Climate Change Change

 

A few notes on climate change…..

Firstly there’s a 163 page complaint gone in to the BBC about its coverage of climate change…I imagine the reply will be somewhat briefer.

Major New Complaint Submitted To BBC Over Climate Bias

A major new and serious complaint has been sent to the Director General of the BBC, regarding the Corporation’s persistent bias in reporting of climate change issues. The complaint is a massive 163 pages long, and is a joint submission from ten complainants. In addition, there are several technical annexes, totalling 125 pages.

We enclose a complaint from all of us about persistent partiality in the BBC’s coverage of climate change. From the outset, on the climate question the BBC has tended to reflect only one view – that of the climate science establishment who are promoting a view that man is causing significant global warming (which, with the plateau in temperature, has morphed into “climate change”, a term that is used to cover a wide range of weather events). It has excluded those whose opinions, though based on factual science and sound economics and logic, differ from the “official” position. The BBC has often promoted tendentious and scientifically illiterate but “politically-correct” opinions and has kept from the airwaves those who do not agree.

We and many others alongside us have come to the opinion that the BBC’s continuing bias on the climate question – its performance is too often like a scientifically illiterate, naïve, oft times emotive green activist organisation – is unacceptable and must now be brought to an end. In future, both sides in the climate debate must be fairly heard, whether BBC staff like it or not.

Good luck with that.

Second, it is interesting that Roger Harrabin doesn’t seem to have used the ‘97% of all scientists‘ stick to support his climate change campaigning and beat the Sceptics with…I’ve tried to find something from him but no luck.   Now that is very telling if confirmed…Harrabin is a hardcore propagandist for the climate lobby and yet he seems to have taken a look at this ‘killer’ statistic and decided not to use it.  Is that because he recognises the stat is bogus and essentially a lie?   His non-use of the stat would seem to indicate that it is entirely worthless, and so obviously worthless that Harrabin knows he would get called out on it and he wouldn’t be able to justify its use…exposing him as a propagandist.

Third thing of note relates to that 97% claim.  The BBC has frequently reported on fraud and corruption in science, both from the scientists and those who report on it in the scientific journals….but not once have I heard the subject of climate change come under scrutiny in a similar manner….will that change? …from WUWT:

Climate science might become the most important casualty of the replication crisis

After a decade of slow growth beneath public view, the replication crisis in science begins breaking into public view. First psychology and biomedical studies, now spreading to many other fields — overturning what we were told is settled science, the foundations of our personal behavior and public policy. Here is an introduction to the conflict (there is pushback), with the usual links to detailed information at the end, and some tentative conclusions about effects on public’s trust of science. It’s early days yet, with the real action yet to begin.

This crisis emerged a decade ago as problems in a few fields — especially health care and psychology. Slowly similar problems emerged in other fields, usually failures to replicate widely accepted research.

“Men only care for science so far as they get a living by it, and that they worship even error when it affords them a subsistence.”
— Goethe, from Conversations of Goethe with Eckermann and Soretclip_image001.

With what we know about the likes of the CRU after their emails were hacked, what we know about the 97% claim, what we know about the ‘hockey stick’ manipulations, what we know about the conspiracy to hide the medieval warm period, and the ‘decline’, it is fairly obvious that the ‘science’ of climate change may in fact be more about big, big money, politics, ego and corruption.  With so many reputations, careers and lucrative research grants on the line there has long been a hard fought battle to silence the critics and those who question the status quo, the so-called ‘consensus’.  You just had to see the BBC’s science journos’ united front that marched out to defend the CRU and climate scientist Phil Jones when the emails surfaced to understand the problem…some people were more interested in covering up for the sicentists than in exposing wrongdoing or bad science.

Maybe that will change as WUWT suggests and more and more of that bad science and bad faith is exposed.  Again good luck with that.   Climate change is a massive industry worth billions which has sucked in not just the scientists but the politicians and journalists as well as the cultural cheerleaders such as artists, actors, singers and writers who so usefully give a ‘human face’ to the science that they so little understand.  They have so much tied up in climate change actually happening and being man-made that any criticism or undermining of that belief will only succeed if there is an equally massive turn of events that stops people in their tracks, radically alters their perceptions and dramatically proves the science wrong or maybe wrong.  Again, good luck with that….glaciers advancing down Salford high street would be presented as conclusive proof of global warming I’m sure…..and as I said they will fight tooth and nail to maintain their privileges and the cash flow….as noted by Matt Ridley in the Times recently …and spot the hand of the Rasputin-like Richard Black in this (You can’t keep a good man down)…..via ‘Not a lot of people know that’…

Climate change lobby wants to kill free speech

The editor of this newspaper received a private letter last week from Lord Krebs and 12 other members of the House of Lords expressing unhappiness with two articles by its environment correspondent. Conceding that The Times’s reporting of the Paris climate conference had been balanced and comprehensive, it denounced the two articles about studies by mainstream academics in the scientific literature, which provided less than alarming assessments of climate change. 
Strangely, the letter was simultaneously leaked to The Guardian. The episode gives a rare glimpse into the world of “climate change communications”, a branch of heavily funded spin-doctoring that is keen to shut down debate about the science of climate change.

 The letter was not entirely the work of the peers but, I understand, involved Richard Black, once a BBC environment correspondent and now director of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, an organisation that spends more than £500,000 a year, largely trying to influence the media.

 

Of course there is one redoubt in the BBC where journalism is given a fair go…Andrew Neil holds the fort…and here explains, & his colleagues should read it, what good journalism is all about…

Andrew Neil on Ed Davey climate change interview critics

The Sunday Politics interview with Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey on July 14 provoked widespread reaction in the twittersphere and elsewhere, which was only to be expected given the interview was about the latest developments in global warming and the implications for government policy.

The Sunday Politics remit and interview duration means we are able to carry out proper forensic interviews on such matters.

It is becoming a hallmark of our programme, whether it’s challenging the global warming assumptions of the climate change secretary, the NUT’s historic resistance to school reforms by Tory and Labour governments, or the activities of the leader of the English Defence League.

Many of the criticisms of the Davey interview seem to misunderstand the purpose of a Sunday Politics interview.

We did come at Mr Davey with a particular set of evidence, which was well-sourced from mainstream climate science. But it was nothing to do with advocating a “position”.

First, the Sunday Politics does not have a position on any of the subjects on which it interrogates people.

Second, it is the job of the interviewer to assemble evidence from authoritative sources which best challenge the position of the interviewee.

There is hardly any purpose in presenting evidence which supports the interviewee’s position – that is his or her job.

It is for viewers to decide how well the interviewee’s position holds up under scrutiny and the strength of the contrary evidence or points put to him or her.

Taking an opposite or challenging position from the person being interviewed is pretty much standard practice in long-form broadcast interviews.

But the contrary position has to be based on reputable evidence.

 

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

74 Responses to Climate Change Change

  1. Joe Public says:

    “I imagine the reply will be somewhat briefer.”

    “We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.”?

       5 likes

  2. Richard Pinder says:

    I wonder why QI has never done Climate Science: Stephen Fry asks questions about Atmospheric Physics and Solar Astronomy, and Alan Davies gets penalties for giving the colloquial answers of the consensus.

    Therefore, after complains by the Environmental Arts and Drama experts of the “Friends of the Earth“. Richard Ayre, a lefty qualified in Philosophy, Sonita Alleyne, a lefty qualified in Philosophy, Nick Prettejohn, a lefty qualified in Philosophy, Bill Matthews, a lefty qualified in the Humanities and Mark Damazer, a lefty qualified in History, order Lord Hall to sack Fry and replaces him with a Lesbian.

       26 likes

  3. Richard Pinder says:

    As for “overturning what we were told is settled science”. It seems rare for any science relating to the core issues is told to anyone. But the overturning of the Arrhenius method of calculating the Greenhouse effect, by the Unified Theory of Climate should indicate that Piers Corbyn will become more important to history than his brother. And that the speed of the centre of the Sun relative to the centre of mass or barycentre of the Solar System, which determines the length of the solar cycle, which correlates with Climate Change, will make Tim Channon, Ian Wilson, Henrik Svensmark and Jasper Kirkby, very famous, once the fraudsters are dealt with by Donald Trump and Boris Johnson.

       25 likes

  4. Edward says:

    “…it is fairly obvious that the ‘science’ of climate change may in fact be more about big, big money, politics, ego and corruption.”

    It may be.

    But then, if there is no evidence to refute the claim that the climate is changing and, furthermore, that it is anthropological climate change, then we cannot expect the BBC to put into question a claim without conflicting evidence.

    “Second, it is the job of the interviewer to assemble evidence from authoritative sources which best challenge the position of the interviewee.”

    This is where we come to Andrew Neil and the quote that Alan posts directly from the BBC website – except that it has been edited by Alan without any notification whatsoever.

    Here’s the bit I’m referring to [the deleted text in bold]:
    “Many of the criticisms of the Davey interview seem to misunderstand the purpose of a Sunday Politics interview.

    This was neatly summed up in a Guardian blog by Dana Nuccitelli, who works for a multi-billion dollar US environmental business (Tetra Tech) and writes prodigiously about global warming and related matters from a very distinct perspective.

    He finished by saying: “[Andrew] Neil focussed only on the bits of evidence that seemed to support his position”.

    This is partly right. We did come at Mr Davey with a particular set of evidence, which was well-sourced from mainstream climate science. But it was nothing to do with advocating a “position”.

    So, here we have a journalist (Andrew Neil) and a politician (Ed Davey) talking about scientific stats. Great! We might as well get Hacker the dog on to talk about climate change.

    I’m surprised Alan hasn’t brought up the BBC’s pro-evolutionary theory bias – David Attenborough is a FRAUDSTER! There is some very ‘compelling’ evidence against that Darwinian theory! And there’s LOADS of evidence to suggest the science of paleontology is totally flawed! There is NO WAY the Earth is 4.5BN years old. At best, it is only 10,000 years of age.

    Don’t believe me? Look at the facts:
    http://www.icr.org/article/evidence-for-young-world/
    http://www.gotquestions.org/fossil-record.html

       15 likes

    • Edward says:

      I meant to add: “We did come at Mr Davey with a particular set of evidence…” as being a particular strategy of the typical sceptic (not just climate). Stat-mining and quote-mining are the general rule-of-thumb for sceptic ‘evidence’.

         5 likes

    • Geyza says:

      Oh dear, not another one who has been hoodwinked by “big-oil” funded Dana Nuccitelli. Hypocrite in chief.

      The scientific method itself falsifies the hypothesis known as Catastrophic Anthropoligical Global Warming, (CAGW).

      The hypothesis has been extensively modelled (by dozens of seriously flawed models) and produced a wide variation in ranges of temperatures being projected. Actual empirical measurements refute those projections. In science, that means that the hypothesis is WRONG!

      The reaction of the “scientific” community has been one which is as far from scientific as it is possible to get. Instead of trying to discover why models have been so badly, and increasingly wrong, they have acted with breathtaking dishonesty by repeatedly fraudulently adjusting the temperature record to match the hypothesis.

      The temperatures which the scientists publish and the “lamestream media” report with an equal combination of glee and horror, are NOT what the scientific instruments measured. They are what the crooks who pretend to be scientists have adjusted the temperature measurements to be.

      The whole CAGW scare is a massive fraud and it could lead to the utter destruction of people’s trust in science and empirical truth. Such a defeat of science and the scientific method, could usher in a new dark-age of religious hatred and intollerance, superstition and social decay. Fraudsters using (and abusing) science as a religion, without allowing dissent, scepticism or rational factual measurement are one of the greatest threats facing society today.

         30 likes

      • johnnythefish says:

        Excellent reply, Geyza. Science is being abused on a huge scale for the sake of the ‘climate change’ religion – and it has become a religion as it is based firmly on belief, in the form of heavily-flawed and discredited climate models, rather than evidence. And then they label people ‘sceptics’ if they don’t believe, using it as a kind of insult, when in fact ‘sceptical’ should be the default position of any scientist as it’s absolutely fundamental to their work.

        “…we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” IPCC AR4 WG1, 2001

        Since when, despite another 14 years of flat temperatures, the science has become ‘settled’. What a farce.

           26 likes

      • Edward says:

        “…they have acted with breathtaking dishonesty by repeatedly fraudulently adjusting the temperature record to match the hypothesis.”

        Nope. Some of the data is adjusted one way, some of it the other way. There isn’t just one temperature record – there are thousands of records taken from all over the globe. Overall, the consolidated data has actually been adjusted downwards, not upwards.

        “The most significant adjustment around the world, according to NOAA, is actually for temperatures taken over the oceans, and that adjustment acts to lower rather than raise the global temperature trend.”

        http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/

           9 likes

        • The Old Bloke says:

          An article by Dave Letivan I see. This Dave Letivan if I’m correct:
          http://e360.yale.edu/author/Dave_Levitan/97/

          Call me sceptical.

             5 likes

        • johnnythefish says:

          There isn’t just one temperature record – there are thousands of records taken from all over the globe

          There might be thousands of temperature measurements – some taken at single weather stations which cover thousands of square miles, but there are only four main ‘records’ or data sets:

          GISS – Goddard Institute for Space Studies and home of James Hansen,
          Hadley Centre – British Meteorological Office research centre
          UAH – The University of Alabama, Huntsville, home of Roy Spencer with his colleagues including John Christy of NASA and
          RSS – Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, California, a company supported by NASA for the analysis of satellite data.

          From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”

          See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.Cyulo9cv.wiDFHz2k.dpuf

          and comparison graphs here:

          http://realclimatescience.com/alterations-to-climate-data/

          Then there was the hockey stick……..etc etc etc

             15 likes

        • Geyza says:

          Edward, I have extensively investigated this subject and the dishonesty of the “scientists” (so-called) involved for the last 13 years. I have read every book I can find on the subject, read hundreds of the scientific papers and the many criticisms of them and though I started off as a believer in man-made climate change. The more I have personally discussed the efficacy and accuracy of the scientific methods actually used, with some of the so-called scientists involved, the more I have come to realise how overtly fraudulent these so-called scientists are.

          They way they behave and communicate the science is NOT scientific. To call into question (as the scientific method demands) any of their methods, data, statistics or anything else, sees them react as if they are priests of old and the legitimate questioner is a blind heretic.

          The scientific method demands that any scientist proposing a hypothesis must test it, with a view to disproving it. Climate science exists on fudged and cherry-picked post-hoc adjusted data which has been mercilessly mangled to force it to fit the hypothesis. Data is ALWAYS only published when adjusted upwards. Every time the official data sets are adjusted, it is ALWAYS upwards, because the real empirically measured figures are increasingly diverging from those projected by models, thus increasingly falsifying the hypothesis.

             20 likes

    • Richard Pinder says:

      Edward: Please supply me with your evidence for the calibration of carbon dioxide warming in a planetary atmosphere. Computer models use a crude assumption using the disprovable Arrhenius method. But you wont find any evidence from an Atmospheric Chamber because the chamber has six walls, a pipe chamber has four walls, but an Atmosphere has only one wall, the ground. A Glass jar experiment also has this problem. So an atmospheric physicist can only produce evidence by using Mars or Venus as proxy evidence, see the evidence for “Unified Theory of Climate”.

      Like BBC and Guardian Journalists, and most people with average to low intelligence, you are fooled into thinking that an unproved and recently disproved “Assumption” is “Evidence” or that Computer Models can produce evidence (BBC Complaints Department Moron). But evidence is not an assumption, and even a prediction using an assumption, is not evidence. We even have the loony situation where morons are adjusting observations to fit assumptions, because observations where starting to show a Global Cooling trend start while 10,000 morons from around the world where signing documents in Paris.

      As for evidence for a 10,000 year old Earth. It falls down at the first hurdle.
      1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast

      A thought experiment: Imagine that Mercury, Venus, and the Earth orbited the Sun at the speed of light. The Earth would take almost an hour to orbit the Sun, but Venus and Mercury would orbit at a much faster rate due to less distance to travel. Gives you an idea about the complexity of reasons for Spiral Galaxies when it comes to relativity and gravity, but as with all that evidence for Intelligent Design, including the evolution of the Eye. The evidence always turns out to be “Unknown Facts” until a sequence of evidence was found for the evolution of the Eye, or an Astronomer finds something familiar in the patterns of Spiral Galaxies, that can be explained by images of light in a Laboratory experiment.

         13 likes

      • Geyza says:

        I have seen scientists fail in reproducing Arrhenius after many attempts and end up making up pathetic excuses for that failure.

           5 likes

    • Up2snuff says:

      Edward, when I was taught science – a long time ago – one of the teachers was very hot on defining things, especially scientific terminology or every day words, when both are applied to science.

      Global warming will ALWAYS be anthropogenic because we keep adding sources of heat and CO2 & methane emissions (eg. human bodies) to the planet. Climate change will ALWAYS be anthropogenic because generally humans around the world require added warmth at some of the day in some part of the year, either for comfort or more usually for survival. Generally, warming the planet will change the climate, most humans find that a more favourable climate for their existence although some prefer much cooler rooms, houses, locations, etc.

      There will never be evidence to refute the fact that the climate is changing. Change is what the climate does. I’ve not studied it but I suspect that if the climate of this planet had not changed over the last five hundred years, let alone the last five thousand, the human species might well be near enough extinct or at least struggling to maintain itself.

      That is why the politicians and enviro-campaigners in the UK (possibly in other countries, too, but I can only take a view on what I was hearing in the UK) suddenly switched from talking about Global Warming to Climate Change. It is harder to pull the wool over peoples’ eyes and go on increasing taxes and shovelling State funds into all sorts of projects & purses when the evidence from thermometers would be plain in front of everyone, scientist, politician and layman alike. Talk about ‘combatting Climate Change’ and you can conflate it with bad weather events (something quite different) and rattle the collecting tin for Friends of the Earth while increasing taxes on vehicle users.

      The switch was so sudden and so marked I am surprised more people did not notice. No one in the media thought to interrogate these people on their definitions of ‘climate’ and of ‘change’ nor to ask whether one person’s change to a warmer and less favourable climate to them might actually be welcomed by many more people and for some, might mean the difference between the risk of death from cold and slightly more comfortable survival.

         7 likes

  5. Umbongo says:

    As I’ve noted to Edward before, no-one – no-one – denies that the climate is changing. The point of disagreement is the effect of man’s activities on that change. This has been stated times without number by the sceptics but so weak is the warmist case that climate change denial is always brought out as the killer argument by the warmists. This is done in order to avoid discussions of both the underlying science and of the warmist corruption of the process of scientific debate. The scandal here is the BBC’s refusal to allow any discussion of the science. The revelations of Climategate alone plus the spurious 2006 meeting of “experts” at the BBC should be enough to indicate that the warmists are seeking to hide something from public view. I suspect that what is being concealed is the politicisation of climate “science” to serve ends to which the BBC heartily – and quite illegally – lends its support.

       37 likes

    • johnnythefish says:

      ‘Denier!’

      ‘Racist!’

      ‘Islamophobe!’

      ‘Homophobe!’

      (Selected from The Leftist’s Pocket Guide to Killing Free Speech)

         33 likes

      • Fred Basset says:

        Well it can’t be denied that it is the last week in April and it’s snowing in County Durham.

           13 likes

        • Grant says:

          Here in Central Perthshire at only 300 feet asl it is 6 C and has been freezing each night for the last week. Flurries of snow today and yesterday. Very unusual for this time of year.

             14 likes

          • Cull the Badgers says:

            Here in Oxfordshire there was snow on parts of White Horse Hill (662 feet, the highest point in the English county) down to lower levels, say 500 feet. It is just above the village of Uffington if anyone wishes to look it up.

               2 likes

  6. The Old Bloke says:

    Snow on Dartmoor today too. Does anyone know what “Wintry Rain” is? All day yesterday I was hearing this on that other “Far Lefty” news source, “Global News” on “Classic FM”.
    Looks like May will start “Chilly” for many in the U.K. and I’m reckoning that the U.K. will see snow and frosts through the month. The temperature gradients show freezing levels at really low levels for this time of year and probably because the El Nino has given up the ghost and that the North Atlantic is much colder than it should be.
    Someone on here was asking if the pockets of snow in Scotland recorded throughout last summer were still in place? Well the answer is yes and this also applies to Finland, Norway and Sweden. Still looking for further information on other countries. Not that our own CET (Central England Temperatures) data set can be relied on much these days but early spring temperatures are lower than average, much lower. no sun spot activity you see, as Richard Pinder quite rightly points out, the Sun of our Solar System plays a very major role in our Climate.

       25 likes

  7. Owen Morgan says:

    The fact that the standard of climate science is generally abysmal is an entirely predictable consequence of the way in which it was politicised at the end of the eighties. University administrators realised that there were suddenly research grants to be had in profusion, but only if the “research” led to a pre-deteremined conclusion, which is a deeply unscientific way to conduct research. The number of undergraduate courses in the subject mushroomed and such degrees were very hard to fail, provided the students remembered not to challenge the new orthodoxy. Higher degrees in the subject also became essentially valueless, since virtually all the associated research was being undertaken and submitted in an echo chamber.

    Climate alarmists tend to sneer that sceptics aren’t scientists, usually by relying on the completely discredited 97% claim. They also overlook the fact that many of climate alarmism’s most vocal defenders are not scientists, either, e.g. Roger Harrabin, David Suzuki, Bill Nye, John Cook, Stephan Lewandowsky, Naomi Klein, Naomi Oreskes and just about anyone from Greenpeace, FoE, the WWF, the Sierra Club etc. etc.. More to the point, because of the way climate science has been degraded, most superficially qualified climate “scientists” aren’t really scientists either.

    The Canadian Tim Ball, who genuinely is a scientist, has pointed out that, because of the direction of putative climate science for nearly three decades and the accompanying abandonment of scientific rigour, we probably know LESS about climate now than we did when Hubert Lamb was running the Climate Research Unit, of which he was the founder, before its purpose was hijacked.

    Judging by his facile comments earlier, “Edward” must be a paid-up member of the Cook-Lewandowsky fan club and he does seem to believe that men actually are made out of straw.

       23 likes

    • Loobyloo says:

      Agree with much of your comment, but David Suzuki is a geneticist and long-standing environmental activist. Doesn’t mean I have to agree with everything he says though.

         2 likes

      • Owen Morgan says:

        Suzuki was shown up as a complete ignoramus on climate matters in Australia, when he was asked a technical question about climate matters and was utterly floored. He didn’t even understand the terminology.

        He is also a monumental hypocrite, leading a pretty lavish lifestyle himself, while preaching penury for everyone else – on environmental grounds, natch. The shopping-list of demands he presents before accepting a university speaking engagement is nothing less than deeply creepy. By the way, being a “long-standing environmental activist” doesn’t mean anything. I have had political opinions for decades, but that doesn’t make me a politician.

        Ezra Levant did a glorious hatchet-job on Suzuki here:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nARIP90l9Q

           13 likes

        • Loobyloo says:

          Touche! They are very interesting clips. Doesn’t surprise me at all – as in other aspects of politics, the desire/emotion to ‘win’ takes over the rational level-headedness of scientific debate. It amazes me that he managed to write books on genetics….or did he! He does end up looking like a right chump (that’s northern for twat) – I just can’t believe a scientist would propose criminalising debate. That just stinks to high heaven.

             4 likes

  8. TigerOC says:

    Excellent document to be highly commended and one we have been waiting for.

    The next hurdle will be the court case. The BBC will say; “see you in court”. They have an unlimited fighting funds from us through the extortion racket called the licence fee. If this were brought last year it may have had a different reaction as the last thing the BBC needed was a case brought challenging their impartiality with the Charter renewal due. Seems Whittingdale has caved and they get their way again for an even longer charter review.

    The scam being exposed is so serious that it is not about facts anymore this scam threatens the future of the Western World and the lives of ordinary people. Want an example; 11 000 workers put out on the streets in Wales because of the costs of energy making their product non-competitive with a manufacturer that doesn’t give a stuff about carbon emissions.

       18 likes

  9. mikef says:

    This is not mine and you’ve probably heard it before but I do like it: Putting Climate in front of Scientist is like putting Witch in front of Doctor.

       11 likes

    • Up2snuff says:

      Think I might object to that rather, mikef, as science will always grow as humankind learns more and more.

      Take the human brain as an example. A friend developed Parkinson’s Disease in the 1990s. He was an engineer from a science background and an early internet user. He started to research his condition, getting access to all sorts of scientific and medical material and he discovered that the brain was the part of the body that ‘we’ knew least about. That has changed a lot and is now changing even faster as more money goes into researching the brain and its functions and diseases. The BBC occasionally brings good stuff to the listener and not that long ago (10-15yrs?) they covered on Radio 4 the history of the science of radio activity and radio-active materials. It was, even into the first decades of the 20th century, a very new science.

      We have not really had cause to study climate until the end of the 1960s. It is a very new science NOW. It is also complicated by various other factors, such as weather and geophysical factors.

         3 likes

      • mikef says:

        Trouble is, that some scientists (not all certainly) do not behave like scientists. I was truly shocked by for instance Phil Jones at the CRU who when asked for his data by an independent researcher replied: Why should I let you have it when your aim is to find something wrong with it. Similarly the leaked e-mails from climategate. Sadly it is a field where activists and politicians have polluted the science. The IPCC produces massive reports with loads of scientists contributing to the final synthesis, but the summary for policy makers is drawn up by a small group with a definite bias. There is a wealth of literature on this.

           13 likes

        • johnnythefish says:

          The continuing lack of warming which had been covered in the main, scientific body of the report, would have been entirely omitted from the Summary for Policymakers had certain national polticians had their way – including Germany’s.

          Science it ain’t.

             6 likes

  10. Up2snuff says:

    Well, I have posted on here before my theory that we are now ‘suffering’ the ice cube effect of the break up of polar ice in the recent past and its movement through warmer latitudes. We need to add to that the greening effect of CO2 emissions. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36130346. Improved shading on land will also reduce surface temperatures.

    What I may not have considered or counted on – and should have done – is a multiplier between the two. Ooops!

    Sorry!

       0 likes

    • Edward says:

      “Improved shading on land will also reduce surface temperatures.”

      I can’t believe you actually posted that! That just shows the sheer depth of scientific ignorance here. It’s people like you who are seriously undermining our efforts to expose real BBC bias. But, as it is, this site is becoming nothing more than a laughing stock and a meeting place for self-deluded conspiracy theorists.

         5 likes

      • johnnythefish says:

        So tell us again, Edward – is man-made CO2-induced global warming a hypothesis, a theory, or a scientific fact?

        If it’s the last of those, when was it deemed fact (‘settled’) and how given that in the IPCC’s own 2001 report (AR4, Working group 1), they stated “…we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

        If it’s the second of those three, which other hypotheses were eliminated such that man-made CO2 was considered to be the only likely cause and therefore worthy of ‘theory’ status?

        However, given the hapless failure of climate models to predict the lack of warming for the past 18 years, I’d suggest you and your fellow alarmists are well and truly stuck with ‘man-made global warming hypothesis’. As for ‘climate change’, that’s just a crafty re-branding exercise not worthy of any serious scientist.

           5 likes

  11. Kikuchiyo says:

    I was made immediately skeptical by ‘a major new and serious complaint’.

       4 likes

  12. Umbongo says:

    Oh dear, another ornament of warmist “science” caught cheating. This time it’s the National Snow & Ice Data Center. Steve Goddard in his contribution to the Real Science site – as noted by Paul Homewood – catches the NSIDC for (at least) the second time in a blatant fiddling of the figures for Arctic ice extent. In the comments, the warmists are wriggling like the worms they are.

       6 likes

  13. The Old Bloke says:

    This is for “Edward” and “Up2Snuff”
    http://www.isprs.org/proceedings/2011/ISRSE-34/211104015Final00529.pdf

       2 likes

    • Edward says:

      Ok, now try again with a link to the equivalent document that refers to the rural analysis.

         8 likes

      • The Old Bloke says:

        Edward, why don’t you do the work?

           2 likes

        • Edward says:

          The burden of proof usually rests on the shoulders of those who make the claim, but in this case I’ll make an exception.

          http://www.weatherquestions.com/Why_are_deserts_so_hot.htm

          “Because of the lack of water in the ground, and little water vapor in the air, most deserts can get quite cool at night. This is because (1) dry ground does not retain as much heat as moist ground, and (2) water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, so dry air allows the surface to cool rapidly at night through loss of infrared radiation to outer space.”

             6 likes

          • Edward says:

            OOPS! Forgot this important bit!

            “In fact, it has been calculated that the Sahara Desert actually loses more infrared radiation than it gains solar radiation from the sun.”

               5 likes

            • Up2snuff says:

              I, too, seem to recall that the hottest deserts on the planet lose their heat every night and become very cold. Is that not correct?

                 1 likes

    • Up2snuff says:

      Thanks for that, TOB. Haven’t read it fully but am glad that it is being researched. So much of the early AGW forgot to take into account things like that, they were in such a rush to start adding extra taxes to petrol.

      Two points:
      1. If my quick skim of that article got the gist, those researchers cannot escape what the thermometer consistently says: big cities (I am thinking of London which is a very green city but also full of concrete) tend to act as night storage radiators. The daily weather forecast and the report of the previous days numbers tend to highlight that.
      2. However, winds and CO2 are no respecters of borders or the difference between tower blocks, trees, Gardeners’ Question Time plots and the crops that feed us.

      The absorbing of extra CO2 has created an area of enhanced growth equivalent to two USAs according to Roger Harrabin here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36130346. He tends only to consider green growth and that of trees. Not the vast areas of grain crops, etc., that feed an increasing world population.

      Whatever, let’s assume that increased CO2 emissions are warming (not proven, I feel? believe?, and conveniently overlooks methane which is said to be a greater potential cause of GW) our planet. If plant growth is accelerated by CO2, then continuing emissions for growth are hitting larger vegetative growth and then repeats this year after year. That must be a multiplier. Then, in addition, the air that circulates over oceans that are now containing scattered ice and ice melt from the poles are passing over and under greater shade. It is possible from that, that we will face a short term cooling that is multiplied by the greater growth. I say short term, but could this be the start of a the ice age that some were claiming or fearing or both in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

      Am just asking the questions. Can’t offer definitive science or statistics. Just based on a hunch and knowledge of a punch bowl!

      [Sorry, post displaced downwards by site software. Refers to fifth one up at time of posting.]

         1 likes

  14. taffman says:

    From the western shore of this great island , its pretty cold for this time of the year. We have had frost snow and sleet over the last few days. Outside temp is already 4 Deg C and falling. Now just where is this Global Warming ?
    Al Beeb weather men/women have been having difficulty in ‘talking the climate up’ recently .

       4 likes

  15. The Old Bloke says:

    Indeed taffman. We have this cold polar air right through the weekend but it will be infiltrated by a westerly borne low pressure area just in time for the Bank Holiday weekend. Rain for many of us but some parts of Scotland will see snow right through to the middle of next week. After that it looks like a further Arctic plunge for the North of G.B. with further snow and certainly night time frosts for most of us. So, for many, the first two weeks of May look like being well below average temperatures and will include snow for some. I ain’t turning down my heating yet. The North Atlantic shows no signs of warming up for another three weeks or so. Oh dear, no mild jetstreams to keep us out of the cold air.

       7 likes

  16. 60022Mallard says:

    Perhaps a slightly odd question on the global warming debate.

    As we more and more install air conditioning, principally for cooling purposes, are we not warming the atmosphere, which is measured, at the expense of cooling the volume contained within the structures?

    Is some “adjustment” made by our climate scientists to discount this extra man made “warming” which is only actually displacement. I presume not as this produces the “wrong” effect.

       3 likes

  17. The Old Bloke says:

    Hello again 60022,
    Not an odd question at all. You may recall that last year Heathrow Airport recorded the highest temperature in Great Britain “evah”. The history of that temperature came about thus: On that day, we had moist humid air from the east. It had travelled over the city of London, where as you have pointed out, hundreds of air conditioning plants were pushing out from their heat exchange units, warmed air into the already warm air from the east. Directly in line of this migrating air from east to west was Heathrow Airport, where the weather station, situated approx’ 50 yards from a runway turn off, collected not only exhaust jet blast but also the air from London. So was it no wonder that a record temperature was recorded at this station? And you know what the Met Office didn’t tell us? That at the London City Airport up wind of London City, the temperature recorded was 3.4 degrees lower than that of Heathrow and that just 1 mile away from Heathrow another recording station was 2 degrees cooler at the spiked time of the record? The Heathrow Temperature gauge falls within the CET (Central England Temperature) boundaries and as such should have come under the rules governing that CET data set. The temperature given by the Met Office was an absolute temperature and not an adjusted one, which it should have been because of the Urban Heat Effect. To this date I have not seen any evidence anywhere that this so called record temperature had been adjusted to reflect (no pun intended) the affects of Urban Heating. Unfortunately, it is true to state that that temperature gauge did record the highest “evah” temperature, “but not as we know it, Jim”

       6 likes

    • Edward says:

      For your benefit, Old Bloke (and to keep in with the spirit of the humour) here’s what actually happened…

      When the Met Office realised they were near to a record breaking temperature at Heathrow Airport, they phoned up loads of London businesses and asked them to crank up their air-conditioning units.

      The Met Office waited, but realised that – although the extra air-conditioning output had warmed things up a bit – it wasn’t enough, so they asked Heathrow air traffic control to order a taxiing aeroplane to stop next to a weather station and rev up its engines.

      Now, that is the only logical way it could be done under conspiracy conditions.

      Why? Because any errors in the readings would be consistent with past and future readings. In the sceptics’ world, either the equipment is accurate and the Met Office are falsifying the figures, or the equipment/science/interpretation is inaccurate or just plain wrong!

      Heathrow is the busiest airport in the world; there are planes taking off and landing every 45 seconds! And London is one of the biggest cities in the world with many tens of thousands of air-conditioning units. (Old Bloke (bless him) thinks there are “hundreds” which wouldn’t make a jot of difference to air temperature anyway!)

      So, thinking logically – which isn’t easy for some regulars here – if the readings are influenced by planes at an airport, and air-conditioning units at a nearby city, surely the readings would have been equally influenced in the days before and after that record-breaking day?

      The problem with the sceptics’ view is that they cannot come to any kind of conclusion as to what exactly is the universal flaw in “climate science” – is it a conspiracy or a naïve failure of science?

      If it is a conspiracy then the science must be correct but in a fraudulent way; if the science is wrong then there is no conspiracy!

         9 likes

      • johnnythefish says:

        Edward – why haven’t you answered my questions above?

        I’ll repeat them here for your convenience:

        So tell us again, Edward – is man-made CO2-induced global warming a hypothesis, a theory, or a scientific fact?

        If it’s the last of those, when was it deemed fact (‘settled’) and how given that in the IPCC’s own 2001 report (AR4, Working group 1), they stated “…we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

        If it’s the second of those three, which other hypotheses were eliminated such that man-made CO2 was considered to be the only likely cause and therefore worthy of ‘theory’ status?

        However, given the hapless failure of climate models to predict the lack of warming for the past 18 years, I’d suggest you and your fellow alarmists are well and truly stuck with ‘man-made global warming hypothesis’. As for ‘climate change’, that’s just a crafty re-branding exercise not worthy of any serious scientist.

        The floor is yours…

           2 likes

        • Edward says:

          There are many reasons why I am ignoring your questions, the main one being my reluctance to be dragged into a circular argument in which the initial point of the argument becomes lost and the person who is refuting a claim becomes the person accused of making a claim – which I haven’t.

          Just because I question Alan’s (and others) reasoning behind his belief that AGW either doesn’t exist or is a conspiracy, doesn’t automatically place me into the pro-climate-change lobby. I haven’t said anything here that would suggest I believe climate change is down to human activity.

          My mind remains open. I am not a climate scientist, but we don’t need to be scientists to do basic science. My position is that of correcting the flaws in arguments or claims rather than trying to push AGW down peoples’ throats. I am not here to tell everyone that climate change is happening, I’m simply pointing out mistakes in the logic.

          I could be wrong!

          But those who are truly deluded are those who are unaware of their own delusion. People like you, johnny.

          The idea that you could be wrong too is something you simply refuse to entertain. That’s why you will never pursue the truth; because you don’t want to face up to the idea that you could be wrong.

          “…a hypothesis, a theory, or a scientific fact?”

          If I had a pound for every time someone has asked me that (it’s usually Creationists) I would be a rich man!

          Whichever answer I give you it will be the wrong one! That’s because the question itself is flawed and only goes to demonstrate how little you understand about the definitions of the options you present to me to choose from. Also, “scientific fact” can be omitted from the list because hypotheses and theories consist of facts.

          If you want to debate definitions then I’m not playing. If you want to debate facts then I’m all yours.

             6 likes

          • johnnythefish says:

            But those who are truly deluded are those who are unaware of their own delusion. People like you, johnny.

            Just trying to debate the science with you. But I can see why you’re reluctant to engage. Btw, ‘delusion’ – a word used frequently by our similarly abusive friend Jerrod, I’ve noticed. Coincidence or magic?

            The idea that you could be wrong too is something you simply refuse to entertain. That’s why you will never pursue the truth; because you don’t want to face up to the idea that you could be wrong.

            Wrong on what? Just going off the evidence as arch-warmist Kevin trenberth was when he said [Trenberth in Climategate1, 2009] The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. And you may be surprised to learn I believed the ‘scientists’ when they told us throughout the 70s that man-made CO2 was leading us into another ice age (they’d observed a post-war cooling, you see). I even believed them when they did a u-turn and said oops, got it wrong, we really mean global warming. Then I read a book about it all and the corruption of science inherent in the IPCC and particularly the process they go through to produce the ‘Summary for Policymakers’. Still with me? If not, I suggest you stop posting on here until you’ve done a bit more researching and a lot more thinking.

            “…a hypothesis, a theory, or a scientific fact?”

            If I had a pound for every time someone has asked me that (it’s usually Creationists) I would be a rich man!

            WHAT? What has creationism got to do with the scientific method?

            Whichever answer I give you it will be the wrong one! That’s because the question itself is flawed and only goes to demonstrate how little you understand about the definitions of the options you present to me to choose from. Also, “scientific fact” can be omitted from the list because hypotheses and theories consist of facts.

            It’s clear from your contribution to this thread you lack an even basic understanding of both the subject and the scientific method and you are well and truly out of your depth.

               3 likes

            • Edward says:

              “What has creationism got to do with the scientific method?”

              Nothing! That’s the fucking point, you plank!

              Creationists believe that the theory of evolution was fabricated by scientists in an effort to destroy Christianity.

              Sounds familiar? It should do – take a look in the mirror johnnythetadpole and ask yourself who exactly is deluded here. It could be me, it could be you, it could be both of us.

              But as long as I remain open-minded to the possibility that I could be deluded, my delusion will never be self-inflicted.

                 8 likes

              • johnnythefish says:

                Are you Jerrod’s less scientifically-minded twin brother by any chance?

                You have certain common characteristics.

                Oh, and when someone tells you the science is settled then can’t explain the lack of warming but still say the science is settled and also call for ‘deniers’ to be jailed – I smell a rat. Your olefactory senses are clearly under-developed but being linked to your under-developed brain, that’s hardly a surprise.

                   4 likes

                • Edward says:

                  “Are you Jerrod’s less scientifically-minded twin brother by any chance?”

                  Well, it is a FACT that I don’t have a brother called Jerrod (unless I’m deluded, as you will no doubt point out) but it is very possible that I am less scientifically-minded than him.

                  But I’m obviously vastly more scientifically-minded than you johnny.

                  Please leave a feeble reply to this comment below
                  ▼ ▼ ▼

                     6 likes

                • Steve Jones says:

                  johnny,
                  Don’t let Edward rile you, he thinks a tadpole grows up to be a fish.

                     4 likes

              • Up2snuff says:

                It might be more correct. Edward, to state that “SOME Creationists believe that the theory of evolution was fabricated by scientists in an effort to destroy Christianity.”

                Other Creationists, whether Christian or not, and who probably have open and widely ranging minds, might question whether the THEORY of Evolution is both well-founded and can be believed and taught as fact.

                   1 likes

                • Edward says:

                  Ooops! I think you’ve inadvertently exposed johnnythetadpole‘s method of argument there – is it “…a hypothesis, a theory, or a scientific fact?”

                  So, evolution is ‘just a theory’. Just like AGW; It’s only a theory so there is still lots of doubt about it.

                  Anyone (such as Up2snuff) who believes that the theory of evolution is still up for rebuttal is a complete cretin!

                     1 likes

  18. In The Real World says:

    Aside from the ones making money out of the scam ,it seems that most people who believe in AGM do so out of a belief without any real facts , just like Edwards creationists .

    When the creationists in America went to their supreme court in a bid to get the theory of creation taught in their schools as a factual subject along with evolution , it was thrown out & the head of the supreme court said that they could not produce 1 real fact to support their theory , unlike the many hundreds of facts supporting evolution .

    But like in the courts here , it becomes a criminal offence to not tell the truth , which is why Al Gores film [ An Inconvenient Truth ? ], was found by the UK high court to be a load of lies , & if shown in schools then they must tell them that it is not true .
    Funny , but I can,t remember the BBC commenting on that decision .

       8 likes

    • Marvin says:

      “But like in the courts here , it becomes a criminal offence to not tell the truth , which is why Al Gores film [ An Inconvenient Truth ? ], was found by the UK high court to be a load of lies , & if shown in schools then they must tell them that it is not true .
      Funny , but I can,t remember the BBC commenting on that decision .”

      That’s a complete load of nonsense. Why do you need to make things up?

         2 likes

      • Steve Jones says:

        Not a complete load of nonsense…
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm

           7 likes

        • In The Real World says:

          Even with the BBCs watered down reporting of it , it is a fact that Gore,s film is a load of lies .
          But facts never get in the way of the almost religous beliefs of warmists , so they will still claim the film is true , & AGM is happening & is a threat .

             5 likes

          • Up2snuff says:

            It would also not be unfair to describe Gore as something of a colossal hypocrite. The money he made from that film took him from near bankruptcy to owning three homes, if I recall correctly, in different parts of the USA. He doesn’t travel between them by bicycle, I bet.

            While he was telling us the world is definitely going to fry because of my CO2 emissions from my car and I should be taxed extra because of it, turn down my thermostat to avoid the extra tax & tariffs heaped on my heating bills and air fares & taxes should rise to stop me going for a two week holiday abroad, he was putting his dirty carbon footprints all over the globe, flying by air, even between his three homes.

            The world is gonna fry as his preacher Dad would have told him, but not before Gore Jr gives due account before his maker and not from so-called man made via CO2, Global Warming.

               4 likes

        • 60022Mallard says:

          Not quite sure why you put up that link.

          You do not think the BBC report attempts to put the most “positive” spin on a reverse?

          I wonder what the judge would have said in 2016 if reviewing it now after another 9 years of the actuality not bearing out the “consensus” of 2007?

             2 likes

          • Steve Jones says:

            I put the link up to refute Marvin’s assertion that ITRW had made stuff up.

               1 likes

    • Edward says:

      In The Real World, you are talking absolute bollocks! But you’re in good company here, so you obviously feel at home.

      Creationists did not go to the supreme court – the supreme court overrules judgements made in state courts. In many cases creationists won their legal fights to get creationism taught in state schools because they presented to the court LOTS OF FACTS (not just 1, as you state) that act as evidence against evolution.

      The only reason creationists won so many court rulings was because the judges themselves did not understand the theory (it’s only a theory, of course!) and were blinded by science.

      “Aside from the ones making money out of the scam…”

      Which scam In The Real World?

      Are you talking about creationists?

      Or the politicians, scientists and energy companies?

      Creationists make money from religion. LOTS of money!!! The US is the centre for Big Bucks Religion! The US, through its secular constitution, gives religion the freedom to operate in a tax-free business-like manner. It is frightening how influential US Christianity has become across Third World nations, because that is their route back into Europe – a continent that is becoming increasingly less Christian, but increasingly ethnically diverse.

      Less money for Christianity – No wonder creationists are trying to kid us into believing bullshit! They might have to go get a REAL job!

      So there we have it; In The Real World attempts to point out that people are making money out of a scam and tries to juxtapose it with the creationist movement as if they are not out to make money when, in fact, the creationist movement is all about money!!!

      And there’s the rub – Creationists have cited lots of FACTS as evidence against the THEORY. Sound familiar you complete fucking idiots???

      So In The Real World is lying out of his/her arsehole and making shit up! On that “evidence” alone, my allegiance remains with science.

         2 likes

  19. taffman says:

    My weather station shows the temp to be down to 2 Deg C. Lets hope the slugs get some sleep tonight…………………
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36166774
    More global warming guff anyone ?

       4 likes

  20. StewGreen says:

    @Edward got any opinion on this story Paul Homewood mentions ?
    about on FOIA the US gov said such documents didn’t exist When in fact the complainant had such documents in his hand ..The documents appeared to show 1995 correspondence from United States Department of State people to the IPCC telling them to change scientific lines that had already been written, to play up alarmist claims and down play more sensible scenarios.

       5 likes

    • Up2snuff says:

      There are several problems that come to mind with the Government adoption of the climate science of the 1990s:

      Government (in the UK) did not know enough science to understand that scientists making definite statements tend to be poor or bad scientists. The language used should have been “We THINK man made CO2 MAY be warming the planet. This is the evidence we have so far that leads us to that.”

      Government (in the UK) immediately adopted viciously regressive taxation on only one small aspect of CO2 production. In addition, this was done in unfortunate proximity to the UK Government’s emptying of the Treasury coffers in a foolish attempt to join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. Coincidence? Maybe.

      Then, the taxation measures adopted only served to make alternatives more expensive as well. Stupid? Definitely.

      The obvious industry creating far more CO2 in the UK than the transport sector was and is electricity generation and the lack of measures to quickly deal with that at source rather suggests that the “urgent action required due to AGW” message applied to transport fuel duties was based rather more on revenue raising than the need to delay and limit AGW. (We are now currently in the ridiculous situation where the UK emergency reserve generating capacity comes from diesel powered generators! Very stupid? Very definitely!)

      UK Government overlooked wider science and we learned after a while that methane was as much a global warming gas (if existing AGW theories are correct) and no measures were taken against that.

      The UK Government, despite their increasing stated concern over CO2 AGW, happily & knowingly took contradictory measures and increased the need for travel, neglected road repairs & network expansion requirements, overlooked road congestion or even actively created it and so on. The UK Government ‘looks the other way’ in other areas of economic life as far as AGW is concerned in its desire for consumer activity, not least in the spread of computers and the internet (just a look below the keyboard on which I am typing this and under/alongside the desk provides an indication of the spread of static CO2 generating devices) let alone the host of other domestic devices requiring electricity generation. Smoothie anyone?

      Although carbon rationing might have been difficult in the 1990s, it should be well within the scope of 21st century technology. Not only would this end the regressive & impoverishing elements of the nature of existing anti-AGW/Climate Change taxation, it would create an opportunity to consistently reduce emissions per capita, decade on decade or at briefer intervals. In addition, it would – even at reduced VAT levels – create a constant revenue stream for the Treasury unlike the duties on road fuels which are only ever going to decline. This latter evidence suggests that whatever Government, scientists and environmental campaigners & ‘Green’ political Parties may say about AGW/CC, ‘the problem’ is nowhere near as bad as they all make out.

      It may still be a problem in the longer term although Global Warming is far, far less of a problem, in my view, than Global Cooling. The current fall-off in temperature increase MAY be only temporary, it may not. The longer it goes on though and some serious questions need to be answered, preferably before more Judges, by the proponents of AGW and CC.

         2 likes

    • Edward says:

      That is a link to a shit collection of videos. What’s your point?

         4 likes

  21. In The Real World says:

    Edward has just proved what Ghandi said about , ” When they resort to personal attacks , you know that you have won & they have lost , as they have no facts to support their argument ”

    I would mention the [ Edwards V Aguillard ] case in the American supreme court , where the chief justice summed by saying that , ” there was NOT ONE FACT to support the theory of creationism .

    Or the fact that one of the heads of the IPCC admitted that Global Warming was invented to take money from the richer nations ..

    But there is not much point as he seems to have no interest in reality and just spouts a load of rubbish.

       3 likes

    • Edward says:

      Did the chief justice actually say that or are you making things up? There’s no such thing as “the theory of creationism”. That sounds like utter blocks to me.

      As for “personal attacks”, Gandhi was not talking about anonymous people who hide behind pseudonyms such as In The Real World. Ironically he was talking about people who knew each other in the real world.

      Shame on you to attempt to use the leftist Gandhi trump card.

         2 likes

      • Up2snuff says:

        Edward, what about The Theory of Evolution? Evolution being man and everything else from a mere dot, a minute molecule? Or man from monkey? Are not both of those far from proven ‘theories’?

        As far as recent physical evolution, that theory is now proved. We are becoming obese – a form of evolution – in our society. Proven, according to the BBC. Except today size no longer matters, it is quality. Quality of our teeth. (BBC R4 TODAY 9 May 2016)

           0 likes