I am often critical of LibCon for their kneejerk leftism, but, hey, that’s what they are for.   But the sterling footsoldier work they have done refuting climate change sceptics is welcome, for people like me with none of the resources to go chasing so many false stories.

For example, this video of Lord Monkton, denier extraordianaire, calling environmental activists “Hitler Youth”, led me to look up Monkton, clearly quite an odd man. And this led to Monbiot’s excellent refutation of Monkton’s ‘scientific paper’, which claimed, amongst other matters, that sailing across the north pole happened in 1421.

Lib Con also keep a close eye on the extraordinary correlation between being of the Right and finding climate change hard to believe. A letter to the FT puts the evidence really bluntly.

There are about 2,000 stations measuring temperature over land, and there are 1,200 drifting buoys and about 4,000 ships taking measurements of temperatures over the oceans. Together they now provide widespread coverage of land and ocean . . . The conclusion from such data, when combined with other observations such as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level, is inescapable; warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

From Peter Stott,
Head, Climate Monitoring and Attribution,
Met Office Hadley Centre,
Exeter, Devon, UK

Perhaps he is part of the giant conspiracy the not particularly scientific Delingpole has claimed to have unearthed? Yes, Al Gore, is doing all this just to get rich. And the Chinese? Are they going along to Copenhagen because they think it’s a nice little earner?

When I want to know what is going on to the climate, do I want someone whose “main influences, he says, are Boswell and, currently, BS Johnson”?  Or a science  graduate like Monbiot?

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “All hail Liberal Conspiracy for their efforts on the climate change debate

  1. The idea that there is some kind of scientific conspiracy to cover up global cooling (or UFOs or whatever) is fundamentally silly. Propaganda is almost always produced out of self-interest – a good example is Bob Diamond saying that fat bonuses are essential to recruiting good bankers (in which case could he please explain the success of Handelsbanken, which does not pay bonuses and has a long-term profit-sharing programme that treats all employees equally?).

    Another good general example is politicians saying “I need more power to make sure you are safe/happy/prosperous” (delete as appropriate). While it is sometimes true that state intervention can increase real freedom (see Amartya Sen), politicians will tend to demand more powers because they like power, regardless of the truth of an individual case (how else can you understand monstrosities like the Independent Safeguarding Authority?).

    Scientists can be relied on to say “listen to us” and “give us bigger research grants”, but they have no interest per se in the political intervention required to control climate change. Thus any “conspiracy” among scientists to invent AGW is pretty implausible to start off with. When you add the strong evidence of global warming it becomes totally outlandish.

    P.S. We don’t need to be certain of AGW to need policies to counter it – a 90% probability justifies 90% of the intervention by the laws of probability (which is another thing that the “sceptics” totally fail to understand).

    P.P.S. Sorry for the rant but I needed to get this off my chest. These people get on my wick.

  2. Mr Craig, for your information:

    http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14960149

    http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15051965

    From the second link: “That the e-mails and documents should be inspected in some sort of systematic way for evidence of poor practice or even chicanery is a fair next step. But it is ludicrous to think that climate science is a house of cards that will collapse if the e-mails were to discredit CRU’s work.”

  3. So the Economist says nothing to see here & that trumps Prof jones saying he deliberately tried to hide the decline in global temperature. I’m sure there are many other subjects they can reassure you about too.

    The CRU collated the alleged measurements from across the world (though the Russians now say they changed their’s) to produce the alleged warming. They ARE the evidence for warming.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s