Tuesday, 6 October 2009

DCB withdraws from Leadership Election and backs Lord Pearson

David Campbell Bannerman MEP, UKIP’s Deputy Leader and Head of Policy, has announced that he is withdrawing from the UKIP Leadership race with immediate effect, to concentrate on completing a full set of party policy papers and on writing a radical General Election manifesto that offers the British people genuine and positive change.

Commenting on his decision, David said: "With the Irish vote and the dangerous Lisbon Treaty a step nearer, and the General Election right on the horizon, I believe it is in the best interests of the party, that I should stay focused on my work as Deputy Leader and Head of Policy, which includes the launching of our remaining policy papers and on writing the next manifesto - which is a massive and critical task. I also want to continue helping with the strategic direction of the party in preparing for the General Election and our bright future beyond it.

"Though I will work harmoniously with which ever Leader the members choose, I will be giving my full support to Lord Pearson of Rannoch as the next Party Leader. I have a great deal of respect for Malcolm's brave, principled and well argued promotion of our cause in Westminster. I believe he can very effectively highlight inexcusable Tory fudges over Lisbon and the EU."

"I would like to thank the great many members who have asked me to stand, and my hard working advisers. I hope they will understand that I have always put the best interests of my country and my party first. Although this has been a difficult decision, I do believe it is the right one."

267 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 267   Newer›   Newest»
Steve Halden said...

There is some logic in having the leader of UKIP in the House of Lords where he can voice UKIP policies.

When UKIP gets MPs then the leader should be in the House of Commons.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

On 4th February 2008 in the House of Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch said that fighting climate change was a 'pointless exercise.'

Do you agree, Steve?

And would you feel proud to have someone with Lord Rannoch's understanding of climate science leading UKIP?

Libertarian said...

@Huw Peach

Have you read Prof Letif ( Chief Science advisor to IPCC) latest report in Geneva?

The climate will continue to COOL for 20 maybe 30 years and then may warm up again.

I can't speak for steve, but I certainly would prefer a party lead by someone who bothered to check their facts and to actually look at the science rather than spout a faith based mantra.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Thanks for engaging, libertarian, even if -like most climate change denialists you choose to do so from behind a pseudonym.

Would you not accept Mojib Latif's conclusion that even if temperatures temporarily stop rising, the upward trend will inevitably resume with major consequences?

Or do you just hang on to the bit of what Latif said which can be quoted out of context?

Latif has looked at the science.

He has checked the facts.

There is nothing 'faith-based' about his methods.

Why do you choose to ignore Mojib Latif's insistence that climate change is a real and pressing problem, which requires a political response?

wonkotsane said...

Huw, there's no upward trend. It's all false projections. The data is inaccurate or cherry picked and when inaccurate data is identified, the global warming propagandists refuse to change their predictions. The hockey stick has been proven to be a complete fabrication and the data used to produce it to be severely flawed. And I mean proven, not theorised. But the global warming propagandists won't revise their models because their model won't produce apocalyptic predictions.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Hmmm another anonymous climate change denier…

In another discussion with you on the same subject I pointed out that the vast majority of climate change-denying bloggers I come across on the Shropshire Star discussions forums are -like you- anonymous, wonkotsane.

Would you agree that there is a pattern forming?

By contrast most scientific institutions prefer the public sphere to the shadows.

Like Mojib Latif, these institutions have issued very public statements outlining just how serious climate change is.

Do you think a blogger’s anonymity strengthens or weakens his/her claims that these scientific institutions are ‘spouting a faith-based mantra’ and that there is ‘no upward trend’ in temperatures?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

For any UKIP supporters who may feel that the New Scientist is more likely than libertarian or wonkotsane to 'bother to check their facts and to actually look at the science rather than spout a faith based mantra' then I recommend this rebuttal of wonkotsane's Hockey Stick point:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646

Here it makes it clear that the US National Academy of Sciences which investigated the claims of the Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph and the counter-claims by his opponents found the following:

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years.

This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world".

The US National Academy of Sciences therefore does not seem to share your view that the Hockey Stick graph is a 'complete fabrication', wonkotsane.

Could you explain why?

Libertarian said...

@Huw Peach

Having pseudonym is no different to having any old name, it does't mean it's yours, however in the interests of openness my name is Paul Woolf.

The trends aren't warming, C02 isn't a toxic pollutant and the sea levels aren't going to rise 23 feet in the next 7 years as claimed on BBC1 by Lord Jonathan Porett.

No I don't rely on just Latif, I've also read the work of Prof Richard Linzen Chair of Atmospheric science at MIT, Dr John Theon ( hansens boss) from NASA Goddard Space Institute, Dr Vic Marks, Dr Ian Plimer, Prof Stanley Feldman, Dr Anthony Watts, etc etc etc.

In fact apart from Michael Manns infamous computer model hockey stick graph I've searched and searched and searched for just one scientific paper that links temperature rises to C02 levels in the atmosphere.

I mean real experimental science, not opinion, not argument, not a computer model but empirical experiment. If you link me to it I will gladly read it.

wonkotsane said...

Huw, if you can't find out who I am and all about me in 30 seconds on Google from my username then you need some lessons on using the internet.

Mann cherry picked data sets and then cherry picked data out of those data sets. They have recently been obtained for independent analysis and it's been noted that they ignored data that didn't fit with the desired outcome - even to the extent that data from (relatively speaking) nearby sites has been ignored because it didn't fit.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Wonkotsane, I reminded you that the US National Academy of Sciences did some independent analysis of Mann's data in 2006.

I then pointed out that this prestigious scientific institution does not share your or UKIP's bizarre view that the Hockey Stick graph is a 'complete fabrication'.

In fact the USA's foremost scientific institution said that Mann's conclusion in the Hockey Stick graph was 'supported by an array of evidence.'

Could you comment on this, please?

Quoting 'independent analysis' doesn't count for much in the real world if it is anonymous.

The US National Academy of Sciences is not anonymous.

Could you therefore comment on its independent analysis and corroboration of Mann's conclusions?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Paul Woolf or 'libertarian', says he's searched and searched for just one scientific paper linking carbon dioxide with temperature, but just can't find one.

To help him and UKIP in his/its pursuit of enlightenment I recommend a video lecture by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian at the University of San Diego, California, which I hope he and other UKIP activists might gladly watch.

It's called the 'American Denial of Global Warming'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio

Skip ahead if you are pressed for time to 6-7 minutes into the lecture, when Oreskes gives a potted history of the science of climate change.

She talks about the experimental work of the leading physicist John Tyndall's work in the 19th century.

It was Tyndall who established the greenhouse properties of carbon dioxide and water, which UKIP now denies.

Your search is over, Paul.

Just head back to the 1850s and read John Tyndall's work.

wonkotsane said...

Someone else already has commented on the US National Academy of Science:

http://www.john-daly.com/singer2.htm

The thing is Huw, the global warming scam is quack science. It's all opinion and assumptions and predictions based on inaccurate, deliberately falsified and/or cherry picked data. Debate is immediately closed down by hysterical global warming propagandists and the only scientists that can get access to government funding are those that will give the "right" answer. That's not science and any "scientist" that engages is such unscientific behaviour is a fraud and a disgrace to their profession, selling their reputation to the highest bidder.

The key reports driving the global warming scam have been proven to be inaccurate, the predictions incorrect almost from the time they were published, they have been proven to have used falsified or inaccurate data and yet global warming propagandists such as yourself who wish to return the population to abject poverty and subsistence farming continue to hold up discredited and falsified "scientific" papers as the bibles of your ridiculous religion.

Libertarian said...

Huw

I fully understand the "greenhouse effect" which you obviously do not. I fully understand that C02 is a minor"greenhouse gas", the most prominent greenhouse gas being water vapour ( is that toxic too) I also fully understand that without the greenhouse effect there wouldn't be a planet fit to inhabit.

There is no scientific link to higher levels of c02 increasing beyond normal range and variation excessive heating. Further more at various times in the long history of the planet the amount of C02 in the atmosphere, currently 0.038%, has been an order of magnitude many 100's of times higher WITHOUT creating the effect you claim.

If you are going to argue that it's worth spending trillions of dollars and starving 3rd world countries etc at the very least get year 8 geography lessons on what the greenhouse affect is.

Basically your argument seems to be ah a Greenhouse is a device for keeping plants warm and making them grow more therefore the greenhouse effect must do the same to the planet....

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Thanks for engaging again, wonkotsane.

I think discussions like this in publicly accessible forums are vital in exposing UKIP's egregious distortions of the entire canon of climate science.

I urge ordinary people concerned about their future, particularly young people, who have the most to lose, to challenge UKIP and UKIP leadership hopefuls like Lord Pearson of Rannoch on UKIP's untenable mis-representations.

Wonkotsane, you mentioned that you (an by implication, UKIP) puts/ put more faith in Fred Singer, who wrote the paper you cited, than it does in the independent analysis on the Hockey Stick data carried out by the US National Academy of Sciences, one of the foremost scientific institutions in the world.

Fred Singer has form.

For example he denies the scientific consensus that second-hand smoke is harmful.

Could you clarify to casual readers who have happened upon this site whether UKIP shares Singer's untenable views on passive smoking, wonkotsane?

Does UKIP regard Singer's views as respectable science or what you call 'quack science', wonkotsane?

There is further information about Fred Singer, which you can read at this site by the excellent Canadian bloggers, DeSmogBlog, who are dedicated to exposing the orchestrated, corporate-sponsored PR campaign to confuse the public about climate change:

http://www.desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer

This details Fred Singer's connections to organisations which are generously funded by ExxonMobil, the world's most profitable multinational.

DeSmogBlog also shows that Singer was the source for a letter by naturalist, David Bellamy, denying the shrinking of the world's glaciers, which was challenged by George Monbiot of the Guardian newspaper.

The subsequent exchange between Monbiot and Bellamy on Channel 4 has done irreparable damage to Bellamy's scientific reputation.

See the 10-minute video here: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/are%20the%20glaciers%20melting/107930

UKIP's espousal of Singer's views will likewise be immensely costly to your party.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Libertarian, I know that people like you 'bother to check your facts and to actually look at the science rather than spout a faith based mantra'.

I hope therefore that you will want to keep this discussion as precise and accurate as possible and wonder if you could help me with a couple of points you raised.

You said that 'at various times in the long history of the planet the amount of C02 in the atmosphere, currently 0.038%, has been an order of magnitude many 100's of times higher WITHOUT creating the effect you claim.'

I know that UKIP disputes basic meteorology and denies John Tyndall's conclusion in the 1850s that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas, but could you say when exactly carbon dioxide levels were hundreds of times higher, please?

Could you also give the exact date and programme for the dodgy claim you made about Jonathon Porritt?

In my opinion, Porritt made no such claim and this is as gross a distortion as UKIP's distortion of climate science.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Libertarian, I wonder if you can 'be bothered' to check a few more of your facts for me to ensure that they are accurate.

You mentioned that you had 'read the work of Prof Richard Linzen (sic) Chair of Atmospheric science at MIT, Dr John Theon ( hansens boss (sic)) from NASA Goddard Space Institute, Dr Vic Marks, Dr Ian Plimer, Prof Stanley Feldman, Dr Anthony Watts, etc etc etc.

1) Could you explain to any objective readers who have happened upon this site, whether Professor Lindzen's decision to take money from Western Fuels and OPEC helped or hindered his credibility among the general public (source: Ross Gelbspan writing in HARPER'S MAGAZINE/December, 1995)?

2) Could you also explain in what capacity Dr. Theon was 'hansen's boss', Paul?

Australian blogger Tim Lambert, whose blog is devoted to unmasking the climate denial industry, shows here that John Theon was NOT Jim Hansen's boss:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/so_who_is_john_s_theon.php

Could you or another UKIP blogger explain this mis-representation, please?

3) I found the Daily Mail review of Feldman and Marks' book, telling us all to relax about global warming really useful in finding the sources you rely on for blogging.

They state in their book that 'carbon dioxide levels have often been as much as 10 times higher than they are today.'

Is that where you got the information from (above -08 October 2009 21:09) to state that C02 levels in the atmosphere have 'been an order of magnitude many 100's of times higher'?

10 times higher to may 100's of times higher... Oh dear.

You disappoint me, libertarian.

I thought you said you were 'someone who bothered to check their facts and to actually look at the science rather than spout a faith based mantra.'

4) You mentioned Dr Ian Plimer.

I wonder if you have read George Monbiot's highly revealing correspondence with Dr Ian Plimer, concerning claims, misrepresentations and distortions in Plimer's book, 'Heaven and Earth' :

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/14/correspondence-with-ian-plimer/

In the course of the correspondence Monbiot asks Plimer to defend the science he uses in his book in the public forum of the internet by answering Monbiot's simple questions.

This is so that everyone can read and digest what both sides said, check the references and conclude which side stacks up and which does not.

Plimer refuses to answer ANY of Monbiot's questions.

Would you say that Plimer's silence helps or hinders UKIP's case that climate change is a 'conspiracy' and a 'con', wonkotsane?

5) For a rebuttal of Anthony Watts' work, I recommend this short video which Watts tried -unsuccessfully- to ban:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_0-gX7aUKk

What do you think, libertarian?

If anyone else is inspired by this to take on climate deniers like UKIP and unpick the distortions, I recommend this brilliant site:

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/about/

I also urge people to ask some of these questions to Lord Pearson of Rannoch or to anyone who wants to stand as leader of this climate change denial party.

I look forward to hearing from you, libertarian and wonkotsane, or -if they can't answer- other UKIP activists who can put me right on these points.

Libertarian said...

Sorry I got completely bored with you very silly comments.

Linzens paper on the subject published in 92 is interesting read it and learn
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

Theon was Henson boss by vitue of the fact Hensen reported to him ! Whether he did or didn't is rather not the point, the point is that Theon thinks Henson was talking nonsense.

I would warm you against basing your argument on vested interests when the whole of the Green lobby is paid taxpayers money to keep shoveling this nonsense.

Even the biased BBC are running reports now that global warming isn't all that it's claimed.

The games up my friend. You had fun while it lasted, find something else to panic about.
There is only one question to answer how the flying F*ck can we have global warming, man made or otherwise when temperatures have been COOLING for 11 consecutive years?????

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Libertarian, I know you now think that checking facts is 'silly' and 'completely bores' you, but this is not what you said at the beginning of this discussion....

Didn't you say 'I certainly would prefer a party lead by someone who bothered to check their facts and to actually look at the science rather than spout a faith based mantra.'

Let's just take ONE of the distortions which you couldn't be bothered to check.

You said that 'at various times in the long history of the planet the amount of C02 in the atmosphere, currently 0.038%, has been an order of magnitude many 100's of times higher WITHOUT creating the effect you claim.'

Feldman and Marks' book says 'carbon dioxide levels have often been as much as 10 times higher than they are today.'

You say 'many 100's of times higher'.

Does UKIP check facts and actually look at the science or are you all just spouting a faith based mantra, libertarian?

I know you think whether Jim Hansen did or didn't report to Theon is 'rather not the point'.

But I disagree.

If you said that Theon was Hansen's boss and in fact he wasn't Hansen's boss, then that IS a lie in my book.

Whether something is true or not is IS the point.

You, a UKIP member, are mis-representing the story.

Just in the same way as your party and your prospective party leader are misrepresenting the science of climate change.

wonkotsane said...

Huw, I said in this thread, please stop spamming the comments thread of every post with global warming propaganda. The writing is on the wall, even the BBC have seen through the scam. I won't have every comments thread on this blog turned into a discussion about your global warming religion when it's completely irrelevant. I don't want to have to start deleting comments but if you keep spamming the comments then I will report and then delete them.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

I thought democracy was about engaging in debate.

I thought it would be legitimate to question one of the biggest holes in UKIP's policy portfolio.

Surely your new leader will want sounder foundations for his/her policies if challenged on key policies than were revealed above.

I'm sorry you don't.

Libertarian said...

Huw,

If you want democracy, first I suggest that you have a word with your high priest Al Gore who when asked just one question by an Irish journalist which was " Is the Polar Bear population growing?" The mic was switched off and two guys bundled him out.

The warming alarmists are a re-run of the medieval church. No evidence, no science, no idea. All power politics, control freakery witchfinders.

Your answer to my one simple question proved beyond doubt that you talk out of your bottom.

I asked show me a scientific paper that experimentally shows a link between green house gasses that are made by man and runaway global warming. Answer from you? You told me who first "discovered the greenhouse effect"

OK at the present rate of warming ( ha ha) how many years will it be before sea levels around the coast of Britain rise 23 feet?

Libertarian said...

to answer an earlier two questions that I missed.

I can't currently find the paper I originally refered to on previous levels of co2 but luckily for you I found another one.
Prof Ian Fairchild of Birmingham Uni on the enourmously high levels of Co2 during the Precambrian ice age !!!

Porett was on BBC 1 Question Time, on same panel as James Delinpole where he made the claim that the sea levels will rise 7 metres ( 23 feet) in the next 7 years. ROTFLMAO

It's available to watch in all it's glory on iplayer and you tube

Libertarian said...

Huw

Try another really taxing question....

Over the last 11 years have global temperatures

a) Risen alarmingly
b) Stayed the same
c) Cooled slightly

By the way would you really like to be in a movement lead by a former director of the bank that caused the global financial crisis?

And would you trust his judgement?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Libertarian, what do you think of wonkotsane wanting to delete rational challenges questioning Lord Pearson of Rannoch's views on climate change?

Do libertarians delete views they don't like?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Thanks for not bothering to check the facts about Jonathon Porritt, libertarian.

You first said, 'the sea levels aren't going to rise 23 feet in the next 7years as claimed on BBC1 by Lord Jonathan Porett.'

When challenged you repeated this lie.

'Porett was on BBC 1 Question Time, on same panel as James Delinpole where he made the claim that the sea levels will rise 7 metres ( 23 feet) in the next 7 years. ROTFLMAO'

So I bothered to check the facts of your faith-based mantra.

For others who want to hear what Jonathon Porritt REALLY said, go to this link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00m45d0/Any_Questions_21_08_2009/

Time ref: 37.40

Porritt DID talk about sea level rises of 7 metres.

He DID NOT talk of 7 years.

This is therefore another lie, libertarian.

Do you think being nailed telling whoppers like these helps or hinders UKIP's credibility on climate change?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

You said, 'the warming alarmists are a re-run of the medieval church. No evidence, no science, no idea.'

Could you or another UKIP blogger then please explain why these scientific institutions, who presumably bother to check the facts, have issued strong-weorded statements urging action on climate change?

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the UK and the USA, as well as the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences; European Academy of Sciences and Arts; Network of African Science Academies; the International Council for Science; the European Science Foundation; the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the Federation of American Scientists; the World Meteorological Organization; the American Meteorological Society; the Royal Meteorological Society (UK); the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society; the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society; the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences; the American Geophysical Union; the American Institute of Physics; American Astronomical Society; the American Physical Society; the American Chemical Society; the National Research Council (US); the Federal Climate Change Science Program (US), the American Quaternary Association; the Geological Society of America; Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia); the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London; the European Geosciences Union; the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics; and the International Union of Geological Sciences.

Libertarian said...

Probably for exactly the same reason Apple, IBM, Oracle, Microsoft, Intel, Motorola The Department of Trade and Industry, the European Union and the United Nations all issued reports backing the potential disaster that was the millennium bug.

When in fact there never was a problem and NO problem ever occurred.

One or two of the organisations you cited issued a press release last week saying that 150,000 people had died as a direct result of global warming. That is a complete and utter LIE as, as we all know temperatures are in fact NOT ACTUALLY WARMING.....jeez how besotted do you need to be ?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Thanks for your question about Al Gore and democracy and the way that an Irish journalist was treated when asking about polar bears.

If you watch the video (below), you will see that Irish journalist Phelim McAleer says Gore ‘never answers questions’.

http://playpolitical.typepad.com/issue_ads/2009/10/watch-irish-journalist-confronts-al-gore-about-his-inconvenient-truth-movie.html

Do other UKIP bloggers agree with Phelim McAleer that Gore ‘never answers questions’?

If so, this is easily revealed as a lie by this video, where Gore and Mayor Bloomberg of New York answer plenty of questions : http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/11/al-gore-sej-phelim-mcaleer-denier/

If you watch McAleer’s video you will see that McAleer was given a long answer by Gore, his time ran out and it was the turn of another journalist.

Fair’s fair. We all have to take our turn.

McAleer repeatedly stated that polar bear numbers are going up.

In response, Gore asked McAleer whether the latter challenged the idea that polar bears were endangered.

Gore’s credibility on climate change is strong because he concentrates on the science.

(Read New Scientist magazine’s take on the polar bear myth if you want the best science. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11656 )

UKIP’s credibility on climate change is increasingly embarrassing with each distortion and untruth.

I urge ordinary members of the public who chance upon this site to ask questions about UKIP’s stance on climate change, unpick the mis-representations and to challenge Lord Pearson of Rannoch on the gaping hole in UKIP policy.

Libertarian said...

So sea levels are going to rise 23 feet or 7 metres whichever you prefer then?

You are saying this is a scientific fact?

I wonder why then when the California Institute of Oceanography threatened legal action against Al Gore that the IPCC removed this claim form their web site AND apologised for an error !


I'm not to sure what UKIP and ONE of it's leadership hopefuls has to do with this argument.

I won't support ANY political party that believes in lies and myths that are economically damaging especially for the developing world based on no/false science.

By the way the list of organisations you cited earlier is as long as ALL the political, religious and powerful authorities in the medieval period when the mass conventional wisdom was that the Sun obits the Earth, that the planet was created on Oct 31st 4004 bc and forced that intellectual giant Galileo into permanent house arrest for claiming heliocentricism against the previaling consensus.

Libertarian said...

Any way Huw I noticed you FAILED to answer ALL or any of my very simple questions.

So lets try a couple more

What is Caroline Lucas's position on

1) The 5.9 million people unemployed
2) The European Union
3) The solution to the financial markets crisis

Libertarian said...

Huw,

I guess you are actually standing as a Green party candidate. The only reason I say that is that you seem to be playing politicians by banging on about UKIP this and that.


So let's ask a straight question, and let's see if the Green Party can give a straight answer.


You ready?

Are global average temperatures currently getting warmer?

Libertarian said...

On the 7 year issue

I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.the most important and salient points about climate change, if not some nuances and distinctions .

Sorry it was 100 months to save the planet ( that's 8 years, you're right)

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Libertarian, you said, 'So sea levels are going to rise 23 feet or 7 metres whichever you prefer then?'

No, I was not quibbling about the metric/imperial system.

I said that your description of Jonathon Porritt's Question Time claims was UNTRUE (see your '7 years' distortion on 08 October 2009 21:09 and listen to what Porritt REALLY said on the recording).

The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) in 2004 was a study describing the ongoing climate change in the Arctic and its consequences: rising temperatures, loss of sea ice, unprecedented melting of the Greenland ice sheet, and many impacts on ecosystems, animals, and people.

It predicted a 7 metre sea rise over thousands of years if the Greenland ice sheet melts.

'Bothering to check the facts' is not 'silly'.

It is the first, vital step in understanding the world as it is, and ensuring that policy is constructed on firm foundations and is sustainable for future generations.

Galileo was a scientist, whose discovery challenged the status quo (represented by the Catholic church).

The institutions I cited are scientific institutions, whose discoveries are challenging the fossil-fuel burning status quo, which UKIP defends against all evidence to the contrary.

Just as Galileo's science was undeniable and truth won through in the end, the science of climate change is undeniable, and enough of us are aware of the truth to demand that the deniers are held to account for their distortions.

The overwhelming advice from the scientific community is that political action is needed to combat climate change.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch disagrees with the world's scientific academies, and I am interested in which facts he bases his argument upon.

Fred Singer denied the effects of passive smoking as well as the anthropogenic nature of today's changes in the climate.

Does UKIP share Fred Singer's scientific views on smoking?

So far, any objective observer, who happens upon this site will hopefully agree that one side on this thread is willing to substantiate its arguments and bother to check the facts.

And it's not UKIP.

Libertarian said...

Huw

You are talking complete piffle. Porritt, Gore, even the jug eared one all scream 100 months to save the planet. Come on man you are supposed to be a teacher at an expensive private school even you can work out that 100 months IS NOT 1,000 years.

You are happy to be a member of a party that is in total agreement with your spiritual leader AL Gore a man that was a Director of Wall Street Bank Lehman Bros, the bank that went bust owing it's creditors £619 billion whilst it still had assets of $639 billion. It divided up the money that was left amongst the top people and left the workers to go whistle.

Al Gore who's film an inconvenient truth was found by a British Court to have 19 lies, exaggerations and falsehoods in it. A film that your colleagues in the science department through the Association of Science Teachers wanted BANNED from the classroom as the Science Teachers, your own colleagues who you work with every day wanted it BANNED as it lied.

Try and stick to the debate, what the hell has UKIP got to do with it, read my user name you berk, it's why I use it so that people like you who've smoked too much pot don't get confused.

So let's recap the Green Party Official Position

We should spend trillions of dollars and stop technological progress of anything that exhausts C02 because co2 is the cause of global warming.

However you admit that the Earth has been COOLING for 11 years

That sea levels AREN'T going to rise 23 feet

There is more than 1,000 years before anything catastrophic happens

Polar Bear populations are increasing.

The Greenhouses gases are water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone,carbon dioxide in that order of concentration with CO2 making up 0.038% of the atmosphere, yet you believe that carbon dioxide is the one and ONLY culprit.

Check some basic science out Huw, as you keep telling UKIP etc bother to check the FACTS.

Facts are things that are repeatedly demonstrable in empirical experiments NOT arguments based on opinion.


Er, please enlighten me as to what the ACTUAL potential problem is then.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Paul Woolf, thank you for your points and apologies for not getting back to you earlier.

Obviously I totally reject your point that I was talking 'complete piffle' in highlighting your misrepresentation about what Jonathon Porritt said on Question Time.

Jonathon Porritt, Al Gore, the Green Party and members of most other political parties regard what scientists are telling us about TIPPING POINTS as persuasive.

UKIP and your prospective leader, Lord Pearson, clearly don't.

So I hope you won't delete this explanation about tipping points and mankind's narrow window of opportunity to avoid the prospect of a tipping point being passed in the next few years.

A tipping point is the the point at which global climate changes irreversibly from one state to a new state.

That new state may be thousands of years away, but avoiding that new state means that what we do globally TODAY matters.

Global warming is exacerbated by the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane.

I know UKIP disputes even this, but most people cannot deny that warming is happening, and that as the earth warms, the natural environment changes.

These changes may result in other changes.

For example, warming may begin to melt the Greenland ice sheet, and once it reaches a certain temperature rise, the melt of the entire ice sheet will become inevitable.

One process sets off another process, even though complete melting may not occur for another thousand years.

A tipping point may be passed without any immediately obvious consequences.

NASA's James Hansen (whose boss is NOT Dr John Theon) believes this tipping point has ALREADY been reached with carbon dioxide levels currently at 385 ppm.

He believes that we need to cut emissions to 350 ppm.

The Green Party believes that we can cut these emissions, begin to deal with PEAK OIL, and get millions of people back to work if we invest massively in energy conservation and a green industrial revolution.

You asked what Caroline Lucas employment plans are.

Just Google Green New Deal and I would be very willing to discuss the constructive proposals contained therein, and try to answer your questions.

Libertarian said...

Huw,

So basically things MIGHT go wrong in a long time so we might as well ban cars now.

As most peak oil worriers claim there is less than 100 years oil left at present consumption rates then no problem. If you are right about C02 then it's self correcting. We will run out of oil long before it becomes a problem.

However as the planet ISN'T actually warming and as the ice ISN'T actually melting do you not think it's a little silly to do so much damage to people's lives on the grounds that it might, in a 1,000 years or so.

By the way, let's get this in perspective. In the history of planet Earth ( 4.5 billion years) climate change has happened consistently and has veered from one extreme to another and back again. There has been vast ice ages and periods of cataclysmic atmospheric problems, triggering mass extinctions amongst other things.

The greenhouse effect keeps our planet inhabitable by carbon based life forms. Adding more Co2 to the atmosphere is not inherently detrimental and intrinsically nor is a 2 % average rise in temperature. In fact that rise would only reflect the late Roman/early medieval warm period in the UK.

To abate some of your worries about the next 1,000 years and a tipping point ( actually a tipping point is a fad when enough members of the public believe in what a few people are saying/doing/wearing etc that it becomes mainstream, so an apt description of warmist alarm).

I live on the Isle of Oxney. Which is no longer surrounded by water and is 10 miles from the coast.

However when it was named it was an island in the English channel, that was upto about 1500 years ago. The nearest town to me is Tenterden which was one of Henry v111's Cinque ports and built ships for the Tudor Navy. It's now 15 miles from the sea.

If it makes you feel better, I think that the short lived petrocarbon era will end shortly as we develop alternative sources of energy. My own hunch is that hydrogen fuel cells for personal transport vehicles, cheap electricity for hi speed rail and advanced nuclear power ( and maybe some hydro/tidal) for power generation ( wind has no part to play in mass power generation) will be the most likely technology.

I also believe that the new technology will come on stream fairly soon and long before oil/gas runs out. We would also get there an awful lot sooner if we weren't wasting trillions on carbon offset trading ( to make Al Gore even richer) and very silly eco nonsense.

After all the stone age didn't end because we ran out of rocks it ended because really smart people worked out how to mine and smelt tin and copper to make bronze.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

In the same way, the end of the fossil fuel age will happen because really smart people ignored denialists like Lord Pearson and UKIP and instead listened to what the scientists were telling them.

The end of the fossil fuel age will happen because smart, compassionate people ignored the denialists, listened to reports about the misery of those affected by climate change TODAY and understood the connection between greenhouse gas emissions in their countries and increasing misery abroad.

According to this report ('Global warming causes 300,000 deaths a year, says Kofi Annan thinktank', Guardian, Friday 29 May 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/29/1
) people are dying TODAY as a result of climate change. I have said nothing in this dialogue about 100 months. I have made it clear that we need to aggressively cut emissions TODAY.

UKIP deal with this by denying that these people exist.

But they are not going to remain silent.

On March 19th 2009, I and hundreds of Christian Aid activists heard NASA's Jim Hansen speak in Coventry cathedral against denial.

Hansen said that we have a small window of time that we have left to cut carbon emissions and get our society onto a sustainable footing.

At the same rally a Kenyan development worker, James Galgallo, who works alongside Kenyan pastoralists, talked to us about the devastating effects of recent changes in the rainfall upon the people he works with.

These people DO exist, Paul Woolf, and people campaigning on their behalf are drawing the same links between our carbon emissions and their misery, as the scientists have made explicit.

What would you or other UKIP bloggers say to James Galgallo?

Or would you just delete his comments?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Nobuo Tanaka, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency, said in a document entitled New Energy Realities on November 12, 2008.

http://www.iea.org/press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=275

"We cannot let the financial and economic crisis delay the policy action that is urgently needed to ensure secure energy supplies and to curtail rising emissions of greenhouse gases.

We must usher in a global energy revolution by improving energy efficiency and increasing the deployment of low-carbon energy.”

The Green Party believe that massive investment in these areas could boost our manufacturing industry, create jobs for our country, strengthen our energy security and get our economy onto a more sustainable footing, while at the same time starting to tackle peak oil, peak gas and climate change.

As Lord Pearson regards curtailing rising emissions of greenhouse gases as 'pointless', as wonkotsane regards climate change as a 'conspiracy' and as you clearly feel that those warning about peak oil are just 'worriers' and that new technology will ineluctably come on stream without anyone pushing actively for it, could you explain UKIP's plans to get Britain working again?

Libertarian said...

Huw,

No worries at all. Nuclear power stations.

next question

Libertarian said...

By the way Huw,

I was amused by your comment "no one pushing for it"

As if a bunch of jobless, layabout, pot smoking hippies in a "climate camp" are doing anything constructive at all. Whilst the reaseach and development labs of the major, oil, energy, engineering companies and the departments of innovation in most Universities are sitting on their backsides waiting to be told how to develop products.


Huw,

You live in a fantasy world


What are the Green's policies on paying off the £1.4 trillion ( and growing) of debt

What are The Green policies on dealing with the £4 trillion of off balance sheet government debt

What are the Green policies on dealing with the Welfare and benefits system that now costs more than we take in income tax.

Libertarian said...

Huw,

Sorry just read your earlier rant.

PLEASE. I am very worried that you actually teach children for a living. You possess NO critical thinking skills what so ever.

The climate as YOU ADMIT is not warming and hasn't been since 1998 so what part of AGW is currently killing people RIGHT NOW? Come on give me ONE FACTUAL ANSWER. ONE PIECE OF SCIENTIFIC DATA THAT SHOWS ONE DEATH LINKED TO THE FACT THAT THE PLANET IS NOW SO WARM IT'S KILLING PEOPLE.


You are hysterical and the more stupid and outrageous the claims you make the more people turn away from you arguments.


Like all control fanatics through history every single thing that happens suddenly is caused by whatever pet theory you hold.

Sorry Huw , but I remember the fledgling Green movement in the 70's and they were saying all the things you say now except it was an ice age they predicted would be killing millions.


Who is head of The Green's Policy Unit ? Chicken Little?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Thanks for that, Paul.

Would you not agree that nuclear power sustains the fewest jobs per megawatt of any form of electricity generation?

And what would you say about nuclear waste? 'No worries'?

(What is UKIP's view on Iran and North Korea's development of nuclear energy by the way?)

If 'Getting Britain Working' is the imperative, then renewable energy will provide us with far more jobs, and ultimately a lower cost.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

You said that you were amused by the comment 'no-one pushing for it'.

It would be interesting to know, then, how you think political change takes place in democracies.

Women's suffrage came about because suffragettes pushed for it.

Universal health care and universal access to education were things which health and education campaigners pushed for.

Workers' rights were fought for and won.

Noam Chomsky was, in my view, right to say 'To some degree it matters who's in office, but it matters more how much pressure they're under from the public.'

Climate campers are part of this public pressure and the climate campers are asking the most important questions today.

When the science is so clear on the dangers of increased greenhouse gas emissions and the stakes are so high, the campers are asking WHY the government wants to open a new generation of coal burning power stations and rapidly expand aviation.

And they are not alone.

These ideas have resonance throughout society.

Many others are wondering why green, sustainable technologies developed 20-30 years ago by research and development labs of the major companies and universities are still not getting the investment they need to make our future affordable.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Paying off debt.

We would scrap the Trident nuclear weapons programme and obey our international obligations to disarm. This would save many billions over the next few years.

We would scrap the expensive road-building programme and invest the money in smart methods to reduce congestion and public transport. As with renewable energy this would boost employment.

We would bring our troops home from Afghanistan.

And we would work with our EU partners and other governments worldwide to close down tax havens. These drain the UK economy of an estimated £25bn annually through their role in tax avoidance and evasion.

We would then invest money in a Green New Deal to get Britain working (and contributing to the economy) again, and prepare our economy and secure our energy security for the widely predicted economic shocks of the coming decades.

These are just some ideas.

How would UKIP do it?

Libertarian said...

Are you really so detached from every day existence?

There is no need for "political" pressure for people to attempt to develop new technologies. It's part of the natural course of human endeavour. Even if oil and gas were in unlimited supply there would still be innovation. That was my point about rocks not being in short supply.

However, the layabout Green movement has done precisely nothing to contribute to actually solving any problem that we face.

To answer your questions on why people still aren't buying into the whole propaganda thing, is quite simple....they don't believe you !

The reason why the "technology" solutions that you want aren't adopted is because they don't actually work.

People would take you seriously if you did something sensible and NOT political.

If all the things you said about co2, warming, seas rising, people dying were remotely true, then you would be DEMANDING NUCLEAR power as it is the ONLY sustainable, clean technology currently available.


I am going to ask you one last time. PLEASE POINT ME TO AN EMPIRICAL EXPERIMENT THAT PROVES THAT WARMING IS CAUSED BY MAN MADE Co2.

Not opinion pieces, not predictive computer models, not theories, not lists of green house gases.

A scientific paper that experimentally shows that rampant global warming ( enough to be killing hundreds of thousands of people) is caused by anthropogenic sources.

Libertarian said...

Oh dear !

Not much idea then? Your "savings"

wouldn't even pay the debts for 3 months. We owe £1.4 trillion pounds.

You could only do that once...so what about next quarter?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

You said that Greens were predicting an Ice Age in the 1970s. No, Greens weren't.

Look at the Blueprint for a Sustainable Society from 1972, which was printed in the Ecologist magazine.

http://www.theecologist.info/page30.html (see section on Energy for discussion of CO2 and warming).

The majority of scientists were talking about warming, not cooling.
Some parts of the MEDIA were predicting an Ice Age, but it is false to say that scientists and Greens were.

In 1975 the basic conclusion of the US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"

TODAY the US National Academy of Science says "there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."

This statement is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science of Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

So, there is 'strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring'.

In UKIP's collective eyes, are these scientific institutions being 'hysterical'?

According to a 2005 article in the British Medical Journal, ( http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/330/7489/436-b ) climate change was costing the lives of 150,000 people a year.

This article was written by Sari Kovats, a lecturer in the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and a member of the IPCC, and Andrew Haines, director and professor of public health and primary care in the same institution.

In UKIP's collective view is this claim 'stupid' or 'outrageous'? Remember that only last week we learnt that a billion people are hungry.

And is Nobuo Tanaka, the Executive Director of the International Energy Agency, not being rational in urging governments to cut greenhouse gas emissions and invest in low-carbon energy?

Libertarian said...

Huw,

Yes, the death of ANYONE due to the climate getting warmer WHEN in fact YOU, the IPCC, and everyone in the Alarmist religion now ADMITS that the climate currently is COOLING is therefore obviously, wrong, illogical,misleading and unscientific.

You failed to answer my last questions again and go on citing a lot of names of people PAID to promote climate change and their opinion.

I now accept that as after 3 times of asking that you point me to the evidence. I conclude in good scientific fashion that there currently isn't any evidence to substantiate the alarmist claim.

What is the Green position on population and 6 billion people and growing ALL breathing out co2 ?

Libertarian said...

Huw,

I've just seen this government information film on climate change.

It really is very convincing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkPQU3UDBM0&feature=player_embedded

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

So I take it that we won't be seeing any members of the UKIP blogging fraternity at tomorrow's Transition Towns meeting in the Shire Hall, Shrewsbury at 7pm (27th October 2009).

wonkotsane said...

1. I'm the only one who lives anywhere near Shrewsbury and I'm away on a training course and 2. What's Transition Towns and does it have anything to do with DCB withdrawing from the leadership election?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Because Lord Pearson, who DCB is backing, is -in my view- unqualified to lead a country, because he sees fighting climate change as a 'pointless exercise'.

The people meeting this evening at the Transition Towns meeting are real leaders, in my opinion.

They believe that the best way to prepare for peak oil and climate change is to get together with other likeminded people in their community and do it themselves.

DIY is infinitely preferable to denial.

While DCB and Lord Pearson are denying that there is any problem with energy shortfalls, attacking constructive proposals to conserve energy (see lightbulb thread) and saying that climate change is for 'worriers', other people will be getting on with the hard work of building up grassroots alternatives to denial from parts of the political class.

These are some of the things that Transition Towns are doing elsewhere in the UK.

- Creating community-owned energy companies that install renewable energy systems in such a way as to generate revenue to resource the wider re-localisation process;

(Feed-in tarriffs from April 2010 will accelerate this process)

-Building highly efficient homes that use mainly local materials (clay, straw, hemp), thereby stimulating a range of potential local businesses and industries;

-Creating a range of urban food production models;

-Re-linking farmers with their local markets.

For some these sorts of initiatives are 'pointless'.

Please don't delete this.

wonkotsane said...

Most people don't believe in man-made cliimate change, that's why the British government is spending £6m of our taxes on propaganda. A leader that challenges the unscientific climate change hysteria will be most welcome. If you want to live the life of a subsistence farmer praying for a few hours of sunlight to charge your laptop so you can get on the internet and spread your doom prophecies then feel free to build yourself a mud hut and return yourself to the dark ages but leave the rest of us out of your pseudo-religious fantasies.

Libertarian said...

Huw,

Anyone who can't do basic science, anyone who has no interest or idea in technological developments. No one who can't do basic arithmatic, no one who thinks people should die so that they can propagate their religion.

And mostly Huw no one who cannot answer the most basic question that any scientist can ask should be running a country or even bothering to comment.

You talk unexpurgated garbage, chant mantras and attempt pathetic fringe party politics whilst not having a clue.

If I was a parent paying the fees at Shrewsbury I would ask for my money back if you represent the teaching staff

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

I represent only myself, so please leave my excellent colleagues, who have diverse opinions, out of this discussion.

UKIP's view on climate change, by contrast, is a collective one that they are right and the whole canon of climate science is wrong.

I showed how libertarian's point about Mojib Latif quoted him out of context and ignored Professor Latif's insistence that cutting greenhouse gas emissions is vital.

Using New Scientist magazine and a statement by the US National Academy of Sciences, I then rebutted wonkotsane's bizarre point that the Hockey Stick graph was a 'complete fabrication'.

I then pointed libertarian to an academic video about the history of climate science and the methods used by the denial movement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio

This was to help him understand the evolution of scientific understanding about greenhouse gas emissions and anthropogenic climate change, which dates back to John Tyndall in the 1850s.

I was then told that the US Academy of Sciences was wrong about climate change and Fred Singer was right, so I exposed Fred Singer as someone who used to say that passive smoking is harmless.

Does UKIP support Fred Singer's view on smoking, by the way? (I never did get an answer).

I then gave a little extra context about Prof Richard Linzen (sic), Dr John Theon, Dr Vic Marks, Dr Ian Plimer, Prof Stanley Feldman and Dr Anthony Watts, and was then told that I might have my comments deleted if I continued to correct distortions.

Luckily UKIP's democratic principles obtained and I was allowed to slip in corrections to a couple of distortions on this thread about Jonathon Porritt and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at different periods of history. A factor of 10is, after all, important to people who bother to check the facts.

I then cited 41 scientific institutions which are urging governments to take drastic action to cut carbon dioxide emissions drastically and was told I was talking 'piffle'.

We then got on to a discussion about tipping points and I was told not to be concerned about glaciers and ice caps melting and people starving in other parts of the world, because the Isle of Oxney used to be surrounded by sea and now it isn't.

I wonder how journalists and supporteres keep a straight face when told by UKIP leaders that the academics at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine or executive directors of the International Energy Agency are part of an 'international conspiracy'.

I am not taking part in this discussion to convince either of you or Lord Pearson of Rannoch.

I am doing it in the hope that others, particularly young people, who have the most to lose, will be motivated to challenge the UKIP leadership on its untenable line on climate change and peak oil.

If you feel that this makes me unfit to work with children, then I'm afraid this says more about you and your party than it does about me.

Libertarian said...

Huw,

You are talking twaddle and obfuscation as normal. Typical of leftie Luddites you can't answer a straight question.

Couple of things I would do if I were you.

I would withdraw your incorrect allegations re Prof Lindzen as he is currently taking legal action against others spreading these rumours. I'm a passionate non smoker and detest cigarette smoke with a vengeance and would not go anywhere near somewhere where smoking takes place. However I have to tell you that currently the scientific evidence points to there being no significant health risk from so called passive smoking IMHO that doesn't make it right to smoke in public places as it's still horrible and annoying.

The whole thing about sea levels that you willfully miss is that sea levela are, always have been and always will be effected by things other than climate change per se. That and the fact that the IPCC ans Al Gore were both caught red handed lying about sea level rises and forced to change their lies. Do you tell lies to your students too? Just to fit your religion/politics?

I don't know why you've suddenly introduced peak oil into the equation as that is a totally stupid argument from someone who thinks that burning some carbon is bad ( apparently burning some other carbon is good !!!) If oil runs out we can't burn fossil fuels to the same extent which is what you want you claim.


Please learn some critical thinking skills. I have worked these things out, looking at the available evidence and applying critical thinking to the subject.

You are spouting a mantra.



ANSWER A QUESTION...please point me to a scientific, peer reviewed experiment linking man made CO2 to run away global warming. If you can I will publicly apologise, change my view and campaign for a return to the stone age with the rest of you hippies.

Until you can point to this don't bother to post any more of your drivel

wonkotsane said...

Huw, a couple of points on your fantasist reply.

Firstly, I don't know if Libertarian is reading all your comments but I get to the fourth or fifth paragraph and lose the will to live.

Secondly, you seem to think that quoting more unscientific, false and/or politically motivated propaganda as "evidence" that the previous unscientific, false and/or politically motivated propaganda is true makes all the propaganda true. It doesn't. The hockey stick is a case in point - the hockey stick graph has been shown to be wrong. Where is the current decade-long temperature increase on the hockey stick graph? Where is the apocalyptic temperature increase the graph predicts that we should have been experiencing for the last couple of years? The graph is wrong because it is based on inaccurate and corrupt data.

Thirdly, just as you say you represent yourself and not your party or colleagues, neither do I represent my party or my colleagues. I'm just a lowly member - not a councillor, not an MEP, not a candidate, not even an official of the party in any way. What I say here - and what any of the other writers say - is in a personal capacity. I founded this blog and I retain editorial control over it and I will not allow it to be used as a platform by any official, PPC, MEP, etc. The evidence of that can be seen in my announcement yesterday that this site will not be supporting any leadership candidate.

Fourthly, there are people in UKIP - including at least one of the leadership candidates - that believe in man-made climate change. Just as it is your party's policy to promote climate change theory as fact, so it is UKIP policy to treat climate change theory as an unproven theory (which it is). Not every member of the Green Party will believe in man-made climate change just as not every member of UKIP disbelieves or is agnostic on the subject.

Finally (because I gave up reading your monologue after a few paragraphs and ended up skimming through a few paragraphs before giving up completely) I didn't threaten to delete your comments if you "continued to correct distorted views". I told you I would delete your comments if you continued to spam the comments of posts that had absolutely nothing to do with climate change with your climate change propaganda. I have allowed this comment thread to continue because, although it has absolutely nothing to do with climate change, it makes sense to keep your incoherent ramblings in one place. If you were to start spamming another post with irrelevant climate change propaganda I would delete the comments as promised. I told you at the time that you can propagandise in the comments of a post about climate change if one appears in future, just that you had to stop trying to evangelise your climate change religion in posts that have about something else.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Libertarian and wonkotsane, thanks for continuing to engage on this vital issue, which drew over 100 people to Shire Hall in Shrewsbury this evening, but which for the denialist UKIP is a non-issue.

I stick by what I said about Richard Lindzen.

Thanks for confirming what you think of passive smoking and Fred Singer's controvertible line on passive smoking, Paul Woolf.

According to The International Agency for Research on Cancer (part of the WHO -World Health Organisation), exposure to second-hand smoke IS related to an increased risk of lung cancer.

50 studies of involuntary smoking and lung cancer risk in non-smokers, especially spouses of smokers, have been published during the last 25 years.

These studies, which were carried out in many countries, showed an increased risk, especially for people with higher exposure to smoking.

Fred Singer says that passive smoking is not dangerous and that we should not be concerned about climate change. So does UKIP. Most people would disagree.

As for sea levels: Here is what is happening in the Maldives. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7945877.stm

Here is the political response ther: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8312320.stm

And here is what is happening in Greenland: http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?hl=en&rlz=1W1ADSA_en&q=greenland%20melting&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#

No, I don't lie to my students. I encourage them to search for the truth and study carefully information they receive from a variety of media.

Tonight's meeting in Shire Hall, Shrewsbury, was about the vulnerability of and lack of resilience in modern society.

Most people there concluded that most things from our energy systems to our food production systems to our transport systems were based on cheap oil and that the quicker we developed other forms of energy, other localised food production and other forms of green transport the more resilient our society will be.

Some people with critical thinking skills might not see the imperatives of dealing with climate change and with peak oil as contradictory.

But a concerted, community-driven move towards green energy, food and transport deals with both looming crises at the same time.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

wonkotsane, please stay with us in the land of the living!

Surely the art of listening to another person's argument is not alien to UKIP-ers.

If you believe that the hockey stick graph is 'wrong because it is based on inaccurate and corrupt data', why did the US National Academy of Sciences, one of the foremost scientific institutions in the world, say that Mann's 'conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence'?

Are the 'US National Academy of Sciences' and New Scientist, which I also quoted, part of an 'international conspiracy'?

And does the word 'conspiracy' help UKIP's cause?

I DO represent my party and think that dialogue between Greens and UKIP supporters is very revealing for the general public if it happens in a public forum.

I am NOT, however, representing my school colleagues.

Which leadership candidate for UKIP has policies to tackle man-made climate change?

I am encouraged by this news but will only believe it when I see it.

Thanks again for not deleting my points.

wonkotsane said...

Huw,

I agree with you on the dangers of passive smoking and have been anti-smoking for years. I don't know if you understand the concept of libertarianism and the crisis of conscience that it can leave people with when they try to follow the ideal.

I am personally very much in favour of the smoking ban and would like to see smoking banned in all public places, including out in the open. I don't smoke and I don't see why I should have to breath in someone else's smoke whether it's in a pub or in the street. I understand the argument that a non-smoker can go somewhere else but it's the smoker that is doing something, not the non-smoker and therefore it is the smoker that should be put out. If I wanted to shit in the street I wouldn't be allowed to because of the health risks and because it's anti-social. I wouldn't expect someone who didn't want to shit in the street to not walk on that street because I wanted to shit on it.

That said, I like to think of myself as a libertarian on balance although not a consistent one because the libertarian view on a smoking ban is that it is down to individual choice and if a pubs customers want to smoke and the landlord wants to let them then that is down to their personal choice.

Personally I am more inclined to agree with UKIP's smoking rooms in pubs idea. That way non-smokers aren't forced to breath in smoke but smokers still have the choice of smoking if they want to.

wonkotsane said...

On to the climate change thing again. Interesting that you lump oil reliance, energy security, conservationalism, etc. in with climate change - something that the green lobby does all the time which devalues the positive aspects of environmentalism. I agree that we need to reduce our reliance on oil, that we need to secure cleaner and more secure energy sources and that we have to conserve resources, save the rainforest, etc. What I don't believe is that climate change is man made. But climate change propagandists have hijacked the whole green cause and you can no longer pick and choose which aspects of environmentalism you see as a pressing issue.

You can't support recycling because it conserves resources, you have to support in recycling because it conserves resources and combats climate change.

You can't support finding an alternative to oil-based fuel because it conserves a finite resource and gives us more security, you have to support it because it conserves a finite resource, gives us more security and combats climate change.

The way that climate change propagandists have taken over the green lobby and tied their unproven and disproven climate change doom prophesies into every single aspect of environmentalism is both counter productive and exposes the weakness of the green lobby - they have been pissing in the wind where green issues are concerned for decades and suddenly someone manages to convince enough ignorant politicians that their crackpot theories are worthy of attention and it's seen as an opportunity to get other green issues on the agenda using the climate change pseudo-religion as a trojan horse. What they are ignorant of (well, one of things they are ignorant of) is the fact that the horse is already full of power mad communists.

Finally, I notice with great interest that you talked about resilient society and that people at your meeting agreed that we need to build a resilient society. I agree - if the climate does change for the worst (which, of course, it may do naturally as it has constantly and consistently for millions of years) then we need to concentrate on coping with a changing climate rather than a Canute-style standing on the beach commanding the tide to turn back. The climate isn't changing any more than it has done for the last few centuries but it's a natural phenomena and history shows us that it can vary greatly over time so we should be prepared for that eventuality at some point in the future. However, current energy policy (which the greens don't think goes far enough) is going to create an energy crisis. The British government's own energy minister says that we will be experiencing power shortages in the next few years because of the premature abandonment of reliable electricity production in favour of windmills and solar panels that will never be capable of meeting our needs.

How does deliberately creating power shortages with the resultant decimation of our economy create a resilient society? It doesn't. How does it help those who want to spread global authoritarian socialism (communism) around the world? Immensely. Imagine how easy it would have been for Marx, Lenin, Stalin, et al to carve out their Soviet empire if the countries they were conquering were little more than medieval farmers.

The green lobby are being taken for fools. Luckily, we are not.

Libertarian said...

Huw,

You finally lost the plot and proved beyond any doubt that you have no scientific brains at all.

The Maldives is THE VERY WORST example to pick. Both the IPCC and the UN Oceanographic and Sea level committee both castigated the President of the Maldives this week for scare scaremongering and frightening his own people. When EVEN your own side have said there is NO SEA LEVEL RISE outside of normal variation happening or likely to happen in the foreseeable future in the Maldives.


YOUR OWN SIDE SAID THIS HUW.

Please at least try and keep up with the religion and politics ( we already know you don't do the Science)

What are your thoughts on the Green movement agitating for the banning of the use of DDT resulting in the deaths of 40 million people with malaria since spraying was stopped? Is Caroline Lucas happy to sacrifice 40 million ( and growing) people on the alter of bad science?

Any further ripostes to your nonsense will result in just the following question until you answer it.

LINK TO EVIDENCE PLEASE

Libertarian said...

Huw,

You quite often ask me why scientists would lie about things citing that 1,000's agree with warming.

Well here's why

The Governments own Drugs Czar Prof Nutt was sacked by Alan Johnson today for issuing a report saying that the government had been spreading false data about the effects of certain drugs contrary to all the scientific evidence.

The sacking letter admitted that he was sacked for being "off message".

Come on Huw, wake up man. The environment has been hijacked for political manipulation purposes.

There are lots of real environmental and fossil fuel issues that urgently need to be addressed but apocalyptic hysteria based on false science is getting the baby thrown out with the bath water.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

wonkotsane, on 09 October 2009 07:22 you considered Fred Singer's denialist views about climate change to be superior to that of the US National Academy of Science.

I pointed out that Fred Singer had also in the past denied the harmful effects of passive smoking.

In your long post about passive smoking, you omitted to say what you thought of Fred Singer's view that passive smoking is harmless.

Do you regard Fred Singer's views on passive smoking as sound science or quack science?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

You then expressed surprise that the Transition Towns movement around the world was attempting to deal with climate change and oil depletion at the same time.

There was no surprise from the people at the meeting the other day in Shrewsbury.

These people understood that the two are connected and that leadership is required from the grassroots.

The International Energy Agency opened its World Energy Outlook Report 2008 with these words;

'The world's energy system is at a crossroads. Current global trends in energy supply and consumption are patently unsustainable -environmentally, economically, socially.'

One possible response to this is denial and the ridiculous claim that the bit of the IEA, which links environmental and social damage with resource depletion is part of some 'international communist conspiracy'.

Another is to accept the situation as it is, re-connect with people in one's community, discuss the challenges rationally with them, share expertise, get organised, and look at how to deal with the problems at a local level.

You said all this activity will the decimation of the economy.

I'm sorry but the decimation of the economy, the taxpayer-funded bailout, the bonuses, the factory closures, the job losses and the house repossessions didn’t come about because a few ordinary people came together in Shrewsbury to discuss how to turn their town green.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Any chance of answering these questions now?

If you believe that the hockey stick graph is 'wrong because it is based on inaccurate and corrupt data', why did the US National Academy of Sciences, one of the foremost scientific institutions in the world, say that Mann's 'conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence'?

Are the 'US National Academy of Sciences' and New Scientist, which I also quoted, part of an 'international conspiracy'?

And does the word 'conspiracy' help UKIP's cause?

Which leadership candidate for UKIP has policies to tackle man-made climate change?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Libertarian, your point about the IPCC and the Maldives is untrue.

Wouldn't you agree that mis-representing a news story easily found in seconds on the internet is an unwise tactic and is embarrassing for UKIP's credibility on this issue?

You then went on to say that scientists are scared of contradicting politicians because they might get sacked, like Professor Nutt.

Was Professor Nutt scared of speaking the truth to the public?

No, and it is the government's credibility, which will suffer over this affair.

Was the US National Academy of Sciences scared of speaking the truth to climate 'sceptic' George W Bush?

No.

Remember that the US National Academy of Sciences established during Bush's presidency that the findings of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph have 'subsequently been supported by an array of evidence'.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

PEER REVIEW is much more important to scientists than government approval.

The institutions I listed on 16 October 2009 01:15 drafted statements on anthropogenic climate change after looking at huge amounts of evidence and after lots of comment, criticism, and revision (ie peer review in scientific journals).

UKIP has made the extremely unwise collective decision of ignoring the entire canon of climate science.

Could libertarian or wonkotsane comment on these institutions, the evidence that they must have gone through and the peer-review process?

Libertarian said...

Huw,

I have no comment what so ever on opinion. I couldn't care less how many 1,000 scientists have a warmist opinion. Consensus and opinion IS NOT SCIENCE.

You are finished Huw, all you have to do it put up one link with peer reviewed, empirical scientific data showing a link between man made co2 and run away global warming.

Writing 100's of words of BUT MOST PEOPLE AGREE isn't science.

2.1 billion people ( some of them very eminent scientists) believe that the Earth was created on the 30th October 4004 BC, that's an awful lot of consensus Huw. Trouble is every last man jack of them is 100% wrong.

How about this, today

Professor Sir David King – Tony Blair’s former chief scientific advisor and foot-and-mouth massacre guru – has spoken out against climate change alarmism. He has told the Times:
“When people overstate happenings that aren’t necessarily climate change-related, or set up as almost certainties things that are difficult to establish scientifically, it distracts from the science we do understand. The danger is they can be accused of scaremongering. Also, we can all become described as kind of left-wing greens.”

I think that says it all don't you.

Have the Greens tried canvassing lately? Try asking voters if they believe without telling them first. You will be shocked at how many people no longer believe your UTTER NONSENSE.



Link the evidence next time you write

Libertarian said...

Sorry Huw missed your earlier drivel.

UKIP or Libertarians don't need to lie. Neither of us are pushing a climate scam agenda. However unlike you I can provide my evidence.

Here is a copy of the letter sent by Nils-Axel Mörner

Former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University. He retired in 2005. He was president of the INQUA Commission on Neotectonics (1981-1989). He headed the INTAS (International Association for the promotion of cooperation with scientists from the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union) Project on Geomagnetism and Climate (1997-2003).

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/10/21/341123.aspx

Enjoy


By the way I'm still waiting on your Caroline Lucas Green Party line on causing the unneccessary deaths of 40 million people by banning DDT.

Does the Green Party feel comfortable about genocide for political propaganda ????

wonkotsane said...

Libertarian, I admire your stamina. I just can't be bothered to reply to him, no matter what you say he'll just thank you for engaging in "debate" (ie. responding to his rambling monologues), come back with more uneducated opinion and ask you why you enjoy tipping disabled people out of their wheelchairs and criticise UKIP for having a policy of killing disabled people and stomping on their children.

I mentioned on a local forum that I was having a "debate" about climate change propaganda from a local Green Party representative and I didn't even have to mention his name, they knew who it was. He's a bit of a local joke, he trolls around the Shropshire Star forum and other websites thanking people for "engaging in debate" and spouting his propaganda. Someone did a brilliant impression of him, quite spooky really.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Thanks as ever for keeping this very revealing discussion going, libertarian and wonkotsane.

You wanted a 'link to peer-reviewed, empirical scientific data showing a link between man made co2 and run away global warming.'

Maybe you missed the scientific institutions I listed on 16 October 2009 01:15, which are urging governments to take action on climate change.

The first one was the IPCC.

Here is a link to its 2007 report, which used 'peer-reviewed, empirical scientific data showing a link between man made co2 and global warming.'

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

The IPCC won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for its "efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change".

I know UKIP and Lord Pearson of Rannoch regard the measures to counteract climate change as 'pointless', but denying the whole canon of climate science, collated by the IPCC is not a sustainable, long-term strategy in my view.

You mentioned Sir David King talking about the dangers of over-stating the issues.

I would agree with him, and respond to you that there are dangers for UKIP and its supporters in spreading easily contrivertible misinformation in a publicly accessible forum about climate science, Michael Mann's Hockey Stick, Professor Mojib Latif, Jonathon Porritt and the President of the Maldives etc etc.

Sir David King made a speech in 2004 (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3381425.stm ) saying that climate change is 'a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism'.

He also said that without immediate action flooding, drought, hunger and debilitating diseases such as malaria would hit millions of people around the world.

Neither he nor I said anything about tipping people out of wheelchairs, as anyone re-reading this thread will quickly verify.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Libertarian, your link to Nils-Axel Mörner's work took me to a right-wing Canadian newspaper, but I couldn't find anything about him in the comment section, there.

Apologies. Maybe you could clarify which article it is you were referring to.

On wikipedia I learnt that Nils-Axel Mörner had produced some work in 2000 about the Maldives, saying that sea levels there were going down, not up.

This conclusion was rejected in 2005 by another study, which said that sea levels are rising and the that the IPCC's 3rd Assessment Report remains the most reliable scenario to employ in future studies of the islands.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VF0-4GBD6SS-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b8b8366517bac336789e3d2d6bb92039

What do you think of Mörner's work, wonkotsane?

And while you are at it, what are your views on Fred Singer's conclusions about passive smoking?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

wonkotsane, I appreciate you having the patience to stick around and discuss UKIP leadership candidates' views on climate change, especially since countering misinformation has made me a bit of a local joke on Shropshire blogs.

Earlier you said that not all UKIP leadership candidates subscribed to UKIP's climate change denialism.

So, perhaps you could say which UKIP leadership candidate has policies to tackle man-made climate change?

And does he/she (like the Green Party) see responding to the challenge of climate change and peak oil as the best way to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs in sustainable industries?

The International Energy Agency see this as the way forward for wealthy countries like the UK.

It would be encouraging to think that at least one UKIP leadership candidate does not regard this as a 'pointless exercise'.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Libertarian, apologies for not responding to your DDT point.

You may see this a lazy answer typical of layabouts with no scientific brains at all, but I think the section entitled 'Criticism of restrictions on DDT use' on the wikipedia DDT entry is interesting. We can discuss it if you want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

It highlights the work of the free-market ideologue, Roger Bate, of the pro-DDT advocacy group Africa Fighting Malaria (AFM), who blames environmentalists for malaria deaths worldwide.

I think if Roger Bate's arguments were not so easy to rebut, then Bill Gates, whose foundation has done infinitely more than the 3 of us to combat malaria worldwide, would be taking up Mr Bates' call.

Instead, as you probably know, Mr Gates sees mosquito nets, not DDT, as the solution.

What do UKIP bloggers think of Bill Gates' position?

Libertarian said...

Huw

Blimey you had to work really hard researching that didn't you?

I tend to agree with Scientists rather than Bill Gates. I think DDT is a far better answer than nets !
A study in the Solomon Islands found that "although impregnated bed nets cannot entirely replace DDT spraying without substantial increase in incidence, their use permits some reduced DDT spraying."

What do you think of Labour adopting a UKIP policy and building renewable energy non carbon producing nuclear power stations? I fully expect the Green Party to endorse this.

After all you wouldn't be hypocritical would you?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Libertarian, you said that you 'tend to agree with scientists'.

Why, then, do you and all UKIP leadership hopefuls (I'm still waiting to hear otherwise) tend to disagree with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Going back to Roger Bate and his pro-DDT advocacy group, this article from the Natural Resources News Service outlines the 'Malaria Strategy', which Roger Bate pitched (unsuccessfully) at the tobacco company, Philip Morris, in 1998.

Bate saw the best strategy for Big Tobacco to escape regulation, was to pit potential allies like environmentalists and public health advocates against each other.

Divide and rule the opponents while denying dangers associated with smoking.

Sounds like the strategy of the climate change denial industry.

http://www.nrns.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51:bate-and-switch-how-a-free-market-magician-manipulated-two-decades-of-environmental-science-

wonkotsane found it difficult to answer whether he agreed with Fred Singer's views on passive smoking (see questions on 30 October 2009 22:29 and 01 November 2009 13:26 followed by wonkotsane's deafening silence).

Do you think Roger Bate's work for Big Tobacco strengthens or weakens his advocacy work for DDT, libertarian?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

On 21 October 2009 13:29 you asked how the Green Party would repay the UK's debt.

When informed that the Green Party would scrap Trident and the billions spent on it, withdraw troops from Afghanistan and ensure that tax havens were closed down and big corporations paid their way you said that this would be trifling (21 October 2009 17:04).

I asked how UKIP would repay the UK debt, but this question was ignored.

Now 'no worries, nuclear power' is magicked out of the UK's empty coffers.

Do you think nuclear power is cheap, libertarian?

How does nuclear power fit in with UKIP's other spending and saving plans?

The separate demands of the
transport and heating sectors mean that nuclear power supplies only about 3.6% of total UK energy used.

(Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/jan/17/nuclearindustry.energy )

Rather than bulldoze through this highly expensive energy policy, we should be spending money on an energy policy which creates MORE JOBS per kilowatt hour than nuclear. Tackling unemployment and making our economy sustainable are 2 imperatives which would be met by a Green New Deal.

We shouldn't be spending our scarce resources on supply. We should be spending it on
reducing demand.

That's why we should be massively investing in house insulation and fuel-efficient cars to halve energy demand and create jobs.

wonkotsane said...

Why, then, do you and all UKIP leadership hopefuls (I'm still waiting to hear otherwise) tend to disagree with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists?

There is no consensus amongst the scientific community on climate change. The climate change propagandists main spokesman, Al Gore, isn't a scientist - he's a failed politician who's declared himself an expert on climate change and produced a film that was so unscientific and biased that the High Court here in England ruled that parts of it were legally propaganda.

wonkotsane found it difficult to answer whether he agreed with Fred Singer's views on passive smoking

No I didn't. I know nothing of his views on passive smoking, I don't know who he is and I will find out who he is and what he says if I ever decide that I want to know, not when a nobody from the Green Party keeps asking irrelevant questions about him.

I asked how UKIP would repay the UK debt, but this question was ignored.

Our contribution to the European Empire is currently £45m PER DAY, rising to £50m next year. That's £18.25bn per year at the new rate. Is there any one thing the pro-EU Green Party will do that will save £18.25bn per year? How does the pro-EU propose to repay national debt once they have driven tax-paying businesses out of the country and decimated the economy?

The separate demands of the
transport and heating sectors mean that nuclear power supplies only about 3.6% of total UK energy used.


And under the British government's plans, which the pro-EU Green Party supports, coal-fired power stations that are decommissioned in the next 3-4 years will not be replaced, leaving us with a massive power deficit that would take hundreds of thousands of your windmills to replace. We will be left with power shortages, electricity rationing and companies will have no option but to relocate to places like France where they produce enough power for their needs and more using nuclear power stations. Does the Green Party understand that power shortages will result in the devastation of our economy and that windmills can't produce enough energy to meet our needs? If not, why is the Green Party attempting to form part of the British government at the next general election when they can't grasp the fundamental concepts of economics and national security?

And do you understand, Huw, that the jobs "created" by the green industry are ridiculous claims? Do you understand that the claims of jobs that would be created count the person who made the wooden pallet a roll of loft insulation is put on and the person who drove the lorry that delivered it? These are jobs that already exist but are claimed by the green propagandists as something new. The whole Green New Deal is a sham.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Thanks for keeping this going, wonkotsane.

On 27 October 2009 18:24 you said, 'Fourthly, there are people in UKIP - including at least one of the leadership candidates - that believe in man-made climate change.'

Who of the leadership candidates?

It would be great to know.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

You said, 'there is no consensus amongst the scientific community on climate change.'

The IPCC (which you, laughably, say is part of an 'international conspiracy') has outlined the scientific consensus in numerous reports.

Have you or any of your leadership candidates ever read one of the IPCC reports or are you just repeating a mantra?

The conclusions of Naomi Oreskes' piece in Science magazine 'BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change' December 3rd 2004 are interesting in this respect.

Reporting on a study she carried out of 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change", she concluded that 'there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.'

I have discussed Al Gore's film on the Shropshire Star website with an anti-EU activist called Ken Adams here: http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/10/11/writer-fails-to-note-evidence/

I repeatedly pointed out to Mr Adams that the judge concluded that Mr gore's film was 'broadly accurate'.

Do you dispute this, too?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Fred Singer

wonkotsane, you said ‘I know nothing of [Singer’s] views on passive smoking, I don't know who he is and I will find out who he is and what he says if I ever decide that I want to know, not when a nobody from the Green Party keeps asking irrelevant questions about him.'

In response to this, first of all, thanks for debating with me even though I am a ‘nobody’.

Secondly, despite not knowing who Fred Singer is, you cited a website article by him earlier in this thread on 09 October 2009 07:22.

It seemed from the confident way that you cited him that you knew who he was and felt that he had more credibility than the US National Academy of Science.

Perhaps I was wrong to assume this.

Is this what libertarian meant when he said that UKIPers 'bother to check their facts and to actually look at the science rather than spout a faith based mantra?'

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Thanks for saying how UKIP would replenish the UK's coffers.

I am sceptical about many aspects of the EU, notably the lack of transparency and accountability and the democratic deficit, but I would not deny the benefits that the EU brings, financial as well as cultural and political.

As is clear from my postings, I do not see any chance of the UK dealing with pressing international problems like climate change, the environmental crisis and the regulation of big business without the cooperation of our EU partners.

Are you saying that there is NO money flowing into the UK from the EU, wnkotsane?

Is the money-flow all one-way in your view of the world?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

You asked how the Green Party would 'repay national debt once they have driven tax-paying businesses out of the country and decimated the economy?'

Perhaps you missed the economic collapse late last year, whose effects continue to this day.

I have to emphasise that that collapse was NOT precipitated by Greens around the world insisting on proper regulation of the international financial system.

That collapse happened because of a LACK of regulation of international business.

A globalised world need globalised regulation.

Multinational companies must not be allowed to continue to play off one country against another and downgrade the amount of regulation and tax that they are exposed to.

Greens want to CO-OPERATE with other politicians from around the world, through international governmental entities such as the the EU etc to ensure that this failure of regulation never happens again.

A strong, international regulatory framework, which safeguards us all against events like this and against the effects of environmental abuse will not be pushed through if we assume an insular UKIP mindset.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

On the subject of energy, Greens have pushed for many years for massive investment in energy conservation, and have warned of looming energy crises, such as peak oil and peak gas and the need for locally-generated renewable power.

In Kirklees Greens on the council have spearheaded a policy of free house-insulation to householders to cut waste and reduce energy use.

UKIP-ers do not appear to think energy conservation is that important;

http://bloggers4ukip.blogspot.com/2009/08/eu-ban-on-light-bulbs-starts-in-10-days.html

http://bloggers4ukip.blogspot.com/2009/08/eu-admits-energy-saving-bulbs-are.html

Greens do NOT support the Labour government's energy policy, as you falsely claim.

We think Labour has not created the necessary incentives for low-carbon energy.

Greens in the German government brought in feed-in tarriffs in the late 1990s.

This positive policy will not be introduced by the Brown government into the UK until 2010.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Wonkotsane, you said, 'Does the Green Party understand that power shortages will result in the devastation of our economy and that windmills can't produce enough energy to meet our needs?'

Of course I understand the importance of energy to our economy.

That is why I am concerned about the vulnerability of our economy to peak oil and peak gas and am campaigning for massive investment in energy conservation, for wind, for locally generated renewable energy and concentrated solar from the deserts of North Africa.

Greens have always said that wind alone will not cover our needs; a MIX of energy sources is needed, but the only way to bring about this shift towards renewables is to create incentives in the system to ensure that a secure investment environment is created in the renewables sector.

Germany did this over a decade ago (see point about feed-in tarriffs), and as a result, Germany's manufacturing base is looking a lot more secure than the UK's, which was overly reliant on the financial sector.

What's more, the employment picture in Germany contradicts what you say about green jobs existing already and being counted again;

There are now 250,000 jobs in Germany's renewable energy sector.

Source: Reuters, February 2009 - http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE51N2F920090224

Libertarian said...

Huw

Libertarian, you said that you 'tend to agree with scientists'.

Why, then, do you and all UKIP leadership hopefuls (I'm still waiting to hear otherwise) tend to disagree with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists?


EASY PEASY

Because NONE of the scientists have ACTUALLY produced any science to back up their political claims.

If I'm wrong show me the link to a peer reviewed, empirical study that shows a definate link between man made co2 and runaway global warming.

It's a very easy thing to show. If all the scientists that matter agree, if all the politicians think it's undeniable, if everyone knows it's true why not just show us the scientific experiments that lead to those conclusions.

Libertarian said...

Huw

Now you are in my field of expertise.

Germany currently has 3.8 million unemployed so I'm sure they are really grateful for a couple of "green" jobs. You are barking up a tree even if you include pseudo green jobs it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

You then dismiss the UK relying on Financial Service jobs. What ? 800,000 jobs is unimportant is it?

London is THE CENTRE of world finance. It contributes untold billions to the Treasury in taxes alone. The entire economy of South East England is based on it and if SE England ( yes please) became an independent country it would have the 8th largest economy in the world.


Greens are just socialists with a desire to return to a feudal system. You have no policies what so ever to get people back to work in the UK. You have no job, business or wealth creation strategies at all.

A few windmill erectors and some solar panel installers won't rescue the economy my friend.

We have £2.4 trillion of debt untold off balance sheet public sector pension and PFI contract liabilities and you think you can solve all that with some Green jobs.


Who is the Green Party Spokesperson on the Economy? Business and Enterprise? etc. When will you have some policies?

Libertarian said...

Huw

The credit crunch and financial crisis had nothing what so ever to do with a failure of regulations.

The EU, and British government chose to ignore the regulations that existed.

It was political manipulation allied to a poor risk strategy that caused the problems

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Libertarian I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read your ridiculous statement,

'NONE of the scientists have ACTUALLY produced any science to back up their political claims.'

In my post earlier today ( 10 November 2009 11:36 ) I asked wonkotsane whether he or anybody in UKIP has read the IPCC reports?

Clearly NO is the answer.

928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on climate change were collated and reviewed by Naomi Oreskes (see point about Science magazine article 10 November 2009 11:36 ).

Are you really saying that NONE of those scientists produced ANY science?

Could you explain to anyone who has happened by chance upon this discussion what you think those scientists put in their 928 papers, libertarian, if -you think- 'NONE of the scientists have ACTUALLY produced any science'?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

You said the financial crash 'had nothing whatsoever to do with a failure of regulation'.

Do you think the UK public see things in those terms?

It was my impression that Brits are appalled by the reckless, unregulated practices of the banks and traders, who brought about the biggest financial crash since 1929.

Adair Turner recently said that the City had grown “beyond a socially reasonable size”, accounting for too much of national output and sucking in too many of Britain’s brightest graduates.

Would it not be better if we had our brightest graduates manufacturing socially useful products which the world needs?

I know you dislike the idea of a green industrial revolution and that you dismiss the number of jobs it could create, but I think that the British public are heartily sick of the casino culture of the City, the ineffective regulation, the bail-outs, the bonuses and the recklessness and that they want a different, more sustainable economic strategy for the future.

Libertarian said...

Huw

I would avoid this topic if I were you as even if you have the entire Green party helping you I have more knowledge about this than all of you combined

Like AGW the gullible public may be fooled by rantings of various and sundry media and idiots like Lord Turner ( the man incidentally supposedly in charge of the regulations at the time, you couldn't make it up).

So you don't think there isn't anything useful about money, pensions, investments, venture capital, insurance, foreign exchange, gold, copper,silver, tin, orange juice,oil, pigs trotters, wheat, rice etc etc

Without the finance sector non of these things would happen. The worlds manufacturing companies would go bust as they depend entirely on futures contracts to manage their businesses.

You'd be happy keeping all you assets under your bed would you?

As far as the credit crunch is concerned I'm not going to go chapter and verse into it as it's far too long and complicated.

Suffice to say that your spiritual leader Al Gore was a Director of the bank lead by that crook Dick Fuld that caused the US crash.

Do you have any idea what debt/liquidity ratios Lehmann was operating? Do you know how far outside of the existing regulations they were? Do you know why they were doing this? Do you know about their derivatives trading activities, their MBS's.

More than that do you know why the US and UK governments colluded to hold down interest rates at an all time low and therefore caused a housing bubble?

Do you have any idea whatsoever how many billions of pounds in tax alone the financial sector pays to the UK Treasury. If you think you could ever make up that shortfall from manufacturing let alone green jobs you are totally deluded.

Libertarian said...

Huw

You will be beside yourself with joy at this news.

You can put off worrying for a few more decades.

Heritage Oil announced today a totally new oil field find that no one was previously aware of in Uganda, It will initially produce over 2 billion barrels.

Phew you can sleep easier tonight Huw.

Libertarian said...

Huw, Huw things are just getting better and better.

At last I've found an empirical study using real data and scientific experimentation.

You won't believe this but you will be so relieved. The planet is safe, hallelujah !

Read all about it here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6538300/Climate-change-study-shows-Earth-is-still-absorbing-carbon-dioxide.html

Wolgang Knorr at Bristol Earth Sciences department has just published his scientific paper on Co2 emmissions, the greenhouse effect and how the planet copes with it. It is fantastically good news as it means you can now concentrate on real environmental problems and issues without worrying that we're all going to die.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

As you believe you have more knowledge about the financial crisis than the entire membership of the Green Party, I was interested by your conclusion that the crash was Al Gore's fault.

I know that climate change deniers don't like Al Gore, but this perspective on the events of last year was novel to say the least.

However, I find Ann Pettifor's take on the financial crisis much more convincing than yours, libertarian.

http://debtonation.org/

Ann Pettifor does not see the crash as the fault of individual banks like Lehman Bros or their board members, as you do, but as a SYSTEMIC issue.

The problem for her was that the world financial system was based not on real, valuable things like 'gold, copper,silver, tin, orange juice,oil, pigs trotters, wheat, rice etc etc' but on unsustainable, unproductive and unpayable DEBT.

Pettifor predicted the crash in a prescient article in September 2003called 'The Coming First World Debt Crisis';

http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-americanpower/article_1463
.jsp

She later expanded her thesis into a book of the same title in 2006

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Coming-First-World-Debt-Crisis/dp/0230007848

in which she made it clear that the coming crisis was the predictable result of the restructuring of the international financial architecture in the early 1970s and Thatcher and Reagan's de-regulatory policies in the 1980s.

Her policy prescription for getting us out of this crisis?

A Green New Deal to make our economy truly productive and focused on socially useful and sustainable production.

More details here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ann-pettifor/obama-must-tame-finance-a_b_280094.html

What do you think, libertarian?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

I have checked your comment about Al Gore and Lehman Brothers and all I can find as the source are wacko right-wing websites from the USA.

In other words it is a fabrication.

A lie.

Do you find that telling whoppers, which can then easily be exposed as whoppers, helps or hinders the case you are attempting to make about climate change, libertarian?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

I checked your Daily Telegraph article which you put on earlier today ( 11 November 2009 13:03 ).

Again, your interpretation of this single piece of research is interesting.

You said that it was 'fantastically good news' that the earth was still absorbing over half of all the CO2 emitted.

Remember two billion tonnes per year were being emitted in 1850, and that 35 billion tonnes per year are being emitted now.

For you, this means that the 'planet is safe'.

This is not what the author of the paper said.

'Dr Wolfgang Knorr cautioned that the world should still be trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as part of any climate change deal decided in Copenhagen next month.'

Other scientists quoted in the article 'cautioned that the ability of the oceans and rainforests to absorb carbon dioxide in the future may collapse, leading to a massive increase in temperatures.'

I suppose that is a risk which UKIP is willing to take.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

You asked when the Green Party were going to have some policies, libertarian.

Here is the Green Party's economic policy: http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/mfssec.html

You can find other policies at the same domain.

Where could I find UKIP's policies?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Libertarian you said, 'You have no policies what so ever to get people back to work in the UK. You have no job, business or wealth creation strategies at all.'

Obviously I disagree and would just point you to the Green New Deal, which Ann Pettifor was talking about in the link I included earlier.

This is a Keynesian approach to public expenditure to lift the economy out of recession, and create JOBS: http://www.greenparty.org.uk/policies/economy.html

What is UKIP's solution to the jobs crisis, libertarian?

Libertarian said...

Huw

We have had 12 years of Keynesian policies which has ended up with us £2.4 trillion in debt and 5.6 million people not working.

For someone who spends his entire life looking up answers to posts on google if you want to read UKIP's manifesto try the UKIP web site under er under er manifesto !!!

The answer to job and wealth creation is the very opposite of public spending.

A flat tax taking 4 million people out of income tax and making it viable to work ( for back ground read the centre for social justice report on the damage caused by the welfare system)

A similar system to the German Mittlestand Investment Program which offers tax incentives and holidays on venture capital ( you know the business the Greens wish to scrap as not being of benefit) returns for capital investment in manufacturing, electronics and engineering. The Leopard scheme which is and export led incentive ( luckily working because we aren't in the Euro zone)

An end to payroll taxes currently running at 13% and scheduled to rise again next year. Postponing the planned rise in business rates. Stopping the loss of 50 plus pubs per week , a new scheme to keep open and expand the number of rural post offices.

Construction and operation of 20 new nuclear power stations. On average each station creates about 10,000 jobs.

Scrap IR35 and allow 300,000 small businesses back into the market. Scrap the EU temp agency workers directive, scrap EU working time directive and more and more and more

Libertarian said...

Huw

Yes I'm prepared to take a risk on Dr Knorr's report. Two reasons, I know him as my son ( who is an Earth Scientist) was a student, and two it's real science not opinion or computer modelling.

Libertarian said...

Huw

I actually read your economic policies. I used to have a soft spot for the Greens as I though that allthough you are a socialist party your hearts were in the right place.

I have never read such a load of contradictory nonsense in all my life.

Ok I know this is a gross precis but...

You want to ONLY have environmentally friendly business

You want a barter system

You want most people to work from home ( the only sensible policy in there)

I'm going to restrict myself to dealing with only a couple of issues.

1) You will need to leave the EU completely as most of what you want contravenes their rules ( obviously I'm in favour of that)

2) Your proposed banking system is utter nonsense, even if that kind of system could ever work in order to operate it has to be global.

If the banks, lending institutions etc don't make a profit where is your tax revenue going to come from?

Bank of England MPC IS already drawn from people all over the country. The base interest rate set by the BofE has nothing to do with business lending rates. They are set in the Money Markets ( global)

If you are scrapping debt/equity ratios and only lending a proportion of depositors money there will be no liquidity in the market, therefore there is not enough to lend, without lending there is no investment and without investment there is no business ( green or otherwise) Even Communist Russia and China had to borrow large amounts from the money markets !!

There is no tax take here to put into you self defeating keynesian system.

I take it there isn't a single banker or economist in the Green Party ?

I've lost the will to live this is so utopian/childlike naivety no wonder you believe everything you are told.

It's a medieval feudal system, that originally only worked due to the very large amount of slavery in the system and the very high mortality rates.

Huw not being funny I've enjoyed our debates and you are clearly an intelligent and personable man but even you must realise that this is blatant nonsense.

Libertarian said...

Huw

Just saw your drivel on Al Gore/ Lehmans

No idea what you googled, no idea who the Pettifor woman is.

Never said it was Al Gore's fault, I said it was Dick Fuld if anyone, but I didn't just blame Lehmans I blamed US and UK government over creating a housing bubble.

Leham went bust with debts of $616 billion yet assets of $639 billion !! Barclays tried to buy them. The Fed stopped it.

In this country the FSA and EU regulators caused the crash of Northern Rock by refusing permission for the BofE to bail them out with a short term loan.


In a very quick and dirty explanation as I can't be bothered to go chapter and verse

Government kept interest rates very low and made money cheap to the man in the street ( boasting of having ended boom and bust).

The banks lent money mostly secured against property.

Price of property went sky high but insted of interest rates going up to take the sting out, the government put them down. Therefore the man in the street started property speculating, second homes, buy to let. The banks continued to loan. Nothing bad happened so the banks in order to create more liquidity to satisfy the huge demand traded mortgage backed securities and other derivatives.

The govt kept money cheap and available ( it's where they were getting all the tax income from to spend on their quango building empire).

Then Lehman bros happened. They had debt/equity ratios of 44/1 even the worlds most successful investment bank only operate on D/E's of 29/1.

The banking regulations only allow 30/1 so Lehman were stopped from loaning more. People panicked they started to default on loans. Normally not a problem because they were secured against property, however they had been packaged as mortgage backed securities so no one could tell which was a safe property and which a so called sub prime. The Money Market seized up temporarily. At that point NR needed to borrow from the money markets to keep the regulators happy about their balance sheet and asset ratios. The rest is history. It collapsed as each decision made by Brown made things worse.

It is why we have debts of 83% of GDP and are last out of recession.

Don't call me a liar Hugh just because you can't be arsed to look things up properly. A wiki search was all you needed

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

What does your son, the Earth Scientist, say when you are chatting about the IPCC, and you say things like 'NONE of the scientists have ACTUALLY produced any science to back up their political claims' to him?

I can imagine what he says, but maybe you can let me know.

Dr Knorr's concluded that natural sinks are highly absorbent, but still avers that radical cuts in carbon are needed at Copenhagen

What does your son, the Earth Scientist, say when you say that Dr Knorr's first point is based on empirical evidence, but that his second point is 'opinion' so you will ignore it?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

You said your point about Al Gore being chairman of Lehman Bros was not a lie and that I should look things up properly.

Wikipedia says this about Gore.

'He is the co-founder and chair of Generation Investment Management, the co-founder and chair of Current TV, a member of the Board of Directors of Apple Inc., and a senior advisor to Google. He is also a partner in the venture capital firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, heading that firm's climate change solutions group.'

There is no suggestion on wikipedia that Gore is associated with Lehman Bros.

Unless you can provide a reliable source for your outrageous claim that he somehow precipitated the financial crisis I will conclude that this is another desperate, recycled lie as crass as your lie about Jonathon Porritt ( see 13 October 2009 22:27 + 16 October 2009 13:56 ), and your lie about John Theon being James Hansen's 'boss' ( 08 October 2009 21:09 + 12 October 2009 21:19 + 13 October 2009 00:24).

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

After looking at Green Party policies you said '1) You will need to leave the EU completely as most of what you want contravenes their rules'.

No, we will be working with the growing Green parties in other countries as well as other parties to reform the EU.

Greens are pushing for more democracy and accountability in the EU.

Greens will ensure that corporate lobbying is made more transparent and civil society is not sidelined in the creation of these rules.

Open Europe did a survey in May 2009 to show which MEPs promoted transparency and reform in the EU over the last 5-year parliamentary term.

http://www.openeurope.org.uk/media-centre/pressrelease.aspx?pressreleaseid=110

The Green Party were top of their performance table because Greens voted FOR progressive reforms to the rules.

UKIP were bottom of the table because they have adopted a purely negative voting strategy in the Parliament.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

You said, '2) Your proposed banking system is utter nonsense, even if that kind of system could ever work in order to operate it has to be global.'

It may have escaped your notice, but Green Parties and green-minded politicians see INTERNATIONAL ACTION and INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION as vital to the survival of the human race.

Narrow nationalists like UKIP, as this discussion has made abundantly clear, are incapable of thinking globally and acting locally because that means thinking that human lives in sub-Saharan Africa might somehow be of equal value as human lives in the Isle of Oxney.

If the banking system nationally is widely perceived to be out of democratic control and “beyond a socially reasonable size” (Adair Turner), and if the international banking system is not being made to work in the best interests of ordinary people in countries like Nigeria or Uganda (10 November 2009 21:22), then it is up to civil society to inform itself, debate reforms with friends and foes and regulate that sector in the public interest.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

The above point gets to the very nub of what we are discussing.

Globalisation needs global regulation.

That regulation, whose time has come, is in the manifestos of Green Parties and progressive politicians the world over.

Libertarian said...

Huw,

Do me a favour fella stop judging people you don't know anything about by your own childish prejudices.

So the Green Party are going to get Global agreement to change the worlds banking sytem and money markets. Oh ok.....please.

The European Directives on state involvement was what forced the UK government to allow overseas businesses to compete for the most lucrative part of the Post Offices business and left them with the unprofitable bits.

So in the new Green cuddly world of totally agreement on everything you are pushing for a one world, global post office then?

Libertarian said...

There is absolutely nothing progressive about green policies in any way shape or form.

They are technophobic, luddite socialism .

All the power to the people nonsense you spout was tried and failed in the 20th century.

My politics has nothing to do with narrow nationalism. I'm against the EU for the very reason that it's a provincial protectionist trading block which has been hijacked undemocratically to try to become a country.

Actually Huw I'm a big fan of SOME of the work of EF Schumacher Small is beautiful economics as if people mattered.


See you keep making assumptions based on your own prejudices and stereotyping.

So now I understand how you intend to implement these policies could you let me know who the leader of the progressive green movement is in say

China? India? Saudi Arabia? Libya?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

You said, 'I take it there isn't a single banker or economist in the Green Party ?' -11 November 2009 21:45

You also said 'no idea who the Pettifor woman is.' -11 November 2009 22:06

This was almost as good as wonkotsane saying that Fred Singer was a more credible source for UKIP climate change deniers than the US National Academy of Sciences, and then claiming later that he had no idea who Fred Singer was.

I know you think I am a 'pot-smoking' 'berk', who speaks 'complete piffle' (16 October 2009 22:25), but it would be really great if you could sometimes listen to the points I am making, think about them and then tell me why you think I am wrong.

Goethe said: 'A person hears only what they understand.'

So let's try again... (By the way, if there are any other UKIP bloggers out there who understood the point about Ann Pettifor FIRST time it would be interesting to hear from you, too. I thought it was quite a good point, though I say it myself)

Ann Pettifor is an economist, who is one of the authors of the Green New Deal.

Pettifor predicted the financial crisis in an article in 2003 and a book called 'The Coming First World Debt Crisis' in 2006.

'The Pettifor woman's basic thesis was that the productive parts of the global economy (manufacturing, electronics, engineering, oil, gas, steel, pigs' trotters, wheat, orange juice) were being superceded by an out-of-control, increasingly unproductive financial sector, which was making money out of unsustainable and (ecologically and financially)unpayable debt.

Have a look at this September 1st article from the Times to see her next predictions and policy suggestions:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6816287.ece

As you can read in the article, in the year 2000 she translated what you -I think, wrongly- see as 'utopian/childlike naivety' into the highly effective Jubilee 2000 campaign to cancel the debts owed by the poorest countries

Her activism has already improved people's lives and her foresight shows that we need to at least listen to what she is saying, even if some still disagree with her.

In the article, she says,

“Orthodox economists talk about cheap money being the cause of the crash.

But it was not cheap — subprime homeowners were paying 19 per cent interest.

It was easy money that was the cause.”

Libertarian said...

Huw,

I did read what you wrote. I'm just not impressed that you only ever quote people with no expertise in the subject. The Pettifor women worked for which bank again? for how long? She is a "green economist and activist" and wow she agrees with you !!!

It doesn't make her right just because she said it !!!!

The credit crunch was caused by the availability of lots of cheap money initially that came off the rails when the Money Markets seized up. It has fuck all to do with the Clinton scheme of Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac offering sub prime loans under the CPA programme.

Here is a link to Gores shenanigans with Lehmans.http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/24371/Energy_Price_Schemes_Helped_Doom_Bailout_Firms.html

If the Green party are that into regulation you might want to get your economic guru to look into some of the scams around carbon offset trading

Porrett claimed on prime time TV that the sea level would rise 7 metres.

Huw peach added a caveat that it would take 1,000 years. And you have the front to call me a liar.

Fantasist

Libertarian said...

Huw,

I've just reread you post .

You actually have no clue and nor does your economist lady about what the derivatives market does and why its important do you?

Have you any idea why a futures contract would be important to say a Sri Lankan cotton farmer .

Do you know why third world developing countries rely heavily on commodities traders?

Libertarian said...

Cancelling the debts that counties owe. Yes brilliant if it was monopoly money and all of this was a game. Who's money is it you and your lady friend are offering to give away? who is going to pay for it and how? where is it all coming from?

The reason socialism always fails is eventually they run out of other peoples money

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

You said, 'you only ever quote people with no expertise in the subject.'

I disagree.

I have quoted the world's AUTHORITY on climate change: the IPCC, which won the Nobel Peace Prize for its work.

In response to this, you say 'NONE of the scientists have ACTUALLY produced any science to back up their political claims'.

I think this makes you look very silly indeed.

Does your son, the Earth scientist, agree with your view that the IPCC has 'no expertise in the subject' of climate change?

I then quoted Ann Pettifor as having something useful to say about the credit crisis.

It is true that she is NOT a world-reknowned authority, but HER THESIS HAS BEEN VINDICATED BY THE EVENTS OF LAST YEAR.

If someone predicts in the early 90s that the debts rapidly swishing around the world financial system are unpayable, then attempts to highlight the vulnerability of this system to those who are willing to listen and is later proved right, then I think her work is important and worthy of consideration.

The Times reporter seemed to think this, too.

You said 'The credit crunch was caused by the availability of lots of cheap money initially that came off the rails when the Money Markets seized up.'

The money markets seized up when people and institutions started defaulting on their debts, and the realisation spread that the debt at the very heart of the international system was unpayable.

You then said, 'It has fuck all to do with the Clinton scheme of Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac offering sub prime loans under the CPA programme.'

Yes, it did.

You cannot continue to lend easy money at usurious interest rates to extremely poor people for ever.

This happened to poorer countries many years ago, and their people are still repaying these odious debts.

At some stage debts have to be repaid.

When the system realises that they CANNOT be paid, then the crisis of confidence in the system begins and calls for reform of the system and proper, international regulation get louder.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

I had a feeling that the Heartland Institute would be behind this lie about Al Gore and Lehman Bros.

Earlier you said that Al Gore was on the Lehman Bros board.

Even the article you provide does not say this.

Instead it says he and Hansen were 'advisors' for a Lehman Bros report on the carbon market called “Business of Climate Change”.

According to this BBC article (which has infinitely more credibility than anything produced by the Exxon-funded Heritage Foundation) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7004372.stm there is NO mention of Al Gore in the announcement of Lehman Bros's “Business of Climate Change” report.

A strange omission as Gore is such a prominent figure.

An inexplicable omission when one realises that the Heartland Institute's story is a fabrication.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Libertarian, you said 'Porrett claimed on prime time TV that the sea level would rise 7 metres.

Huw peach added a caveat that it would take 1,000 years. And you have the front to call me a liar.

Fantasist'

If you really want to pursue this embarrassing line, then fine, Paul.

I would invite any casual observer of this thread to check what YOU said at the beginning about Porritt's claim on the radio.

'The trends aren't warming, C02 isn't a toxic pollutant and the sea levels aren't going to rise 23 feet in the next 7 years as claimed on BBC1 by Lord Jonathan Porett.' -08 October 2009 21:09

This was a lie, libertarian, and it took me quite a long time, bothering to check the facts, to verify that it was a lie.

Nailing that lie makes it easier to nail the Heritage Foundation lies.

You chose to bring it up again.

A lie cannot live.

Libertarian said...

Wasn't a lie, it was available and listened to by many people again on iplayer, it was referenced all over the internet verifiable and checkable in hundreds of places. Sorry you are right I do keep saying TV when I mean radio. It was on BBC radio Any Questions.

You never nailed the lie at all because it was a cast iron fact.

There was a whole thread on it on the day after on the Daily Telegraph blog of James Delingpole who was on the panel with him.


Fantasy stuff 23 feet.... google it its there to see all over the Green agenda

Still no word on why the Green party want to seriously damage developing countries industries by shutting down the financial sector then

Libertarian said...

Here are just the first few references to Sir Jonathan Porrett claiming a 7 metre sea level rise on BBC ANY Questions

Simple Huw I googled it

http://www.talkcarswell.com/show.aspx?id=957

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100007236/what-is-it-that-greens-like-jonathan-porritt-so-loathe-about-nature/

Here is his quote taken from the show transcript

" I am a very enthusiastic advocate of wind power. I have increasingly less time for those whose nimby-ist sentiments persuade them that somehow the best route to defending their cherished landscapes is by letting it be drowned by a huge amount later on in life. Which particular bit of the landscape do you want to defend James if what we’re threatened by is a seven metre rise in sea levels? So we aren’t really doing the calculations in the right kind of way. And frankly for me we’re surrounded by so many mischief makers, so many people in the media who continue to obfuscate and basically tell lies. Basically tell lies. Both about, both about climate change and about the impact of wind power on people’s lives"

You can download the full transcript here

downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/radio4/.../20090821_aq_middlewallop.rtf


It's like arguing with a religious zealot with you Huw.

Absolutely no point, you don't care how much evidence to the contrary, you have faith you are a true believer



SHOW ME THE SCIENCE


end of our long running conversation

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

I know you think my judgement is that of a 'religious zealot'.

However, this is what happened in this discussion as far as I can judge....

You said 'in the next seven years' lie here;

'the sea levels aren't going to rise 23 feet in the next 7years as claimed on BBC1 by Lord Jonathan Porett.' -08 October 2009 21:09

I queried this -09 October 2009 12:08

You repeated the '7 year' lie, which is contradicted by your transcript, here:

'Porett was on BBC 1 Question Time, on same panel as James Delinpole where he made the claim that the sea levels will rise 7 metres ( 23 feet) in the next 7 years. ROTFLMAO'

It's available to watch in all it's glory on iplayer and you tube'
-13 October 2009 22:27

I established that this was a lie here: -16 October 2009 01:10

You then tried to make out that I had said something about sea levels rising in 100 months! -16 October 2009 13:56

And then you conflated Porritt's claims about 100 months to save the planet with sea levels rising here in 7 years here -16 October 2009 22:25

Your son, the Earth Scientist, will probably indicate to you that they are not the same thing and might explain tipping points, while he is at it.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

I have just looked up one of the sources you gave for your Porritt claim above ( 12 November 2009 19:14 ):

http://www.talkcarswell.com/show.aspx?id=957

The only reference to Porritt on that site was written by.... YOU in the comments below.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

I have just looked at your second source for your Porritt claim ( 12 November 2009 19:14 ):

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100007236/what-is-it-that-greens-like-jonathan-porritt-so-loathe-about-nature/

The only reference to Porritt and 7metres on that site was written by.... 'Woolfie' in the comments below on Aug 22nd, 2009 at 6:07 pm.

Are you the source again, Paul Woolf? Are you 'Woolfie'?

Here is 'Woolfie's' entire comment for the benefit of UKIP bloggers, who may not share wonkotsane and libertarian's penchant for climate change denial:

'One thing Lord Porret got away with was the assertion that the World would end because of a 7 metre rise in sea levels. He ought to be careful and should have been pulled up on it by Dimblby, because the IPCC has withdrawn ALL references to 7 metre rises and apologised for an “accidental error” in reporting it, as there is not a single scientist no matter how pro AGW who can support a 7 metre rise. The best the IPCC can manage is that there could be a 10 CM rise ( and to achieve that the Earth’s average temprature would have to rise by about 5 degrees in a really short time span).

An Oceanographic scientist has sued Al Gore in the states over his 7 metre rise lies.

I was surprised that I heard murmmers of discontent and at one point a minor heckle when Porett was pontificating his nonsense. I think more and more people are waking up to this scam.'

And here for the benefit of people, who believe in honesty in public life, is what the IPCC have REALLY said about 7 metre sea-level rises:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/rkp-statement-unccs-09.pdf

This is a statement by Dr. R. K. Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC, which has 'ACTUALLY produced science to back up their political claims' as your son, the Earth Scientist, will confirm:

'If we take no action to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, then
average temperature by the end of this century would increase anywhere from 1.1 degrees to
6.4 degrees C, with a best estimate at the lower end of 1.8 degrees and at the upper end of
4 degrees C. The world is increasing its emissions at a rate that may take us to the upper end of the range projected, which implies a total increase in these two centuries of over 7 degrees C, that is, over 12 degrees Fahrenheit. Yet between 1970 and 2004 global GHG emissions increased by 70% and carbon dioxide by 80%. We must halt this unacceptable trend.

Climate change, in the absence of mitigation policies would in all likelihood lead to:

1 Possible disappearance of sea ice by the latter part of the 21st century

2 Increase in frequency of hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation

3 Increase in tropical cyclone intensity

4 Decrease in water resources due to climate change in many semi-arid areas, such as the
Mediterranean Basin, western United States, southern Africa and north-eastern Brazil.

5 Possible elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 metres. Without mitigation future temperatures in Greenland would compare with levels estimated for 125,000 years ago when paleo climate information suggests 4 to 6m of sea level rise.

6 Approximately 20 to 30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of
extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5 to 2.5 degrees'

In discussions on something as important for our future as climate change I certainly would prefer a party lead by someone who bothered to check their facts and to actually look at the science rather than spout a faith based mantra.

It would be great if more progressive members of UKIP could indicate here whether ANY of the 5 UKIP leadership candidates have publicly disavowed the insane and unsustainable climate change denialism of the party.

Libertarian said...

Huw


You are absolutely pathetic,

I have given you the direct quote AND a full transcript of the lies told by Porritt on prime time radio.

Lies that even the IPCC have been forced to apologise for


If the Green movement can only advance it's cause by repeatedly lying there is no hope.

As you have decided to become a religion now, a doctrine based on faith and belief rather than fact or science I have no further reason to debate with you.

Al Gore found guilty by a British Court.

Porritt Lying on BBC Radio



SHOW ME A LINK TO THE SCIENCE OR SHUT UP

Libertarian said...

Huw

The drivel you posted about sea ice, Greenland etc is OPINION it's what some people THINK may happen IF POSSIBLY MAYBE. That isn't science, that isn't data, that isn't experiment it's just some people's belief.

IF my Aunty had balls she'd be my uncle.

There are nearly a billion people in the world who believe that the Earth was created by a divine deity in October 4004 BC. It doesn't make it right, it doesn't make it science it's just what a load of people choose to believe.

If you really think it's possible build yourself an ark.

You really are flogging a dead horse with the UKIP leadership thing. As far as I know at least 4 of the candidates are climate realists, don't know Nikki's views but as it's actually the party policy I'd be amazed if they didn't !!!!!

See Bloom MEP in Brussels on "The Global Warming Scam"

I don't know why you think this is important, do you think that by running round telling people UKIP are climate realists it will change their minds?

Have you read any of the free market, libertarian, democracy, liberal or Conservative party blogs ?

WE ARE ALL CLIMATE REALISTS

It's only the Greens, Limp Dums, US Democrats, BBC, Guardian and all the oil companies and banks who believe that climate warming is an issue.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

You said in your inimitable way, 'SHOW ME A LINK TO THE SCIENCE OR SHUT UP.'

I provided you with a link to the IPCC's conclusions.

Your son, the Earth Scientist, will confirm that the IPCC is the most authoritative voice on climate change in the world.

I asked you for your source for your '7 metres in 7 years' claim (08 October 2009 21:09) and all I got were links to thread contributions, with no basis in science, by 'libertarian' and 'woolfie'.

Apparently all UKIP supporters would be impressed with this.

Do you think the British public will?

Libertarian said...

More lies from Huw Peach the Green Party spokesperson.

All you got was a definite link with the quote from Porritt saying what you claimed he never said and I lied about. Plus a full transcript of the programme so you could read the context, just to prove I hadn't manipulated it. You see unlike the Green party I don't need to manipulate data to try to bully people into my beliefs.

You seem to be doubting I have a son now ( actually I have two) the eldest studied Earth Sciences first at Bristol and then completed his Earth Science degree at Durham ( Hatfield house) under Dr. Colin Macpherson. No he doesn't think the IPCC are an authoritative voice on climate change.

Why should they be most of them aren't climate scientists and a lot of them aren't scientists of any kind.

You still haven't provided a link to the experiment that proved it. I know you do modern languages, but do pop down to you science colleagues and ask them how science is done in the real world.

It's interesting that you should ask would the British public buy this ?

Well luckily Huw we've no need to speculate as The Times kindly published the results of a survey today.

Here's the headline, I won't bother with the link as you will only deny I sent it or that the poll exists.

A poll for The Times shows that only 41% of people accept that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made. Thirty two per cent believe the link is not yet proved. Eight per cent say it is environmentalist propaganda and 15% say that the world is not warming.


NOT YET PROVED ! I guess they can't find the link either. I wonder why they all think the IPCC isn't being honest? Any ideas Huw?

Libertarian said...

Huw,

Blimey you fellows really know how to annoy people don't you.

It seems apart from Dave and Zac the Conservatives don't believe you either and you have also gone an upset their blogger in chief Iain Dale.
http://www.iaindale.blogspot.com/

More than HALF the population think you're lying ! I think the Green Party had better rethink it's strategy don't you?

Libertarian said...

Huw,

Sorry I don't like to kick a man when he's down but I know you have a decent sense of humour so take a look at this.

We still keep getting told about the CO2 link despite global average temperatures flattening and falling over the last 12 years. Just because two lines on a graph head in the same direction doesnt mean there is any causal connection between them. This is a supposition not a proven piece of science.

For another perfect example go and look at the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster website to see the graph of rising temperature vs the number of pirates in the world

Read it here
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

Libertarian said...

Huw,

Coming thick and fast now, perhaps you could join the Pirate Party ( yes there really is one http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/)

“Global warmers predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple.”
Kary Mullis
Winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

A little extra context is necessary here:

Kary Mullis is also sceptical as to whether HIV causes AIDS.

"No one has ever proven that HIV causes AIDS. We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV."

Kary Mullis also disputes whether CFCs cause ozone depletion.

Do you or other UKIP supporters agree with Kary Mullis' views on HIV/AIDS and CFCs, libertarian?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Libertarian, you said ( 14 November 2009 19:39 ), ‘All you got was a definite link with the quote from Porritt saying what you claimed he never said and I lied about.’

No, what we got from you was

a) a transcript of what Porritt said with NO mention of the ‘7 years/100 months’ mis-information, which YOU invented here: (a) 08 October 2009 21:09 + b) 13 October 2009 22:27 + c) 16 October 2009 12:14 + d) 16 October 2009 13:56).

b) 2 articles about Any Questions followed by misinformation about Jonathon Porritt in the thread below the articles. That misinformation was provided by …… ‘libertarian’ and ‘woolfie’. ie YOU

Do you now deny that you said ‘7 years/100 months’, libertarian?

Other UKIP bloggers can listen to Jonathan Porritt here to verify whether he said ‘7 years/100 months’: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00m45d0/Any_Questions_21_08_2009/

Time reference: 37.40

Porritt DID talk about sea level rises of 7 metres.

He DID NOT talk of 7 years.

The ‘7 years’ thing was your invention here : (a) 08 October 2009 21:09 + b) 13 October 2009 22:27 + c) 16 October 2009 12:14 + d) 16 October 2009 13:56).

The ‘7 years/100 months’ thing isn’t true and it would help your credibility if you admitted it.

This is a pretty good example of the lies that Jonathon Porritt referred to in the programme. (See your transcript 12 November 2009 19:14 )

Libertarian said...

Ha ha ha ha.....

They were discussing the Bali conference on climate change and specifically the quote " Despite the fact that we are rapidly running out of time to cap carbon emissions — the head of the IPCC has said the world has until 2015 at the latest — Bali is just the beginning of the beginning, not the end"

The Bali conference took place in Dec 2007 if I recall, that would seem to be 7 years to me. You are right Porritt didn't use the term 7 years. However HE DID say if you read the transcript James you can ignore it if you want to be drowned by sea levels.

Much as a nice bloke he is Delingpole isn't going to live for another 1,000 years


You really are clutching at straws

The Green movement screams all the time that time is running out and there is only a few years Prince Charles was quoted ( this was my reference a couple of posts back) as 100 months ( 8 years ! hmmm )


Make your mind up.


Many times I've given you the chance to be clear about why the Greens want to bankrupt the world and return us to the dark ages.

To be successful fascist control freaks like your role model Joe Stalin you really ought to stick to your story at least.


So try answering a straight question with a straight answer


Currently is the world average temperature

Warming, cooling or about the same

Are sea levels going to rise 7 metres

In 7 years , 100 months or 1,000 years or more


Is oil and gas going to run out in the next

200 years, 500 years or who cares we will have invented new technology by then.


Is spraying with DDT the best prevention against malaria that we currently have

Should all banks operate on the same basis as Sharia Law, that is no profit from interest rates, usury to be outlawed.

Libertarian said...

To answer your question on

Kary Mullins do I agree with his other view..


my answer is..... NO

Libertarian said...

Huw

Still waiting to hear about the Green Party wishing to close down Sri Lankan Cotton farmers et al by removing the derivatives and commodities markets.

I'm waiting .... or isn't the answer to my question in you book of stock responses to difficult questions as provided by the green mafia.

Of course you can't even google it because you don't know where to start because you have no idea what the question refers to even.

Tell you what , why not ask your economic guru Ann Petticoat the South African lady.

Libertarian said...

Huw,

I came across this, I think it may help you recognize and deal with your issues

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

Libertarian said...

Huw,

Here's another one, so ALL the scientists agree, the science is settled. Actually it seems to me that more and more scientists are finding the courage to speak out

"Limitations on Anthropogenic Global Warming"

Dr Leonard Weinstein, ScD (NASA)

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/limitations-on-anthropogenic-global-warming


Before you ask I have no idea what Dr Weinstein's thoughts on Arsenals chances of winning the title, Jedwards performance on X factor or the cause of autism are.

Libertarian said...

Huw,

I know you are busy, but do try to keep up. The consensus is fast turning here's another one starting to believe it's safe to put head above the parapet.

The Emperor is naked it seems

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=427&storycode=3152563&c=1



More and more people now realise that AGW stands for Al Gore's Waffle

Libertarian said...

Huw,

Well I'm flabbergasted ! I never thought that Archbishop Gore would actually just come right out and admit it. We aren't bothering with facts we're going for the spiritual/religious message .

http://worldbbnews.com/2009/11/gores-spiritual-argument-on-climate/


Now this is interesting as how do a bunch of Green marxists respond to being part of a religious movement ?

What are your thoughts on this Huw.

Are you going to found the Co-op Bank of the Latter Day Saints ? Or will we have a huge employment increase in Vow of carbonless living Monks? Is there to be a windmill on every church and minaret?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Paul Woolf, I am in open-mouthed awe at the sheer number of people you have managed to insult and alienate in this thread.

I hope some of your fellow UKIP bloggers share my concern that attacking the world's faith communities is about as sustainable a strategy for UKIP as maintaining that 'NONE of the scientists have ACTUALLY produced any science to back up their political claims'
( 10 November 2009 14:56).

Animal Magic said...

It not that the scientists don't back up their claims. In fact I don't think they make claims as such, I think they hypothesise and indicate their degree of confidence on their observations/data. It is the politicians that make the claims after cherry picking the scientists. This is what we object to.

Libertarian said...

Huw


Oh please, is that the very best you can do?

Still I'm pleased to see that you are outraged that AL Gore can so blatantly produce a story for each of the worlds religions how patronising, derogatory and defamatory is that !




So are you actually going to answer any of the questions or do you intend to carry on with your Kenneth Williams impersonation?


Did you hear Radio 4 Today programme this morning. Even the BBC is losing the faith. John Humphries was challenging about the Warmest Faith with a lady talking about Copenhagen.


What are you going to move onto once this nonsense has been exposed for the scam that it is?

Libertarian said...

Huw Peach Green Party

Having got your faux indignation out of the way.

I am waiting to hear your excuse for the blatant emotionalising and story boarding of the new religion whilst willingly discarding facts .

Is this Green Party Policy in all areas of your manifesto?


Come on I'm waiting ANSWER the question.

You have FAILED to answer 4 simple questions multiple times, they are very simple.

I am more than happy for you to answer "I don't know" but to ignore basic questions is as you know what the voters hate about leftwing politicians.

Libertarian said...

Talk about insulting religions Huw.

What about this quote
"Maybe there is some other reason entirely, but the numbers don't lie: The more religious a country is, the worse people behave in their private lives. Thank God they didn't do a survey on the correlation between strong religious belief and war"
Gwynne Dyer ( Green activist)

Link to the rest of the article rubbishing religion if you can bare to read it
http://www.greenparty.ca/node/1027


OR how do you feel about this quote from Elizabeth May

"The policies of the Green party are developed through a grass-roots democratic process. As a party, we do not cite scripture to defend positions. As party leader, neither do I."
Obviously nobody told Al Gore that.

Huw Peach

You know you said about not offending religions, wellwhat do you think that most of the major religions would make of being called "divisive and discriminatory" by The Green Party ?

The Green Party of England and Wales on their new policy on publicly funded faith schools: The Green Party make big strides with religion and schools

Conference delegates approved a range of policies, which sought to remove religious privilege from the education system and introduce more inclusive education practices. The most significant policy adopted said that religious organisations should not be involved in the running of state funded schools, meaning an end to divisive and discriminatory faith schools.

Just asking like, I know you don't have any answers

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Animal Magic, you said: 'It's not that the scientists don't back up their claims. In fact I don't think they make claims as such.'

I'm glad you side-step Paul Woolf's embarrassing claim that 'NONE of the scientists have ACTUALLY produced any science to back up their political claims'
( 10 November 2009 14:56).

(By the way what do you, Animal Magic, were you as impressed as I was with Woolfie's internet links to himself and '7 metres/7 years' disinformation about Jonathon Porritt?)

You said scientists 'don't make claims as such'. However, are you and other UKIP activists truly unaware of the large number of prestigious scientific institutions from around the globe, who have issued warnings to politicians of the urgent need to cut greenhouse gas emissions?

I listed them on 16 October 2009 01:15.

Just a couple of days ago the UK's Institution of Mechanical Engineers issued a report saying that to cut CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050, we need to put the country on a 'war footing' to ensure the needed green industrial revolution.

http://www.imeche.org/about/keythemes/environment/Climate+Change/MAG

Maybe you could enlighten me as to why ALL these scientific institutions are wrong to call for radical steps to cut greenhouse gases and why Lord Pearson is right to say that action to safeguard a liveable environment is 'pointless'.

Animal Magic said: 'It is the politicians that make the claims after cherry picking the scientists. This is what we object to.'

Naomi Oreskes' article in Science magazine showed that NOT ONE of the 928 papers that she analysed, published in refereed science journals between 1993 and 2003, challenged the IPCC's view that warming is anthropogenic.

Not one.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Which politicians are cherry-picking, please, Animal Magic?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Libertarian, in between your invective, insults and claims that Greens are 'hysterical', you asked 4 questions which I should have answered straight away.

1. 'Currently is the world average temperature warming, cooling or about the same?'

Temperature records show it is warming. Glaciers are melting. Sea ice is retreating. Sea levels are rising.

The Met Office says, 'The rise in global surface temperature has averaged more than 0.15 °C per decade since the mid-1970s.

The 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1997.

Global warming does not mean that each year will necessarily be warmer than the last because of natural variability, but the long-term trend is for rising temperatures.

The warmth of the last half century is unprecedented in, at least, the previous 1,300 years.'

2) 'Are sea levels going to rise 7 metres in 7 years , 100 months or 1,000 years or more?'

1,000 years, but the important thing here is that the TIPPING POINT when the melting of Greenland becomes irreversible is dangerously close, and that is why we have to start cutting greenhouse gases drastically TODAY.

3) 'Is oil and gas going to run out in the next 200 years, 500 years or who cares we will have invented new technology by then?'

There is still lots of oil, but it is getting harder, dirtier and more expensive/energy intensive to extract (see Alberta tar sands).

However, consumption is expanding and supply is getting tight.

Many credible sources are suggesting that PEAK OIL could be upon us by 2013, when oil prices will shoot up suddenly bringing the cost of living with them.

This will not mean the end of oil but the end of cheap oil.

It's time for a green industrial revolution and massive government investment in energy conservation and preparing our economy for the shock ahead.

4) Should all banks operate on the same basis as Sharia Law, that is no profit from interest rates, usury to be outlawed?

No bank should be charging poor people 19% interest.

Banks should be properly regulated so that such exploitative interest rates are not pushed on vulnerable groups.

Libertarian said...

Oh Dear Huw

You only answered one of my questions and you got it WRONG. Average global temperatures according to the IPCC have been cooling since the peak in 1998.

As for oil running out in 2013 you obviously didn't read my earlier post about Uganda and 20 billion barrel find and in the press today an oilfield with 20 million barrels has been granted a drilling licence in Lincolnshire! I think we are safe for a little while yet.

The cost of oil is mostly tax, that's easily fixable.


Fair play though, at least you've made an attempt to defend the indefensible. Most of your contemporaries invoke Godwins law after about 3 posts.


So onto the stuff about religion, let's hear your defence !

Libertarian said...

By the way Huw no poor person should be signing up to loans with 19% interest when the Bank of England interest rate is the lowest it's been for 300 years. Idiots that run up debt on credit cards that charge that kind of apr or use debt consolidation companies because they get all their information from day time tv should get a grip.
( maybe you would care to provide information on which Bank is charging poor people 19%)
Maybe if state schools taught basic economics and money management instead of left wing propoganda and diversity social engineering we wouldn't have an underclass of mugs.

Libertarian said...

Huw.....er

"Just a couple of days ago the UK's Institution of Mechanical Engineers issued a report saying that to cut CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050, we need to put the country on a 'war footing' to ensure the needed green industrial revolution"

This is just a statement of fact, not a scientific experiment proving that it needs to be done. The statement is quite correct. However it doesn't address the need to do it in the first place.

You keep going on and on and on and on about how many people say that greenhouse gas is bad.

So it really shouldn't be difficult to point me at the actual data from a peer reviewed empirical experiment proving there is a link between greenhouse gasses and run away catastrophic global warming.

Go on, just one link.

I really am open minded enough and willing to hold my hands up and admit I'm wrong if you show me this.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

The temperature trend is upwards.

The 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1997.

This fact does not concern UKIP, which denies climate change and does not seem to want to understand or acknowledge that there are dangerous tipping points in the climate system.

As for peak oil, the IEA says 'depletion rates are high' in all current fields.

North Sea oil peaked in 2000.

Animal Magic said...

@Huw

You asked me what I do. The answer is not a lot, as I am a retired from some 40 years of software engineerign. The broad areas of application included mathematical modeling, engineering and communications.

I don't think I have read anything from Paul Woolfe. Can you give me a link please?

Actually I am not at present a UKIP activist. I am a life long Conservative that doesn't like the way the party is going under Cameron. I am as yet undecided which party, if any, to support. Obviously UKIP and LPUK are contenders.

You also ask me whether I was aware of prestigious scientific institutions supporting AGW. The answer is yes, but I am also aware that there are dissenting individuals within those instituations as well as equally prestigious instituations that don't support AGW. Only now are they beginning to get their voices heard.

To answer your question about which politicians cherry-pick. I am of the opinion that the IPCC is a political organisation. Its members are individual scientists and pseudo-scientists cherry-picked by governments to further their cause of global governance. So basically I think all the ruling elite cherry-pick. The leading picker in our case being Ed Miliband.

Sorry to have butted in on what seems to have become a private conversation between yourself and Libertarian. I'll get my coat!

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

No need to get your coat, Animal Magic.

Before you go, could you respond to that one question about Naomi Oreskes' paper in Science magazine, which I posed?

Not one of the 928 peer-reviewed papers on climate change challenged the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.

I know oil companies like Exxon Mobil, coal companies, and the PR companies, front groups and right-wing think tanks which they generously fund, challenge that consensus, but ...

Aren't those very powerful forces, whose presence in the debate needs to be acknowledged, cherry-picking, when you consider science historian, Naomi Oreskes' findings?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

See also this video: http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=13459

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Libertarian: 'So it really shouldn't be difficult to point me at the actual data from a peer reviewed empirical experiment proving there is a link between greenhouse gasses and run away catastrophic global warming.'

IPCC report 2007: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

By the way, Animal Magic, do you share Paul Woolf's (libertarian) belief that 'NONE of the scientists have ACTUALLY produced any science to back up their political claims' ( 10 November 2009 14:56).

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Talking of powerful interests, whose presence in the debate is of course legitimate, but which needs -at least- to be acknowledged, Libertarian (Paul Woolf), you cited Ian Plimer on 08 October 2009 21:09.

Ian Plimer is a director of 3 Australian mining companies, Ivanhoe Australia, CBH Resources and Kefi Minerals.

He therefore has a vested interest in saying that mankind need not be concerned about global warming.

Source: http://www.prwatch.org/node/8686

On 14 November 2009 20:26 you cited Nobel Prize winner, Kary Mullis, saying that those greedy scientists were just after people's money and that is why they keep talking about climate change;

'If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple.”

What do you think of Ian Plimer's interests in the light of this comment?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

On religion, there was nothing faux about my indignation.

I just find it alienating to listen to your ill-judged, sweeping generalisations about massive groups of people.

Calling people 'idiots' may be fun for you, but I would imagine that many of your party colleagues are turned off by it.

I probably don't fall into the mainstream of Green thought, when it comes to religion. Locally at least in Shropshire, I have been impressed by the actions of individual Christians to turn the message from the climate scientists into practical action, insulating their houses, installing heat exchange systems, solar panels on Church roofs etc.

Compassion is at the heart of most of the world's religions.

If 300,000 people a year are dying as a result of changes in the climate, it is unsurprising that faith leaders see it as their moral duty to respond to this.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Paul Woolf, you said 'NONE of the scientists have ACTUALLY produced any science to back up their political claims' ( 10 November 2009 14:56).

Apparently your son, the Earth Scientist, agrees.

This is not what Sir John Houghton, former Chair of the IPCC said in Church Stretton, Shropshire, last month:

http://www.strettonclimatecare.org.uk/locals-taking-action/sir-john-socked-it-to-em/

Animal Magic said...

@Huw

I have now read the article by Naomi Oreskes you referred to. I'm afraid it doesn't sway my opinion.

For one, the warmists get the lions share of public funding and all the publicity. The latter because it makes the sort of headlines that sell magazines and newspapers. Only the blogosphere has its fair share of doubters. Note I didn't write "deniers" because I think the jury is still out.

Secondly the IPCC could probably have had access to a lot more than the 928 scientific papers than they reference. Very suspicious that there were no dissenting papers since they are definitely out there.

Hurling opposing references at each other won't really get us anywhere, but as an example of a former true believer undergoing a change of mind how about:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327254.000-world-will-cool-for-the-next-decade.html

Naomi Oreskes concludes her article by saying;

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it

She might equally have said that our grandchildren will surely blame us is we piss trillions of dollars up the wall (i.e. their inheritance) for no good reason.

Animal Magic said...

@Huw

Sorry I should have read all the comments. I see that Latif's views had already been aired.

I also meant to comment on the fact that you seem to believe that the deniers are backed by the petro-chemical industry and other big energy corporations. I think the opposite is the case. They can see taxpayers' megabucks waving at them if they diversify to wind farms, wave energy, nuclear power and carbon trading.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

The reason I quoted the Naomi Oreskes article, Animal Magic, was because you said that people, who want action on climate change, 'cherry-pick' the science.

The opposite is the case as the Oreskes article shows.

Not one of the papers she analysed disputed the scientific consensus on anthropogenic warming.

Would you not agree?

You said that our grandchildren would not forgive us for 'pissing' their inheritance away.

So massive investment in energy-saving homes, energy-saving lighting, energy-saving transport, energy-saving waste treatment and locally-produced green energy (ie good stewardship of resources) is equivalent to 'pissing' money away in your view?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Animal Magic, you seemed to be unaware that vested interests are doing their utmost to make the Copenhagen Summit a failure.

Google Global Climate Coalition to find out what vested interests did to the Kyoto Summit.

ExxonMobil funds think tanks, which propagate disinformation about climate change

This disinformation is then further warped in the blogosphere.

See Greenpeace's list of Exxon-funded institutions, which deny climate change is a problem:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php

As an example of disinformation from this thread, this list includes the Heartland Institute.

The Heartland Institute was the source of false allegations about Al Gore being a 'Director of Lehman Bros' (repeated throughout this thread by libertarian).

See: 16 October 2009 22:25 + 12 November 2009 16:55 and exposed as baseless here: 12 November 2009 17:54)

The UK's Royal Society, Britain's foremost scientific institution, has publicly complained about this disinformation:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business

The Union of Concerned Scientists has also highlighted this:

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

What do you think of Exxon's role in this discussion?

Animal Magic said...

@Huw

I agree that none of the papers she reviewed disputed AGW.

I just question who exactly chose the papers such that they were unanimously pro AGW? Given the incentive I think I could pick just as many scientific papers tending or even emphatically toward an opposing view.

I do not dispute that saving energy is a good idea as its sources, including nuclear, are limited resources. I do my bit in this respect, lagging the loft, recycling etc. I hate energy saving light bulbs with a passion, but I use them. My bitch is with the political elite that exploit scientific theory to their own end.

Wind Farms are a nonsense. There is no way that this country let alone the US can obtain the majority of its power requirement from wind power. Yet here we are contemplating building on and off-shore wind farms at enormous public expense. Also they are proposing to transfer billions of pounds of hard earned tax payers money to third world developing countries. Supposedly the purpose of this is so that they can afford to be greener. What the chance of that may I ask? What doesn't go into the pockets of corrupt leaders will be spent on projects that are anything but green.

Animal Magic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Animal Magic said...

@Libertarian et al. Please come back as Huw is a bit of a handful for me on my own. I'm only a novice at this blog commenting malarky!

Animal Magic said...

@Huw

Re vested interests.

There are vested interests on both sides try:

http://onthecommons.org/content.php?id=1900

As I said earlier we can hurl opposing references at each other until the cows come home. You have your opinion and I have mine. Neither the twain...

Anyway that has to be my parting shot for today as my tea is ready and my wife gets fed up if I spend all evening on my computer. I'll be back tomorrow unless I can find something else to amuse me.

Now where did I put those drumsticks?

Libertarian said...

HUW

This really is very simple.

STOP posting stuff about the OPINIONS of scientists and others. Opinions AREN'T science. Show me an experiment.

Ha ha ha it's all a big oil conspiracy theory now is it? As to my sons views, his specialist area is volcanoes and basalt traps so I guess you can work out where he thinks most co2 comes from....


Animal Magic

Don't be put off debating Huw, he's friendly really. He just quotes chapter and verse from the holy book of climate change. His arguments consist of telling you that everyone that believes in climate change is an expert who is right and all the scientists who don't are mad, corrupt or paid by big oil or all 3.

His "evidence" consists of glaring contradictions that he weasels out of by changing the subject .

He loves to selectively quote from ONE UKIP leadership candidate and ascribe that person's views to all UKIP members whilst NOT subscribing to his own parties policies when it suits him.

As I say though he's a thoroughly decent chap and is perfectly fine all the time he is wearing his tin foil beanie hat.

Libertarian said...

Huw,

Ha ha ha... that was a joke right the link to Sir John in the same post as vested interests and corrupt thinking. The Haley Centre for forecasting all this nonsense in the first place. Not exactly a reliable witness.

Would have more cred if his Met Centre ever got a prediction right AND talk about not using the scriptures ....hmmm hypocracy

"Sir John Theodore Houghton FRS CBE is a Welsh scientist who was the co-chair of the Nobel Peace Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) scientific assessment working group. He was the lead editor of first three IPCC reports. He was professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre.
He is the chairman of the John Ray Initiative, an organisation "connecting Environment, Science and Christianity", where he has compared the stewardship of the Earth, to the stewardship of the Garden of Eden by Adam and Eve. He is a founder member of the International Society for Science and Religion."

Now I hope you don't take offence on behalf of 1.6 billion Christians but any scientist that links the Earth's climate and Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden has got to be a bit suspect on the actual science and data front don't you think?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Animal Magic, you said 'I agree that none of the papers [Naomi Oreskes] reviewed disputed AGW.

I just question who exactly chose the papers such that they were unanimously pro AGW? Given the incentive I think I could pick just as many scientific papers tending or even emphatically toward an opposing view.'

If you read the full introduction to the article she explains this there:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

She says that she only analysed

a) papers published in refereed (ie peer-reviewed) journals

b) papers in the ISI database with the keyword 'climate change'

There are plenty of papers produced by other bodies (just look at the Exxon Secrets list to see organisations putting out papers on climate change), but those are not necessarily published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

That's the difference.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Paul Woolf, libertarian, you avoided my question about Ian Plimer's mining interests.

Do you have a view on them?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Libertarian, you chortled merrily about the idea that oil companies could possibly want to manipulate the policy debate in their favour in the run-up to the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change in December.

Sir John Houghton, who you attacked for his religious views, highlighted the role of coal/oil companies in warping the climate debate, when he spoke to Parliament in the year 2000:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmsctech/285/0031505.htm

See point 50 about vested interests.

(Your son, the Earth Scientist, might be interested in what Houghton said 9 years ago about volcanos in point 41.)

As for his religious beliefs, he said in a speech in 2001,

'Christians and other religious people believe that we've been put on the earth to look after it.

Creation is not just important to us, we believe also it is important to God and that the rest of creation has an importance of its own... we are destroying forests, important forests.

When I say "we" I mean "we" the human race of which we are part. We are party to the destruction, we allow it to happen, in fact it helps to make us richer. We really need to take our responsibility as ‘gardeners' more seriously.'

Are such views really so reprehensible and shocking in your eyes, Paul?

And after reading the IPCC reports and Houghton's testimony to Parliament do you still aver that 'NONE of the scientists have ACTUALLY produced any science to back up their political claims' (10November 2009 14:56)?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Libertarian, you asked (12 November 2009 17:00 ) what I thought a Sri Lankan cotton farmer thought about the cotton futures market.

I don’t know.

However, I would imagine s/he would be more concerned about climate, growing conditions and guaranteed prices than tighter regulation of the futures market.

This Radio Netherlands interview with a Malian cotton farmer shows what his major concerns are:
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/climate-change-close-malis-cotton-farmers

What does UKIP think of the fair trade movemenent, by the way?

Animal Magic said...

@Huw

Sorry to butt in again.

With regard to the Mali story. African countries have been suffering droughts for centuries. If you follow the related articles link on the Mali article you referenced and entitled "Droughts & Sandstorms - Don't blame climate change you get an alternative view".

With regard to Fair Trade. I don't know what the UKIP view is as I am not a member, My view is that if there were truly a free market, i.e we weren't signed up to the EU's Single Market nonsense, then Fair Trade would happen as a matter of course.

As I said before there is never going to be a real consensus on AGW so it comes down to who wins the political argument. Unfortunately as with our EU membership it doesn't look as if the sceptics will get a look in.

Animal Magic said...

@Huw

To back up my previous post. Science Daily states that "Mega-Droughts in Sub-Saharan Africa are normal for Region" Western Africa has been suffering them for 3,000 years. The article does say that they are likely to get worse, but hey what could be worse than a drought that lasts for a 100 years.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090416144520.htm

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Thanks for the links to Science Daily, Animal Magic.

Yes, the article says the droughts are likely to get worse DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING.

But hey, UKIP supporters think the climate is cooling.

So why should UKIP bloggers be concerned about Malian cotton farmers' weather concerns when what Malians really need, despite not knowing it, is a good dose of unregulated global capitalism...

By the way, while you were looking at Science Daily, did you see the article:

'Oceans' Uptake of Human-Made Carbon May Be Slowing'

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091118143211.htm

The only reason I mention this is because Libertarian cited a study by Wolfgang Knorr of Bristol Earth Sciences department on 11 November 2009 13:03, which emphasised the astonishing resilience of natural carbon sinks like oceans and forests to absorb man-made carbon dioxide.

Remember that this is despite man-made CO2 emissions increasing from 2 billion tonnes per year in 1850 to current levels of 35 billion tonnes per year.

In a later post (11 November 2009 17:47) I highlighted the concerns of other scientists that 'the ability of the oceans and rainforests to absorb carbon dioxide in the future may collapse, leading to a massive increase in temperatures.'

I also pointed out that Knorr feels the world needs to cut CO2 emissions at Copenhagen.

This got the equivalent of a 'hey' from Paul Woolf/Libertarian (11 November 2009 21:23), reminiscent of Lord Rannoch's view that cutting carbon is a 'pointless exercise'.

Today's article in Nature says:

The oceans absorb more than 25% of the carbon dioxide that humans put into the air.

Last year they took up a record 2.3billion tons of CO2 produced from burning of fossil fuels.

But with accelerating overall emissions, the proportion of fossil-fuel emissions absorbed by the oceans since 2000 may have declined by as much as 10%.

The more CO2 the oceans absorb, the more acidic the ocean becomes.

The more acidic the ocean becomes, the less able it becomes to retain CO2.

Hey?

Libertarian said...

No idea if Plimer has mining interests or not. Couldn't care less. Doesn't mean a thing.

For all you know you may have oil interests if you have a pension plan.

I've certainly got some Green investments. When it comes to making money no use being a fool about it.

I guess from you post you are accusing Dr Plimer of corruption in some form. I'd be careful what you bandy around, libel laws do operate on the internet you know

Libertarian said...

Huw,

I don't speak for UKIP so ask them.
But my opinion is another matter I'm all for free trade ( fair trade is a load of old nonsense) Developing countries should be given free access to world markets to trade on a level playing field. They would succeed because their costs are much lower.

They currently can't though because the EU and USA operate anti competitive protectionist trade barriers.

What's the Green Parties view on protectionist barriers especially EU CAP and CFP?

Libertarian said...

Huw

Fair play on the cotton farmer question. I know you didn't know because most socialists don't .

Respect though as you both answered honestly AND you got it right without knowing.

Yes the farmers most pressing concern is guaranteed prices. That is why the derivatives market is so important as they trade cotton futures contracts which guarantee the grower a fixed price for her crop. The fact that those institutions may then choose to trade those contracts is nether here nor there.

But hey enough of that let's get back to arguing.

NO FARMER of a product like cotton is worried about global warming ( unless there are subsidies or grants to be had) Increased Co2 and a warmer wetter climate are IDEAL crop growing conditions

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Yes, but farmers ARE concerned about climate and growing conditions.

And the Malian farmer is unlikely to be reassured by a UKIP activist's claim that, hey, things will get wetter, when he can see they are getting drier.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

My point about Ian Plimer was a response to your post on 14 November 2009 20:26, when you cited Kary Mullis accusing scientists of talking about climate change to get money.

Ian Plimer's leading role in 3 Australian mining companies, Ivanhoe Australia, CBH Resources and Kefi Minerals, to me (and probably to other people who 'bother to check the facts'), seems like a conflict of interest which at least needs to be acknowledged in the discussion.

At present, the fact that Plimer has a vested interest in saying that mankind need not be concerned about global warming is not a part of the debate. I think it is legitimate to point it out if you say that the scientists are doing it for the money.

Source: http://www.prwatch.org/node/8686

By the way I did not threaten legal action when you accused me and the vast majority of the world's climatologists of 'lying'.

It's strange that this attempt to close down a legitimate part of the discussion is the knee-jerk response of 'libertarians'.

Animal Magic said...

@Huw

My point concerning the droughts article in science daily was that for 3000 years W Africa has suffered droughts some of which have lasted 100 years. How much worse than that could it get?

What proportion of the earth's atmosphere is 35 billion tons of Man Made CO2? Its a big number, but meaningless to me. How do they measure the amount of CO2 emitted by us?. How many trillions tons of oxygen does the world's flora emit? How much CO2 do plants absorb? I honestly have no idea.

I have read that man made CO2 is a very tiny proportion of total CO2 emissions so why do you think it could make such dramatic difference to climate?

Libertarian said...

Huw

Not closing down an argument, I just think that a geologist having shares in a mining company is rather like a Green Party Activist buying fair trade tie dye sandals....unexceptional.

However if you wish to discuss vested interests and money making ventures that various protagonists are involved in, feel free.

Why don't we start with you.

We know you are a teacher at a top public school but what is your pension fund invested in? What other investments do you have? What car do you drive?..... This could be a long argument....


The point of which seems to be that people have vested interests....No shit Sherlock !

As this is something I have been pointing out to you every time you say why would thousands of scientists say they agree..

Libertarian said...

@Animal Magic

To answer your very sensible question the total amount of Co2 in the atmosphere is 0.038%

Not such a large catastrophic number now is it?

See here for some reality

http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html

Animal Magic said...

I have just been reading blogs commenting on the hack into the Hadley Climate Change Centre at University of East Anglia. Very interesting. If the emails etc. prove genuine then it will show that one important advocate of AGW has rigged the data. Could it be that their motive in doing so is simply to preserve their jobs? If one set of experts is proven to have published biased reports what confidence will we then have in the rest of them?

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

I see, libertarian.

So Ian Plimer getting paid $A125,000 in 2009 by CBH Resources and having share options worth approximately $A356,963 is the same as me buying my favourite fair trade sandals.

So there's no difference and the mining company have no vested interest in the debate.

Thanks for explaining.

Libertarian said...

Huw

"Yes, but farmers ARE concerned about climate and growing conditions.

And the Malian farmer is unlikely to be reassured by a UKIP activist's claim that, hey, things will get wetter, when he can see they are getting drier."


As you well know I never mentioned Mali and as I well know Mali is part of the Fairtrade Operation and is therefore in your little green book of Maoist quotes but what ever I'll allow your deviated argument.


Farmers in susceptibility to weather shocker!!!!

Huw you might fool gullible teenage students with this kind of selective nonsense but please don't try it on me.


Anyway back to Mali and my proposition that warm climates help growth.

"Mali’s cotton production has grown from 500,000 tonnes in 1997 to a record 635,000 tonnes in 2003, making Mali the largest cotton producer on the African continent."


I think you will find that it gets "wetter as it gets warmer" is one of the central planks of the Green movements argument as to why rather than temperatures going up as predicted in you programmed computer models in fact it has just rained more

Libertarian said...

Huw,

I really don't believe that you want to pursue Plimer's mining interests ( although with those kind of returns I will be checking them out)

If you don't wish to discuss your under performing investment portfolio ( surely you've made a killing out of the 5 million Green jobs you will be creating in the UK ???)


Shall we start discussing the $100's millions so far made by Al Gore on the back of promoting AGW?

Libertarian said...

Ha ha Nice one Huw

I nearly fell for that.

Sorry I may be a thicko working class boy from a London Council estate but exactly what has a mining company got to do with global warming and why would Plimer as you charge make up science to disprove global warming in order to gain money from a mining company?

Libertarian said...

Oh Huw !


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

OH DEAR !

Let's see what happens with this, it's all over the internet but of course the big tipping point will come if The Daily Telegraph does an "expenses scandal" type expose on it.

Watching this space.

Anyway back to mining companise

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Thanks for bringing it back to mining companies, libertarian.

(I will comment on the other thing later, if it is confirmed to be true. I hope you understand that the disinformation -in this thread alone- about climate science, Al Gore, Jonathon Porritt and James Hansen's 'boss' etc etc make me unwilling to believe everything you say, Paul Woolf)

1) First I want to challenge your idea that both sides have equal financial vested interests.

My vested interest is in a liveable and affordable future for my children, grand-children, and great grand-children.

Whereas you would have to be wilfully blind to ignore the massive vested interests which have a stake in making Copenhagen a failure.

(Read Sharon Beder's excellent book, Global Spin, for a full understanding of how PR spin, front groups, astroturf campaigns, corporate-funded think-tanks and corporate media ownership make it very difficult for citizens in modern dmocracies to have an informed debate about issues as serious as climate change.)

2) I would also like to challenge your second contention (which I think is ridiculous) that Ian Plimer's annual director's fees of $65,000 from Ivanhoe Australia are as unremarkable as me buying Fairtrade cotton T-shirts.

If his interests in mining companies are really 'unexceptional' as you say, then why did he not reveal them, when asked, in this interview with ABC's 'stateline' programme?

(see last question in transcript here: http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/sa/content/2006/s2547227.htm )

Plimer has argued that the introduction of a cap-and-trade system in Australia could have a major impact on the mining industry, and even "probably destroy it totally".

( Source: http://www.prwatch.org/node/8686 )

To me his share options and salaries do not negate his argument, but they do represent a stronger vested interest in the debate than me wanting a steady flow of Fairtrade organic products.

Libertarian said...

Huw,

Trying to smear me is pointless.

Weaselling round the evidence presented doesn't cut the mustard.

You once again ignored a direct question, if as you say Plimer is reaping tons of cash from a mining co, so what.


My question WAS and IS why does a MINING company have a vested interest in denying global warming.

Oh and whilst on the subject of mining below ground and big big big porkie pies. Did you hear Al Gore on the news?

He claimed, get this Huw you won't be happy, wait for it it's a cracker, Al Gore seriously claimed to an audience of millions that geo thermal heat is the way forward ( no problem with that) because ( this is the bit ) the earth's temperature was MILLIONS of degrees down there.......ha ha ha ha ROFLMA.

No wonder none of you are taken seriously.

Is it because Al Gore is a

1. Pig ignorant
2. A big liar
3. Emotionalising the story by looking for a spiritual angle

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Animal Magic, you said about Mali, 'My point concerning the droughts article in science daily was that for 3000 years W Africa has suffered droughts some of which have lasted 100 years. How much worse than that could it get?'

For some sort of indication of how much worse things will get if the obfuscators get their way and tipping points are crossed, I recommend Mark Lynas' book, '6 Degrees'.

This has a chapter which indicates what the world would look like with each 1 degree rise in global mean temperature.

Read chapter 6 for an answer to your question, Animal Magic.

You then asked about carbon dioxide.

AM: 'I have read that man made CO2 is a very tiny proportion of total CO2 emissions so why do you think it could make such dramatic difference to climate?'

Libertarian is right to say that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is at 383 ppm.

He is wrong to say this is insignificant.

The video lecture (over 50 mins long) by Naomi Oreskes which I cited on 09 October 2009 00:52 explains the history of understanding about carbon dioxide's heat-trapping qualities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio

6-7 minutes into the lecture...

She explains John Tyndall's findings about carbon dioxide in the 1850s, which UKIP now deny.

She goes on to explain how the understanding of climate science has evolved.

It would be interesting to hear what you think about the lecture, Animal Magic.

Libertarian said...

Huw,

This is serious now,

Phil Jones has admitted the emails are legit and is busy trying to spin his way out. The problem he has is they haven't all been released yet.

Not looking good

http://www.investigatemagazine.com/australia/latestissue.pdf

I cheered myself up with a good laugh at Al Gore, by watching the interview again....he actually said 2 million degrees....OMG !

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Paul Woolf, the man who says 'NONE of the scientists have ACTUALLY produced any science to back up their political claims' (10 November 2009 14:56) thinks Al Gore is an ignoramus.

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

By the way, Paul, do you agree with Ian Plimer that volcanoes currently emit more CO2 than humans?

This claim from his book about global warming has been widely criticized and challenged by other experts.

Libertarian said...

Huw Peach

Green Party activist

I take it from your comment that you actually agree with Al Gore that the centre of the Earth operates at temperatures of 2,000,000 degrees !!!!

Huw Peach

Green Party Preacher

If you are so incredulous that I should not believe the opinions of you, all the Green protagonists who are now being caught lying, falsifying data and "emotionalising the spiritual angle"

There is an EASY way to show me you are right. POINT ME TO A SCIENTIFIC STUDY. Not opinion pieces and theories.



Yes I do believe that Volcanic activity on land and under sea and including basalt traps produce more CO2 than man. I don't understand the science and have not looked into it in any depth. I rang my son ( remember him, the one you implied doesn't exist) . He fell about laughing when I told him that you have said "experts don't agree". His ( and mine ) response was experts in what? Who?

He started telling me about sulphate feedback mechanisms and rock formation based on CO2 absorption and a geology paper produced recently showing that it's even MORE than Plimer thought. My son doesn't have a lot of time for Plimer as he thinks he is a bit out of date and old school. Something about the study now being focused on Deccan Traps alone being responsible for historic mass extinctions. Sorry if all this is vague but it was a garbled phone call ( my son is working as a volunteer teacher in Turks and Caicos at the moment).

I will investigate further and provide a link to the evidence.

Libertarian said...

Huw Peach Green Party Doom Monger

By the way you seemed maybe rightly vexed that Plimer had received a substantial amount of money from his mining interests.

Well reading the papers this morning that are publishing the Hadley CRU False Data Scandal emails it appears that as you can see from Phil Jones’ budget spreadsheet, this has been a very lucrative way to act; he has received no less than £13.7 million in state funding. Wow that's one hell of a vested interest don't you think?

Libertarian said...

Huw

As a man of mildly Christian leaning do you find this acceptable behaviour on behalf of the Green Movement?

Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as "cheering news".

Libertarian said...

Huw

As a man that likes to do his research to arrive at a balanced opinion I thought I would take the liberty of linking to this site that gives a handy précis of all the dodgy stuff in the Hadley CRU Data falsifying and smear campaigning scandal

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

Libertarian said...

Huw,


ManBearPig has come home to roost I think.

http://i49.tinypic.com/mk8113.jpg

The Socialist Workers Party are recruiting I believe if you want to join somewhere that talks nonsense but with integrity

Huw Peach, Green Party said...

Libertarian you said, 'POINT ME TO A SCIENTIFIC STUDY.'

As 'someone who bothers to check their facts and to actually look at the science rather than spout a faith based mantra' ( 07 October 2009 15:14 ), have you considered reading the IPCC's 4th Assessment 2007, Paul Woolf?

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

Have you looked at the science in the IPCC and bothered to check the facts?

Or do you and other UKIP bloggers think the IPCC report is not science, drawn from data published in peer-reviewed scientific papers?

Table 1.1 on page 31 shows that

a) global average surface temperature is rising,

b) global average sea level is rising

c)northern hemisphere snow cover is decreasing

I could go on and on, quoting back IPCC findings on trends in precipitation levels among other things if you want to talk about current events.

Do you and UKIP really contend that 'NONE of the scientists have ACTUALLY produced any science to back up their political claims' (10 November 2009 14:56)?

Animal Magic said...

@Huw

Re: Mali, I was specifically asking what could be worse than a 100 year drought for the W African people not the planet as whole. I don't believe it will stop raining everywhere, it certainly hasn't in Wiltshire this week.

Re: Naomi Oreske video. As you requested I watched the first 10 minutes. In that 10 minutes she said nothing that convinced me that the science is conclusive. With regard to Tyndall's work in the 1850s. Wasn't that the end of the little ice age? Not surprising that things got a bit warmer then was it?

A lot of scientific opinions have changed since then and a lot of scientific theories have been discredited.

wv: arshen ??

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 267   Newer› Newest»