What a difference a week makes

Deniers continue to say science is disputed when it isn't and suggest the Pope has been misled when he hasn't been.

Lord Deben, 17 June 2015

When people know they've lost the argument they get desperate & rude.

Lord Deben, 24 June 2015

Comments

[Salopian]

No disrespect to the Catholics who frequent this site, but why is it that senior ministers of the likes of Bliar, Gummer and Widdecombe seem to feel the need to convert to Catholicism as soon as they get booted out of office. Are they getting some special Papal discount on Purgatory for switching sides, or are they just hedging their bets and hoping their crimes don't catch up with them?

[golf charlie]

Salopian, it could be something to do with the regular Confessionals. 5 minutes a week, for 52 weeks a year should get most of them cleared within 10 years, once they are out of political office.

[logiebored]

Salopian

I agree about the other two, but I'd be interested to know what crime Ann Widdecombe has committed? She's always been sound on most issues, especially climate change.

[Ross]

Alan the brit & Ted

The latest from the UK Met office is just a classic example of that great British saying --"having a bob each way"
I'd say it is further evidence that maybe the great back down has begun in earnest ( despite all the garbage we will continue to hear before Paris)

[esmiff]

The outcome of Paris is pretty certain. Europeans will continue to be required to pay more for fuel. No one else will. Most conspicuously our lords and masters in the land of the hockey stick and runaway fracking .

[golf charlie]

esmiff, maybe the consensus is fracking.

[davidchappell]

If the sun only contributes "a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming", how come the earth survived before this magical energy source appeared on the scene?

[esmiff]

golf charlie

Not in Britain. One more earthquake could lead to a great water vole extinction. You can never be too careful.

[golf charlie]

esmiff, if water voles could be trained to tunnel through rock rather than rivers, we would not need fracking, and rivers would not leak.

[Ross]

"If the sun only contributes "a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming", how come the earth survived before this magical energy source appeared on the scene?"

Good question David

[Messenger]

RE-reading the Matt Ridley article on Deben's disgraceful behaviour,.linked above, I saw this comment from RB and wondered if his challenge ever got any further?

I followed Matt Ridley's advice and submitted a detailed enquiry on the CCC website yesterday. I asked the specific points suggested by Matt plus asked why Deben refers to people who don't agree with him on Twitter as deniers. Much to my amazement I got a response today. What is less of a surprise is the content of the response which reads as follows:

"Thank you for your email regarding the Committee on Climate Change’s assessment of the recent IPCC report. It is the legal duty of the Committee to keep abreast of the evidence on the science of climate change, and to publish its assessments in this respect. This is the basis for publication of the policy note on Viscount Ridley’s nine claims, which sets out the Committee’s views on the issues raised."

I have asked CCC to respond to my specific points in view of the fact that they raise serious questions as to the integrity with which the committee is carrying out its legal obligations. I will let you all know if there is a follow up

RB

[Denialist&Co(2)]

I had the misfortune - though it was amusing, in an annoying so enjoy it type way - of spending an evening with Gummer (don't ask). Yep, he is deeply unpleasant; arrogant, high-handed as well as high minded, needs to be the centre of attention, desperate to hold forth on any matter raised (usually drawn back to God - he is a fanatic) and offensive without even realising it.

The host took me aside at one point and apologised for Gummer being there. A funny little man, odd. And odd he ever got anywhere. Apparently his son (seemed nutty as a teenager) is a good MP despite being brainwashed by his Thomas Aquinas worshipping father.

Oh, and knows the proverbial square root of shite about science or the climate. Just more hot air from the climate coterie.

[Stuart B]

@dennisa (that long history).

Yes. I think it is very important to remember we are dealing with a troika here Its constituent parts are:
(a) green zealots, secular religionists or religious scientists, depending on how you think of them;
(b) entrepreneurs in all kinds of industry, from agricultural through to heavy engineering, via services and media, who now have a large stake in a crony-value-chain; and
(c) political activists of a shady disposition, for whom the whole climate scam is just one more way of tipping society into internal conflict and self-destruction, prior to some kind of revolutionary rebuilding once we are on our knees and crippled by the contradictions we can no longer endure.

Any of these constituencies will immediately cover one another's backs if one of them is attacked. This means that scientific arguments are met by economic and/or moral rebuttals, economic arguments are met with scientific and/or moral ripostes, usw.
Although their interests are not coterminous, they are happy to collaborate to annihilate our opposition. Finding an answer to the process of defeating this network is, I think, as important as the substance of our arguments.
In this, it is formally very similar to the situation with the coming EU referendum.