I hope Umbongo will forgive my posting his comment here, but it’s rather good. The glee with which criticism of The Great Global Warming Swindle was publicised by the BBC was noted, for instance here on EURef. Little wonder then that this point of view is amplified and repeated, just in case we missed it (actually, I think we did fail to mention it “up top” so to speak…), today on the BBC:
For her the “closely argued” and consensually accepted truth of the Gore film (although she admits that in a court of law – ah you see where she’s coming from – some of the “facts” were found to be . . . er . . lies) is contrasted with the outpourings of a “vocal tiny minority” through the Channel 4 documentary. She doesn’t claim that any of the facts contradicting AGW in the “Swindle” were lies but relies on the finding that the warmist scientists quoted/interviewed were misled into taking part in a polemic. She likes polemics but not if they contradict her “truth”. So we have on TV a simulacrum of (to her) the discredited English system of getting at “legal” truth opposed by her preferred “false but accurate” argument of the BBC impartiality mind-set of which she is such an enthusiastic proponent. She closed the programme by wondering if the vocal non-consenting minorities should (a la Hansen) be silenced – if not prosecuted – for daring to oppose the consensus.
Lisa Jardine is the daughter of Jacob Bronowski. The final image of Dr B, in his “Ascent of Man”, standing in the mud at Auschwitz is implanted in my brain. He wept and said that Auschwitz and, by implication, all the other hell-holes constructed by Man, is the unavoidable destination reached by the denial and silencing of truth. Were he still alive I don’t think Dr B would be proud of his daughter.”
It may be bad manners to quote oneself, but I can’t put it better (with a minor sub) than I did earlier this week, when I said inter alia:
“The irony of being lectured on the perils of AGW by a Professor of Renaissance Studies, who seeks to silence the voices of scientific dissent, seemed lost on the BBC, as certainly it was on la Jardine.
Equally certainly, the irony of the daughter of two noted Jewish academics who sought intellectual freedom in England, being a vocal supporter of silencing academic freedom, is less uncomfortable than it is, frankly, disgusting.”
ET
“I hope Umbongo will forgive my posting . . ”
I’m flattered – you are forgiven.
I heard the Jardine prog on Friday and again this morning. To be fair – she does at least admit that there are SOME dissenters. And she reminded listeners that the High Court had found that the earlier Al Gore “documentary” was false in some respects.
But her comclusion was wrong – that there is only a TINY MINORITY of dissenters, that there is a strong consensus – and that we should be panicked into urgent action – with no reference to the huge economic impact of such action.
GCooper:
Equally certainly, the irony of the daughter of two noted Jewish academics who sought intellectual freedom in England, being a vocal supporter of silencing academic freedom, is less uncomfortable than it is, frankly, disgusting.”
GCooper | 03.08.08 – 1:16 pm | #
—————————————————–
Actually I find it not so much uncomfortable as donwright frightening, tbh. It’s a pov I’m seeing much more from those who embrace and believe MMGW towards those who show any degree of scepticism towards it.
The fascists are on the march again, but this time their uniforms are green…
The fascists are on the march again, but this time their uniforms are green…
Sutekh | 03.08.08 – 2:23 pm | #
Quite right.
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
Lurker in a Burqua – Thanks for the link, I have been looking for a site with reference material.
They mention the US west as record cold this year – the first I’ve seen posted of reality. I live in the high desert, I have slippers on my feet right now, and my garden looks like it should in June. No pickles this year 🙁
GCooper,
Many of the Jewish intellectuals that fled Europe were also leftists,viz Miliband’s forebears.
A large number of Jewish Intellectuals drove the Russian revolution.
So not that surprising really.
Lisa Jardine is a hypocrite – she argues about the loss of civil liberties – when they suit her cause.
“It was not until the end of the seventeenth century, by a slow process, during and after the English Civil Wars, that the civil liberties fatally undermined during the Age of Elizabeth began gradually to be restored. It took until the nineteenth century for the individual human rights we take for granted to become fully enshrined in law.
The process by which people who are alleged to have committed offences against the state are brought to court, so that the allegations against them can be properly examined, has been honed over centuries. Once dismantled, due process of the law will take centuries to rebuild.
If, in order to be able to detain those we suspect of intending harm, we reduce, for the time being, the long-established methods of accumulating evidence and establishing the burden of proof, how will we be able, at some future date, to reinstate them? How long will it take our children and our grandchildren to recognise the importance of what has been lost, to recover and reinstate the rights we freely gave away? ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5159022.stm
Free speech is also a civil liberty.
JohnA says “..she reminded listeners that the High Court had found that the earlier Al Gore “documentary” was false in some respects.”
Yes, but she prefaced this remark by saying “Although Gore’s film is scrupulously argued and illustrated,…”. Is the word “scrupulous” here the same one defined by the Cambridge dictionary as “extremely honest”, or is it another word entirely?
The tragedy is, of course,that the Warmeristas are pursuing the wrong problem, advocating the wrong solutions.
We are heading for power shortages,just as it is getting cooler. Whilst this may not be equivalent to the genocide of the Kulaks,many will perish in Two Thousand and Frozen to Death.
Gore wasn’t scrupulous about polar bears which can swim for well over a hundred miles.
I wonder what her father would think of her?
“Independence, originality, and therefore dissent: these words show the progress, they stamp the character of our civilization as once they did that of Athens in flower. From Luther in 1517 to Spinoza grinding lenses, from Hugenot weavers and Quaker ironmasters to the Puritans founding Harvard, and from Newton’s religious heresies to the calculated universe of Eddington, the profound movements of history have begun by unconforming men. Dissent is the native activity of the scientist, and it has got him into a good deal of trouble in the last ten years. But if that is cut off, what is left will not be a scientist. And I doubt whether it will be a man. For dissent is also native in any society which is still growing. Has there ever been a society that has died of dissent? Several have died of conformity in our lifetime.” [Jacob Bronowski’s Science and Human Values]
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/scientific_values_the_sense_of_human_dignity-print.php
Okay, first off I’m NOT a leftie. Honest. BUT:
It’s worth pointing out that the Al Gore court case found that many facts were assumptions taken as fact — not “lies”. Such as the snows of Kilimanjaro receding. This is “probably” due to climate change, but not even the IPCC can prove it’s due to man-made damage. There was no intention to mislead here – the Gore-meister believed what he was saying. The Channel 4 documentary INTENTIONALLY lied about climate change. WHY? Because they thought up the title and based their programme around it… and couldn’t find any CREDIBLE scientists to denounce it as a sham, so they had to misquote a bunch of non-sceptics.
And before anyone points out that my opening line was a fib, please believe me when I say you don’t have to be a leftie to believe we are destroying our planet.
Not sure why there is such dissent on this matter. Saying climate change isn’t real because there are “still questions” is like Creationists saying evolution isn’t real simply because no one has found “a fossil representing every single stage for every mammal ever evolved”.
The very fact that so many of the world’s scientists agree on the subject surely excuses the BBC’s stance on day-to-day reporting. I have yet to see a convincing report denying climate change. Figures here and there, some minor anomolies, but essentially those reports I HAVE read seem to omit and ignore the essential facts from the IPCC.
Sceptic: “Ah, but my back yard is far cooler this summer than five years ago.”
IPCC: “Because it’s not ABOUT your back yard. It’s about sea and atmospheric temperatures… which is why some sceptics’ figures show a cooling atmostphere — the readings are taken from the wrong place…”
Sceptic: “Ah, but what about THIS other piece of poorly-researched nonsense I read on the internet…”
Climate change is fast becoming a big stick that the polorised factions of the west are hitting each other with. The “right” deny it exists FOR THE SOLE REASON of it being the “lefties” that cheer-lead the subject. Denounce their ideas and suddently “the right”‘s ideas look rosey. And vice versa – prove “the right” are a bunch of nutters and it’s leftie ideas that look great.
Time to grow up, I’m afraid. Rather than looking for ways to prove climate change is false, why not look objectively? It’s only the planet after all.
NB, I know the BBC and other media outlets like to blame EVERY weather or nature foible on climate change – which is very annoying even to me – but the bigger picture is what’s important IMO.
The very fact that so many of the world’s scientists agree on the subject surely excuses the BBC’s stance on day-to-day reporting.”
OK name them.
Here are some credible scientists – who don’t sign up to yours or the BBCs consensus.
“The following individuals, all well-trained in science and technology or climate change-related economics and policy, have allowed their names to be listed as endorsing the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change: ”
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=62&Itemid=1
Re. Al Bore: What qualifications does he have again?
“The very fact that so many of the world’s scientists agree on the subject surely excuses the BBC’s stance on day-to-day reporting”
That would be metallurgists,neurologists etc, and all the disciplines which have no connection to climate?
As for lefties being wrong,just look at the disasters of socialism in the 20th century.
No chum,we know from experience what a balls up Scientific Socialism causes.
The Blessed Algore flunked divinity college.
“Sceptic: “Ah, but my back yard is far cooler this summer than five years ago.”
IPCC: “Because it’s not ABOUT your back yard. It’s about sea and atmospheric temperatures… which is why some sceptics’ figures show a cooling atmostphere — the readings are taken from the wrong place…”
You should really be consistent if this is your argument – because the “temperatures” the IPCC use are also flawed. They do not use temperatures taken by satellites, but mainly US ground based temperatures which are subjected to the ‘heat island’ effect.
And if you think that 1,000s of scientists contributed to the IPCC report on “the cause of climate change”, you are living in Roger Harribins world.
“An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”
In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.”
http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2007/12/15/the-un-climate-change-numbers-hoax/
If it were left to the IPCC and the BBC – the ‘Hockey Stick’ which was the basis for the AGW theory would not have been questioned.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3021
The climate changes all the time, has always changed will always change, unti the planet blows up in two billion years.
The left has found something bigger than man, since they killed God, and it’s a planet. Now, this planet is not going to be allowed to get a way with being bigger than man! Man effects it, by golly. This planet is not going to turn without man in control, somehow effecting the whole…
Sort of like a two years old’s egocentrism, only on prozac.
Just as the left rolled its sleeves up to tackle Global Warming the Arctic ice starts growing.Polar bears begin frolicking and fornicating,Algore slinks back to his lavishly lit and heated home.
Speaking of which Pete, are you accusing the jews of masterminding the Russian revolution?
Mailman
i heard it too.
and the “tiny minority” of dissenters bit really made my ears prick up.
god – some of these ecofascists really do live in la-la land.
but then, thats not surprising is it?
“The fascists are on the march again, but this time their uniforms are green…
Sutekh | 03.08.08 – 2:23 pm”
you might find this surprising, but the original fascists were actually green.
green ideas were crucial to the central ideas on “lebensraum” and the “Aryan race”. For example, it was envisaged by Hitler and Himmler that S.S. soldiers would, after the war, settle on the land in the Ukraine and Poland and become farmers.
“Mailman | 03.08.08 – 5:59 pm”
the argument is somewhat valid – but it only tells part of the story. the reason why there were so many Jewish intellectuals in the first place is historical – Jews were excluded from membership of any of the trade guilds in the Middle Ages, with the result that they could only go into non-guild work – of which banking and money lending was one.
As history progressed, because of the industrial revolution, some Jewish families came into immense wealth because of banking , whilst of course the traditional Guilds were impoverished.
Thus, if you have immense wealth , then its logical that your offspring will have enough finance to funded more intellectual pursuits. such as politics, or science.
Elders of Zion it aint. its more a fluke of history.
Mailman,
Apart from the Founding Fathers of Communism,Marx and Engels,there have been many Jews in the Communist Movement.As for the Russian Revolution,I suggest you note the number of Jewish Party members purged in Stalin’s Terror.
Simply an historical fact.
“Although Gore’s film is scrupulously argued and illustrated,…”
Except for the illustrations that use fake CGI footage from the awful movie, “The Day After Tomorrow.”
That’s right folk. Al Goreful inserted computer generated images of the faked “Ice Sheet” fakely melting.
AL GORE (FORMER UNITED STATES VICE PRESIDENT)
And if you were flying over it in a helicopter, you’d see it’s 700 feet tall. They are so majestic.
SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS)
(Voiceover) Wait a minute, that shot looks just like the one in the opening credits of ‘The Day After Tomorrow.”
KAREN GOULEKAS (VISUAL EFFECTS SUPERVISOR
Yeah, that’s, that’s our shot. That’s a fully computer generated shot. There’s nothing real in there.
Scrupulous my arse, lady.
“Peter | 03.08.08 – 7:17 pm”
well, stalin was an ex-seminarian in the Orthodox church. and theres a strong streak of anti-semitism in the later USSR.
its no wonder that theres a heck of a lot of Russian Jews living in Israel.
I have found that those considered as ‘intellectuals’ are actually idiots who are incapable of wiring a plug or changing oil in a car. David Miliband comes to mind – he did, after all, fail his A-level physics yet presumes to lecture us on ‘global warming’. Yes, Miliband is an ‘intellectual’ indeed.
archbishop of canterbury is another “intellectual”…
if you havent heard of this, its worth bookmarking.
useful ammo against the ecofascists.
the carl sagan “baloney detection kit”
http://users.tpg.com.au/horsts/baloney.html
Archduke,
This I know,it just gives an indication that there was a substantial Jewish membership of the Soviet Communist Party,which supports my statement that it is not surprising Ms Jardine holds holds extremist views.No doubt her father would have kicked her arse up and down Islington,but obviously her heritage has not imnunised her.
I also find it remarkable that the “we are all hezbollah” crowd overlooked the fact that the Olmert government was actually a left wing socialist one…
i guess that left wing israelis have been left dumbfounded and scratching their heads at that… Israel is after all the land of the ultimate communist ideal – the Kibbutz…
my guess is that they are now pulling the drawbridge up and realising that the left in Europe are NOT to be trusted at all. and i dont blame them.
“my guess is that they are now pulling the drawbridge up and realising that the left in Europe are NOT to be trusted at all. and i dont blame them.”
Well the Nazis and the Fadcists were both left wing parties.The EU is a Fascist construct,central social control,capitalist industry.
Several commenters have drawn parallels between ‘Greens’ and the Nazi movement.
Anyone wanting to read an interesting exploration of the subject could do worse than visit:
http://www.ecofascism.com/review11.html
As for DA’s contribution to the discussion, s/he falls into the common trap of having allowed her/himself to be force-fed untruths.
There is no consensus, as the following very carefully explains:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/consensus_what_consensus_among_climate_scientists_the_debate_is_not_over.html
GCooper | 03.08.08 – 8:34 pm |
Good link – it is this idea of a “consensus” that is stifling debate – I one wrote to David Cameron about his stupid endorsement of “green issues” and pointing him in the direction of some eminent climate scientists such as Dr Vincent Gray and others who disagreed with the CO2 hypothesis. His answer was that “there was a consensus” on AGW, that was it. There was no argument put forward to try and substantiate this.
The problem is people use this so-called “consensus” because they cannot think for themselves, – yet when I asked him to tell me who are all these scientists who subscribe to this consensus – he was silent.
It really worries me that politicians seem to be towing this line – not out of conviction, but out of fear of what the left wing elite at the BBC will call them.
archduke: just read the Carl Sagan link you helpfully provided, and came across the following:
“An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public”
Surely politicians would never do something so slippery and cynical? Next you’ll be telling me that the rejected European Constitution has been rebranded as the “Reform Treaty” in order to hoodwink the public!
And that can’t be true, because if it really were something so important to our future, then Mr Brown’s refusal to let us have a say on its adoption or rejection would make him a disgusting, immoral coward and bully, and an enemy to anyone who believes in democracy in its true sense.
The truth is that the “consensus” is only among politicians and left wing “scientists”
“Academician Kapitsa denounced the Kyoto Protocol as “the biggest ever scientific fraud.” The pact was lobbied by European politicians and industrialists, critics say, in order to improve the competitiveness of European products and slow down economic growth in emerging economies. “The European Union pushed through the Kyoto Protocol in order to reduce the competitive edge of the U.S. and other countries where ecological standards are less stringent than in Europe,” says ecologist Sergei Golubchikov.
Russian scientists deny that the Kyoto Protocol reflects a consensus view of the world scientific community. Academician Kapitsa complains that opponents of the man-caused global warming are routinely denied the floor at international climate forums.
“A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace,” the scientist says. “As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”
http://www.hindu.com/2008/07/10/stories/2008071055521000.htm
You wouldn’t get Harribin to report this though.
From GCooper’s link:
“David Miliband, the Environment Minister of the United Kingdom, was greeted by cries of “Rubbish!” when he told a conference on climate change at the Holy See in the spring of 2007 that the science of climate and carbon dioxide was simple and settled. ”
Remember, this clown – aka ‘brains’ by his colleagues – failed his A-level physics. He did get a first in PPE (the bluffer’s degree) at Oxford but: physics is a subject at school where answers are right or wrong, whereas the syllabus of PPE examinse the manner in which an argument is put irrespective of factual correctness, and Miliband is capable of arguing any shite as we see daily.
Jon is clearly right. The use of ‘consensus’ (which is meaningless in a scientific context) is simply used to shut-down debate. It’s the same tactic as the war-cry ‘The debate is over…’.
The Warmists at the centre of this hoax are almost certainly aware of the growing number of holes in their theory and the equally growing voice of dissent. The best they can hope to do is stifle that voice.
Politicians (only ever interested in seizing and wielding power) aren’t interested in facts – they simply want to say whatever they need to say to get where they want to be. In power.
So, if the public is brainwashed into a certain point of view (it doesn’t have to be AGW – there are others) then the politicians will give the public what it wants.
How that opinion is foisted onto the public in the first place is the real art – and that is where the Left’s policy of entryism has served it so well. Because the Left has taken control of both education and the media it has public opinion more or less where it wants it most of the time.
Opinion polls (in so far as they can ever be believed) suggest the Left hasn’t done a particularly good job of brainwashing the public on AGW yet but it certainly has most of the West’s politicians duped (‘solutions’ to AGW require power – they flatter the political ego).
None the less, they aren’t giving up on AGW, and need to be opposed at every turn because they seem determined to steamroller it through into mass received wisdom, come what may.
“Scientific Consensus,the science is settled” is the bastard child of Marxist “Inevitability”. Rape is inevitable so lie back and enjoy it.
Gollum Miliband ,he who imposed the fortnightly bin collections,is a shifty little git and he will do anything for power.
I think the last time we had such a large scientific ‘consensus’ was around 1998 – 1999. Anyone remember Y2K and the end of the world as we know it?
Lot’s of red faces on Jan 1 2000.
Global Warming smells very similar to me.
Nothing like hearing a professor of English literature lecturing on climate change.
Devils advocate says “im not a lefty” and then goes on to mimic the political ideals of the socialists and the greens to a tee!
When is a lie NOT a lie?
Why when it is an “assumption taken as a fact”!
Whaaaat? Orwells big brother would be proud of that little gem! A lie is ALWAYS a lie when the real truth is readily available and known yet ignored to portray an opinion(the legal defintion is FRAUD)! Al(dont confuse me with the facts)Gore had the same access to the known facts as the IPCC and yet like them he still chose to ignore any inconvenient facts and findings to ‘guild his political lilly’ as it were!
You gotta hand it to the eco mentalists, they manipulate words like a card shark handles a bent deck!
Allan@Oslo:
“David Miliband comes to mind – he did, after all, fail his A-level physics yet presumes to lecture us on ‘global warming’.”
He didn’t fail A-level physics. He got a grade D, which is a respectable Pass (50-59%).
A grade D was 40 – 49% which is less than 50% and is a fail. Banding at the time when Miliband and I sat our exams was: A, 70 – 100; B, 60 – 70; C, 50 – 60; and D as stated. So Miliband failed his physics.
Allan@Oslo:
“A grade D was 40 – 49% which is less than 50% and is a fail.”
You are wrong. My brother took A-level Physics in the same year as David Miliband. He PASSED with a Grade D. He says that a Grade E would also have been a pass. That was the University of London Examinations Board. Since Miliband was at a state school in London it is likely that his was the same. Maybe yours was a different examination board.
Bless. Arguing over the, er, merits, of passing anything with a grade… D.
I almost missed Uni with 2 A’s and a B. Mind you, it was Civil Engineering.
But I guess, as with brothers and Milibands, everything is relative these days.
“He didn’t fail A-level physics. He got a grade D, which is a respectable Pass (50-59%).
pedant | 04.08.08 – 10:34 am | #”
I guess we’ll have to disagree over the respectability of a grade “D” in anything. One grade above an “F”.
Sure that’s SO impressive… at the local Jobseekers.
One grade above an “F”.
Hmmm In my day one grdae above an F was actually an E, but then in my day you needed nothing less than real ABB to get into a proper university.