Tory MEP hosts “climate sceptics’” conference

After Lansley campaigns against local wind farm, Tory MEP host climate sceptics' conference in Brussels: http://bit.ly/15968r

… for the full story (a Tory MEP is hosting a climate change denial conference) check out @leftfootfwd http://bit.ly/15968r

It’s called having a reasoned debate. Get over it.

Great minds . . . I posted up on the very same event last night. Hopefully you’ll find it complements your piece.
http://takingoutthetrash.typepad.co.uk/taking_out_the_trash/2009/11/ideas-above-your-station.html

And the reason we would take anything John Prescott says seriously is?

LOL! Are you serious? 2 Jags Prescott? Presuming to lecture us from a Beijing bolthole?

There’s one reason why politicians like Green politics, it’s because it’s a Trojan Horse for government intervention:

http://theorator2009.blogspot.com/2009/11/watermelon-environmentalists-get-new.html

James Delingpole is listed at the conference as Dr James Delingpole even though he doesn’t appear to have earnt or been awarded such a title.
And the other bloke talking about the media is in the school of sports sciences at Liverpool John Moores.
A formidable line-up indeed.

And you, PhilC, are a Dad, freelance journalist and communications consultant, parish councillor, Arsenal fan. Do I need to listen to your bleatings?

Hmmmm. A conference with Fred Singer, that paragon of impartiality (being a former consultant to Exxon, Shell and Sun Oil).

Was he the same Fred Singer who was paid by big tobacco to say that passive smoking doesn’t cause cancer. That Fred Singer, right?

A recent Guardian poll showed that voters think Cameron is more likely to take “tough” decisions than Brown. Let’s see if he is tough enough to denounce his own dangerous and delusional deniers on this all-important issue. Oh, and “Orator”, you don’t need to take John Prescott “seriously” but you should take the scientific consensus seriously.

Mehdi – scientific consensus only by those on the IPCC payroll. Everything is speculative – there is no evidence that man made CO2 causes global warming.

If you are so sure that climate change is man made why not let open debate take place?

Next you will be saying the moon landings were faked!

No one reads the Guardian anyway.

The Orator: only when I talk about Arsenal.

Isn’t it good that the deniers have their conferences? They are talking to fellow deniers so it’s not as if their nonsense will influence anyone else.

On the plus side these conferences smokes ‘em out so we can see who the deniers are.

[...] Left Foot Forward blog, which highlighted the conference, adds: The climate sceptics conference comes in the same [...]

Richard Blogger – when did it become a crime to hold an opinion that’s different to yours?

Talk about control freak attitudes guys – I thought this was a blog for progressives.

There is a lot of scientific opinion that man made CO2 causes global warming and not a single iota of proof.

When Maggie Thatcher invented this phenomenon she should have considered its consequences and not used it just to smash the unions.

Anon,

Debate is all well and good but it should be put in context. People are entitled to believe that God created the world in seven days about 6,000 years ago, but the scientific community is equally entitled to call them evolution deniers. The same is true in relation to climate change. As our update shows, the conference in Brussels was hardly full of peer-reviewed scientists.

In relation to the IPCC, the process takes the existing peer-reviewed work of scientists in relevant fields, and formulates a consensus view from it. The whole process is open and all the wrangling over specific points is published.

The IPCC process produces material that is a peer reviewed consensus of peer-reviewed material from the scientific community. So all the most authoritative individual scientists will have contributed, first by writing their own papers (which are peer reviewed), and then probably by participating in the consensus process which reviews those papers.

More here: http://blogs.abc.net.au/events/2009/11/conspiracies-and-the-ipcc.html

Suggesting that the IPCC was a stitch-up, or a conspiracy to produce a specific result, is akin to suggesting that the whole scientific community plus all world governments (incl Saudia Arabia, the US) were in on it. That doesn’t strike me as plausible.

Of course there’s uncertainty but that doesn’t make it speculative. Not that this will convince you but the IPCC say there’s greater than a 90% chance that climate change is man-made.

All the best,

Will

Will – this is a cyclic discussion and we both know that there is not a single scrap of evidence, none that climate change occurs due to man made CO2.

You talk about “peer reviewed scientists” but since the majority of people in this country do not believe this phenomenon exists then why should a paper that is peer reviewed have any more credence than one that is not?

Both are baloney to the silent majority who simply believe the whole thing is made up nonsense.

When evidence that CO2 is absorbed more than is ‘speculated’ by the planet and this evidence is from ice cores and not “peer reviewed speculation” it is completely ignored.

As progressives why aren’t you demanding the evidence to support your (flawed) case? Is there not a thirst for the truth by progressives?

I put back to you Will that if the minority view of (man made) CO2 causing global warming was truly believed then this government wouldn’t have approved either the third runway at Heathrow or coal fired powered stations. And please don’t mention “Carbon Capture” which is just an excuse to go ahead with the builds – it doesn’t exist. Like Mandelsons electric cars really.

If people believed your “evidence free” case of global warming they would have rioted about runway 3. If the silly alarmist comments by people were to be believed we would all be in a blind panic.

So either (man made) CO2 causes global warming in which case no Runway 3 or the government, like the majority of people in Britain, know it not to be true and go ahead.

I simply refuse to believe that if the government believed this pathetic “56 days to save the world” and other such nonsense they would not go ahead with expanding motorways, airports and power stations.

They would not be able to sleep if they believed they were irresponsibly risking “the survival of the species” by their actions.

Show me the evidence Will and I may join the minority view espoused here but in the meantime I’m afraid common sense has to prevail.

Tory climate change deniers http://www.leftfootforward.org/2009/11/tory-mep-host-climate-sceptics-conference/

Will – I’ve just read http://blogs.abc.net.au/events/2009/11/conspiracies-and-the-ipcc.html.

It ends with a frankly rewriting of what adds up to evidence with waffle about peer reviews and stuff – all to further the flawed case. The last comment is bizarre – since when “Has the idea been built upon to create new understanding” been the same as scientific fact.

New understanding of what? Show me the evidence of (man made) global warming.

I drop an apple, it falls to the ground. The effect is caused by gravity but the climate-change-brigade want me to believe it’s some other worldly super force that can’t be proved and because they have others that agree with them I have to suspend reality and accept what they say is true?

That’s what you are asking people to do when most just believe it’s gravity.

This psycho-babble-mumbo-jumbo is then adopted by governments desperate to show the people we have a reason to spend money on them because they can “Save the banks”, “Save the planet”, “Take on the big decisions”, “Get on with the job” blah blah blah

If the climate change lobby didn’t advocate extra taxes, which they always do, I might believe them. I remember Question Time when it was revealed that Polly Toynbee flew to her villa in Italy every month. After her constant climate change drivel over the years what would she do that? Would Al Gore fly anywhere if he really believed it might kill his grandchildren? I think not.

Anon E Mouse. How do we prove evolution apart from collecting information over hundred and thousands of years. Still people believe in creationism. Climate change has only been relevant over the past 10 years, and as science progresses we will understand more from it. Surely, even if we’re not changing the face of the earth by constantly trying to control nature, we must understand that recycling and looking after our planet is much more natural and rewarding than sat in a 12litre Hummer jeep burning more fuel than the planet can possibly keep up with.
It’s like the Japanese’s love of endangered fish. They won’t last forever, so do we milk it dry, or try and preserve it? There’s too many sceptics out there. To many people who don’t seem to care or try to understand. How do we convince these that life can actually be a really great thing and our inconsiderate lifestyles do eventually need to change??

Ian – Let me start by saying that I recycle everything I can, drive only to work – do the lot. I have x10 in my house with modified magnetic latching relays, my own mod as it happens and they use zero electricity when they are off.

I compost, lights off when not in a room, the works. At work we have modified our industrial unit to split the lights 8 ways blah blah (Our EON electricity bill is down to half what it was) you get the point. I’m so obsessional on saving water, electricity and fuel you wouldn’t believe it – I’ve been described as a crank.

But I see no evidence or any proof that (man made) CO2 is causing global warming. The science simply does not exist and as a realist I will not accept it unless those purporting to be right in their views stop preaching their unproven opinions at me – especially when taxes on flights and stuff simply go to the treasury to help this hopeless government and not on “green” projects.

I also dislike the assumption that people who do not behave in a way these people advocate are in some way less virtuous. They are not and in the face of the lack of evidence of (man made) CO2 causing global warming that assumption is without merit.

When I see Sting flying around the world in a private jet whilst banging on about climate change and the rain-forests it makes me weep.

Anon.
Fair point. I understand completely. I have friends (amazingly) who preach this that and the next and in reality are a walking contradiction. When we get celebrities who more than likely preach this stuff to make themselves look good, then (like U2) spend millions of pounds transporting a stage and all their equipment to play a virtual 3D gig around the world defeats the whole point in caring in the first place.
But like I said, I find people who believe in creationism frighteningly single minded and in some ways I put them in the same boat as climate change sceptics. Surely science is there to prove things, and although it can’t prove everything just yet, we shouldn’t let politics and pathetic journalism get in the way of growing evidence. But like you say, is there any evidence to say CO2 is destroying the planet? It’s safe to say our over population and ridiculous consumer lifestyles are really not helping. Surely we can’t keep taking things from the planet and expect it to keep giving. Our questioning of this whole carbon emissions problem just goes to show how much trust we have in our government, who in my eyes, hasn’t done so bad, but we’ll see.

Ian – agree with you on almost everything except the last line

haha, the more i think about it, the more i question my own reasoning.

Richard Blogger – when did it become a crime to hold an opinion that’s different to yours?

I am a scientist (semiconductor physics, in case you ask). In science you measure things and formulate theories, then you public your results in peer reviewed journals. Your peers point out any issues. This allows scientists to refine their work. There is no belief or opinions, just science.

The deniers almost to a man is working on “belief”, not on science. Now you may come back and say that there are other theories, and I will acknowledge that. I have worked in areas with conflicting theories, and this encourages more work to determine which theory is right.

The deniers are not scientists (Helmer, Lawson, Delingpole, where are the science degrees, what actual scientific research have they done?), their opinions are faith-based. I don’t do faith, I do science.

Well said, Richard Blogger. I’m bored of hearing uninformed & dogmatic opinions on climate change from people who have absolutely no scientific qualifications.

Richard Blogger – when did it become a crime to hold an opinion that’s different to yours? Same question – you didn’t answer it above.

Semiconductor physics has nothing to do with Climate Change – I’m an electronics design engineer with qualifications in marine engineering – so what?

You clearly “don’t do science” Richard, if you did you would explain why the world gets colder and why the flawed science (it’s only opinion) does not include solar radiation, planet absorption of CO2, the O3 depletion in the ozone layer, natural effects of the planet and on and on.

As a person involved in a job involving engineering you should know better I’m afraid.

Henry – Since Richard Blogger states clearly he is not a scientist involved in this and has no applicable skillset here why waste bandwidth with that pointless comment?

Come on Anon, not all science is based on the way the planet functions but it’s safe to say physics is classed as a science. What if he has a science degree? Would Richard Blogger then be able to unlock this mystery? You seem so sure, and seem to be almost preaching, that our climate change/CO2 issue isn’t man made. Fair enough, but where’s you evidence for that side of the argument. Neither can be proved yet as we have no complete evidence from REAL scientists, so maybe you’re getting ahead of yourself. I’m a graphic designer, so why should i have any opinion on such matters anyway? I’m not a scientist.

Ian – the point I make is that without a scrap of evidence the public are immediately taxed on the basis of flawed science.

El Nino and La Nina are ignored by these “climate-change-experts”. If you email them they say that doesn’t affect the overall climate. What kind of answer is that?

My point about Richard Blogger is that as an engineer/physicist/scientist – whatever, he should have proof before giving a definitive answer.

He doesn’t know – no one does for certain and therefore he should say:

“Since there is no evidence to prove the case, I have studied the available scientific opinions and with the following caveats (eg the heat from the sun is not included etc) it is my belief that man made CO2 may cause global warming”.

Anything else cannot be stated and with a discipline employed by a engineer/physicist/scientist he is being disingenuous if he claims otherwise.

I guess Richard was just stating that without any scientific facts everything is just theory. Some people go on faith, and believe only in what they feel is right (which is a very stupid). When we have people who openly deny global warming, without facts, it breeds issues of trust and our basic human rights become questionable.
I completely understand what you mean though. If we are given no evidence then what are we supposed to believe? The only opinion of the matter I have is that I find it frustrating we are having CO2 emissions adverts on TV, some of which are a bit shocking, and a majority of the people in the country will not even question the motives.

Ian – I’m not deliberately being awkward and I hate pollution and wastage generally.

I “want” to believe that man made CO2 causes Global Warming so I can bang on at the government about the Heathrow Runway and stuff but I find nothing compelling so far.

Irrespective of Global Warming we should reduce our use of non renewable fuels big time. I live in Wales so let’s have the Severn barrage to give the locals jobs and generate free electricity. The views on the river (one of the local objections) are surely destroyed by the two bridges anyway.

Tidal energy as well – we are an island for goodness sake and the technology is submerged!

Crazy days Ian. Have a good weekend man.

I’ve been doing something more important but just got back.

Anon you deliberately misunderstood me. I never said that I was a climate scientist nor ever done any climate science (but I know a man who does…). I like to do experiments in a laboratory, where it is nice and warm. The climate scientists just like standing in the rain. ::grin:: I was explaining to you how science works, and then pointing out that Helmer’s little knees up is not science, it is essentially a support group.

Anyway, if you want a chuckle have a look at Delingpole’s blog. He’s now straying into delusional territory here, but who knows, maybe there really is a huge conspiracy. As I said upthread, I work on evidence, so I am waiting to see how this pans out.

Richard Blogger – All I said was that I am not interested in scientific opinion just fact. I was not directly criticising you I just said:

“Since there is no evidence to prove the case, I have studied the available scientific opinions and with the following caveats (eg the heat from the sun is not included etc) it is my belief that man made CO2 may cause global warming”. It is impossible to say any more than that with any accuracy.

In the Times this morning Nigel Lawson argues it is cruel to poor countries to enforce more expensive forms of energy on them – I dislike the Nottinghill set type of people forcing their views on me, especially when there is no evidence of (man made)CO2 causing global warming.

Worse is the CRU and these emails that show how the data is being faked to show rising temperatures (they have to be faked since the planet keeps getting colder), no access to the raw data allowed(?), refusing FOI requests and preventing scientists who disagree with them getting papers published.

This whole thing stinks of censorship which is why this site will fail to feature the CRU thing in an article because to me being “progressive” means stamping on dissent even in the face of actual evidence rather than opinion.

Anon, how do you know the planet is getting colder? I understand the frustration of lack of proper information though. I just want to see us use more efficient energy sources. There are apparently no solar panels in Dubai, and considering this is almost a desert with constant sunshine, it’s ridiculous. I think overall we are a very stupid race and we can’t keep taking from this planet. This is opinion though, not scientific fact!!

Ian – “At present, however, the warming is taking a break,” confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany’s best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. “There can be no argument about that,” he says. “We have to face that fact.”

Let’s see how long it takes to smear and lie about his character…

Told you they were fiddling the data.

Forget the emails. Anyone who writes computer programs in a high level language, such as C, puts in comments to remind themselves of what the code is dong and to allow future programmers to make changes to the code.

There are two files normally generated, a “Source Code” file (where the comments are) and the compiled file or “Object” (.obj) file or .asm file.

(I’m a 1980′s Z80 man so this may be dated but you get the point)

The file, after compiling, has the comments and other stuff removed and it is basically (no pun there) the “computer code” for the machine to run on.

So the climate change programmer has left his comments here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/

Personally since they don’t include the effects of the sun I can’t take the data seriously but I’m surprised that this terrific blog, being progressive as it claims, hasn’t picked up on this.

[...] recently hosted a “climate sceptics” conference in Brussels, which featured Nigel Lawson’s protege Benny [...]

[...] to vote for Zahradil were the darlings of the Tory far-right and climate change denial gang – Roger Helmer and Dan [...]