to use computers?


Okay, so more rational folk probably don’t expect AGW cultists to build Iron Age villages all over the place, but something rather more convincing than solar panels and recycling is surely indicated if we are to accept their professed beliefs as genuine.

Yes the whole silly business is a tedious bore and has been for some years, but why are the AGW believers such fanatical and unrepentant liars? They no more believe CO2 to be dangerous than I do.

They don’t even acknowledge the jaw-dropping dishonesty of it all as they hurtle down the motorway at 80mph in a Toyota Prius before jetting off on their hols. I don’t begrudge them the modern comforts and the consumption, but why lard it with lies? Why the scams? Why the frauds? Why did science have to be thrown to the bureaucratic wolves?

Yet people still claim to believe in AGW. Businesses claim to be observing the mantras and climate change legislation hasn’t been repealed. The science is falling apart because the climate won’t play ball and politicians sense an uninterested public. Yet still the lies come.

It tells us something about ancient cults, human nature and the sneaking, alluring rhythm of the political drumbeat – not the climate.

13 comments for “The rhythm of political drums

  1. January 18, 2013 at 9:19 am

    Personally I’d rather we went back to burning witches, although I don’t suppose Harriet Harman, Germaine Greer, Jo Brand et al would approve. 😈

    • Viscount Rectum
      January 18, 2013 at 9:40 am

      Would you go down on Jo Brand for a grand?, I read that somewhere, try and smile, its all a game, its money see, money, scam scam scam.

      • January 18, 2013 at 2:11 pm

        Ten grand? Nah. And as for that other Brand.

        • Pansy Potter
          January 18, 2013 at 7:27 pm

          Even a Blowfly wouldn’t

  2. Greg Tingey
    January 18, 2013 at 12:03 pm

    NO the science has not settled again …
    GW is still with us, though the rate has slowed (a lot by the standards of such) – mostly due to the current position in the normal solar cycle.
    The concept of “error bars” soen’t seem to have percolated through to most people here, unfortunately.

    • MaryS
      January 18, 2013 at 5:25 pm

      Yes, but error bars work both ways.

      One can’t build a political movement based on ‘worst case’ then, when that doesn’t materialise, bleat that the model is still ‘correct’ because its ‘error bars’ extend to cover the actuality.

      • January 18, 2013 at 9:27 pm

        I agree.

    • johnnyrvf
      January 18, 2013 at 8:48 pm

      @Greg, for someone who claims to be in engineering you certainly do not seem to be able to read the latest data, even Hansen of NASA has stated that temperatures are at a standstill.

      • January 18, 2013 at 9:28 pm

        Yes even Hansen – which surprised me.

    • January 18, 2013 at 9:32 pm

      There is no way to extrapolate error bars for a coupled, nonlinear system such as the climate.

  3. Stonyground
    January 18, 2013 at 7:22 pm

    Why were the errors only ever in one direction? When it came to temperatures, sea level rises, atmospheric methane content etc. All were overestimated by a considerable margin in the IPCC predictions. The fact is, it is getting gradually warmer, and has been for more than a hundred years. Whether this is due to natural causes or CO2 is really impossible to tell. The thing is, on balance, this is a good thing. Why are there so many people who are determined to believe that it will be a disaster?

    • January 18, 2013 at 9:24 pm

      Exactly – as far as we can tell, past warming has been good news. As one would expect.

    • JonP
      January 19, 2013 at 10:19 am

      “Why are there so many people who are determined to believe that it will be a disaster?”.

      Because the models suggest a rise in sea levels, increased desertification and more extreme weather. Of course the accuracy of the models is, um, ahem, yeah, questionable.

      However, even the ‘moderately bad’ cases will likely have an adverse affect on the human population. Which some days I think wouldn’t be a bad thing… 👿

Comments are closed.