Tuesday, 20 October 2009

Unequivocally Wrong

Leg-Iron posted on the "Climate Camp" at Ratcliffe on Soar power station. A greenie decided to take him to task. Not a good idea. Leg-Iron decided to reply.

The whole post is worth reading, but I'm going to focus on one part. As a former student of the History & Philosophy of Science, there is one aspect of the Climate movement that drives me utterly nutty, and Leg-Iron deals with it admirably.

First, the relevant part of the protester's comment:
- but the science is unequivocal [...], so that's why I'm doing everything I can to stop the burning of the most damaging fossil fuel - coal.
In response, Leg-Iron comments:

I qualified as a scientist in 1981. When did you qualify? Your statement that 'the science is unequivocal' is a parroting of the thoughts you have been told to think. Science, by which I mean real science, is never unequivocal. Never. All of science is open to question at all times. When you stop that process and declare that you have the Ultimate Truth and that any who oppose you are mad, you are not talking science. You are talking religious cult. Which is, I'm afraid, what you have unwittingly joined. Those are not scientist's voices you are listening to. The real scientists have been branded 'barking mad climate deniers'. Why not just call us all 'heretics'? That is the level of debate I hear from you all.

Look at the real science from the real scientists. The ice caps were retreating, but for the last few years they have been increasing year on year. The oceans are cooling, not warming. There are more polar bears now than there were thirty years ago. Those are real findings by real scientists. Why do you think your thought-controller switched you from 'global warming' to 'climate change'? It's because there is no warming. It is not happening.
Well said, Leg-Iron.


  1. The ice caps were retreating, but for the last few years they have been increasing year on year. The oceans are cooling, not warming. There are more polar bears now than there were thirty years ago.

    Where is the empirical evidence for this? I saw a map of the Arctic icecap in the newspaper last week that showed its decline over the last thirty years.

    I said to my daughter and her friend
    "Is there climate warming?"
    "Why? How do we know?"
    Reply:"The ice is melting."
    "How do you know that?"
    Reply:"There are fewer polar bears."
    "How do you know that?"
    Reply:"They are finding DEAD bodies."
    "Really. Don't polar bears die anyway?"
    Reply:"Yes, but there are more dead ones."
    "How do you know?"
    Reply:"BECAUSE they are finding them."
    "Wouldn't the bodies sink into the water? Maybe they are dying for other reasons such as less fish in the seas. Perhaps the scientists should count live ones...."
    The girls are going to try and find studies of polar bear numbers on the web. I will let you know what they come back with.

    Even the politicians appear brainwashed about climate warming and it has beneficial side effects, such as controlling consumerism without creating dissatisfaction, reducing the rate of warming if it is occurring, providing employment and diverting attention away from even more contentious issues. We have to recycle and rethink our energy strategy in any case, so is it really a thesis to be despised if it is proved wrong? I think the jury is still out, P.

  2. Btw if they are finding more dead bodies, wouldn't that mean there are more live polar bears?

    Well, not necessarily...

  3. We only started measuring polar ice recently. This led to the claim that "out of the last 3 years, 2 were the smallest ice caps on record".

    This was debunked by showing that it was (a) based on 3 years worth of measurement, and (b) the worst year was the first, the second worst was the second, and the largest ice cap was in the last year.

    Many studies have shown a reducing Arctic ice cap, by steady measurement during the first half of a calendar year. Unsurprising, really.

    A thirty year chart showing a decline is (of necessity) based on an inference from a secondary source. Most of the other secondary sources used by the climate change brigade have been debunked, sadly.

    We do indeed have to recycle and rethink our energy strategy, but we are not doing that. Instead, we are being distracted by a false concern over global warming/climate change which is preventing us from making proper decisions. One day, fossil fuels are going to run out, and it will be embarassing if we have no alternative becuase we spent all our money and effort on reducing CO2 emissions.

    Espoecially if it is *really* cold.

  4. Oh - and it's "fewer" fish.... ;-)

  5. The journal Nature is well respected so I think this is worth reading. Policies to improve recycling, secure our energy supplies and reducing CO2 emissions overlap to a great extent. I stand by my assertion that the jury is still out on climate change. However, it is a poor reflection on education that so few enjoy critical thinking, though I have seen it mentioned that this debate is being stifled in the media. .

    P, if it gets *really* cold, don't we just stay inside and keep each other warm?

  6. I'd strongly recommend this book to you, M.

    It starts from the premises that (a) global warming may or may not be happening, (b) our activities may or may not be responsible for this, (c) we may or may not be able to change that, and (d) we should err on the side of caution, and looks at what would be the best policy response.

    The author is, of course, routinely dismissed because he does not assume that (a) the science is settled and no debate is permitted, and (b) no warming of any degree muist be permitted, whatever the human and economic cost.

  7. Don't worry. The next generation will make sure we are all as green as a goblin.

    Ms Quango, aged six, asked me to turn the landing light off, which has always remained on all night to ward off monsters, when I go to bed.
    "You need to turn off the light dad. I don't want to kill all the polar bears."

    In 20 years time there won't be any other view.
    Unless we are all underwater or a desert, or died of heat stroke by then, as some have predicted.

    What happened to the big hole in the ozone that was going to fry us all by, well by about now? Aerosols and the automobile and fridges were going to be non existent by now.

  8. The odd thing about it is that while eco-warriors are all in favour of saving the planet for the sake of children as yet unborn or conceived, they tend so often to be in favour of abortion.

    Now before P tells me off, I'm making no comment here on the question of abortion (it's obvious what I think anyway), I just thought it was an inconsistency that others may find as interesting as I do.

  9. Stay on the subject of global warming and there'll be no telling -off Albert! Yes, it is an odd inconsistency, akin to the desire to rely on carbon-neutral energy sources but the desire to avoid tidal and nuclear energy.

    Bill - that is possible. Alternatively, those children might laugh heartily at us for the mass delusion into which we fell. In between cursing us for not investing in replacement energy sources, as they huddle for warmth around a bonfire of old "Stop Global Warming" leaflets... ;-)

  10. I wouldn't worry too much, iffy supply teachers were telling me about the Polar Bears and the oil running out 20 years ago.

    By now, we were all supposed to be submerged if you had listened to them (which you do when you are a kid).

    The ones that get me are the 50-something city council managers that go on about this kind of nonsense all the time (and about how they deserve their gold plated pensions) but if you visit them to go fishing, you find out they live in a 5 bedroomed country manor where the 'good' schools are and read about the 'asylum seekers' in the Daily Express they have the paperboy deliver every morning.


  11. I didn't know that tidal was frowned upon! **Apparently** there are significant developments happening in this field. Britain potentially has quite enough capacity to generate most of its power needs from the sea.

    Enviros tend to be anti technology because a lot of them really want us to live in a non-industrial society. They don't like the materialism and consumerism.

    As for CFCs they were abolished without the need to ditch fridges and aerosols. The ozone layer is growing back much more quickly than "scientists" predicted.

  12. The girls found conflicting evidence in the ten reluctant minutes they researched the subject since this time had to compete with the viewing of another episode of Desperate Housewives. It appears polar bear numbers, having fallen over the last decade, are now increasing in certain regions. (Am I right in thinking so much in life is not protrayed accurately?)

    Good comment @Blue Eyes

    Abortion concerns the rights of the individual (including that the child) so it cannot be dealt with here imho. @Albert

  13. You're absolutely right Measured, it is a question of human rights and can't be dealt with in this post. I really, honestly, wasn't raising the question here, only the inconsistency of many of those who are paid up eco-warriors.