Suppressio Veri, Suggestio Falsi (again)
>> Sunday, September 13, 2009
aka "The suppression of the truth is the suggestion of a falsehood."
When I heard on Radio Four news headlines blaze forth the news that German commercial ships had successfully navigated the North East Passage, with the clear implication that it had never been done before (and was now only possible because of climate change), I was puzzled. Hadn't Stalin put a lot of effort into cracking just this problem in the 1930s, in order that the Soviet Navy not have to circumnavigate the globe to get to the Far East, as happened with their ill-fated Second Pacific Squadron in 1904 ? Isn't that why they had nuclear-powered icebreakers ?
The answers are - yes, they had, and yes that's why.After a couple more trial runs, in 1933 and 1934, the Northern Sea Route was officially open and commercial exploitation began in 1935. The next year, part of the Baltic Fleet made the passage to the Pacific where armed conflict with Japan was looming.
Richard North examines the entrails at EU Referendum. He mostly concentrates on the Independent newspaper, which came out with a straight lie, but the BBC report is also mentioned.
Given that hardly anyone reads the Independent, yet BBC radio news is listened to by millions of people, its likely that far more people have been deceived by the BBCs insinuations than the Indie's outright lies.
(Disclaimer - I actually believe it is pretty certain that chucking large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere could indeed impact the climate - the question is to what extent, and what actions should be taken to mitigate risk. But a good cause doesn't justify falsehood.)
39 comments:
Shhh, don't upset Cassie. She thinks that CO2 is a 'harmless gas'. So is carrot juice, of course - in moderation.
The vile Independent lying? No! Whatever next!
N.O.
.
So, can anyone point to any studies on the net that conclusively show temperatures rising in line with increasing amounts of Co2?
Mailman
Oh noes! Shiveluch is erupting right about now. And as we all know, carbon dioxide is now evil, making this volcano - which is busy releasing millions of tonnes of that evil Nazi gas, carbon dioxide - worse than Hitler, Stalin and the other historical far-left authoritarian monsters combined. Someone call the eco-police up and have that volcano arrested for crimes against humanity.
With all of this evil being released, I predict the ice caps to melt, the world to burst into flames and everyone die! Any second now...
after a court held that the Goracles film was political propaganda, numerous beeboids said its ok to tell porky pies about dangerous human induced catastrophic climate change so long as it gets the message across
apparently, it dosnt matter if Al Beebs have got it wrong on agw, as its how we should be living our lives anyway
I posted on the open thread this AM, how about a hat trip or whatever is its called?
It was agreat idea by the alarmists though wasnt it, just the kind of story that looks great on the surface, glossy and perfect for the use of AGW agitation.
The urge to use the story overcame any caution the AGW lobby had, common sense went out the window so keen were they for a story like that.
It had all the right ingredients for a typical scare story, there was only one tiny flaw in their cunning plan, it was a pack of stitched up cobbled together lies!
Ooooops, bit of a mistake there eh?
The Russians using that route on a commercial scale for decades using the smae ice breaking techniques as this one, this really shows how desperate the AGW lobby have become now, its a little sad isnt it?
Perhaps the BBC will issue a retraction and appology for blindly stealing a nonstory?
Perhaps the BBC will do a proper report examining the history of the route talking to the Russians who took part?
N.O,
I may be wrong in my view about CO2, everything I know has been discovered by hours of trawling through information.
You see the problem here, to get all the story, every part you have to dig deep and this is difficult and time consuming.
If I had just got my information from the BBC I would be missing huge slices of knowledge.
Everything aI have read convinces me that the truth is being hidden by those with a vested interest BUT it may be I am wrong, I offer my opinion such as it is and I hope others will offer theirs too.
It could even be that the real truth lies between us somewhere?
If you think I am wrong about a subject then please put me right or point me in the right direction.
Yours
Cassie K.
Nearly Oxfordian: The problem is that those of you on the left have failed to make a case based on genuine scientific argument. Al Bore is just a fat corrupt lying American politician. Why would anyone believe anything this tool said? His film was full of factual inaccuracies. What about the BBC? Their top expert is a man totally unqualified to analyse scientific data, yet this prick continually delivers reports full of crap dressed up as science. As two examples of this I submit Harrabin's story from Moscow where the lack of snow was down to climate change, yet one week later Moscow was under 6 feet of snow.
I also submit Harrabin's story about Tulips glowering early at Kew Gardens, yet one week later most of northern England was brought to a halt by snow.
Then we had the story from the BBC about the lack of snow in the Alps affecting the skiing season, no mention from the BBC that they've had some of the best falls of snow in years now.
The Government? Those pricks the Millipede sisters with their mad bulging eyes are about as reliable as a Gordon Brown promise.
Oh and what's YOUR answer to stopping CO2 levels rising? let me guess, tax rises. It seems to be the only weapon you on the left have.
So tell me Nearly Oxfordian just how does putting up taxes stop CO2 levels rising? The rich do the most flying and create the most pollution as do business travellers. They claim much of that flying back on their taxes anyway.
Shouldn't those on the left that continually moan about climate change be the ones to make the first sacrifice? Shouldn't Bozo and Madonna give up their private jets and multiple houses that burn up large amounts of energy and generates massive amounts of CO2?
I'm betting you won't find many energy saving light bulbs in Madonna's Beverly Hills home.
What about silly bitches like Emma Thompson who opposes the expansion of Heathrow airport yet continually flies out of it to visit her luvvie mates in Hollywood. Why are people like HER not made to stop their flying that is causing the damage? Putting up taxes on flying makes no difference to a rich Hollywood celeb. But to people on low wages who might just want to take a holiday to Spain they are the ones being forced out of flying by people like you.
Why do you hate the working class so much?
Wouldn't it be fairer to actually restrict people to one flight per year? Shouldn't the burden of climate change be shared equally by all?
During the war food, petrol etc was rationed. Shouldn't we do that now?
Or perhaps Nearly Oxfordian you are a rich liberal so you don't want to make the personal sacrifice, but like other liberals you want someone to do it for you.
The reality is the effect that humans have on the climate is not known, it's mostly based on inaccurate climate models.
What we DO KNOW is that over population of the planet is bad, yet no one on the left is proposing tax changes that would make those that breed the most pay the most. why not?
Any Questions of Friday was instructive to any listener with a sufficiently strong stomach to endure it.
On the panel was Sir David King, the former chief scientific advisor to the ruling junta and one of the truest of true believers in AGW.
Leaving aside his specialist subject, King's answers to all the other questions were quite fascinating. He was as unfailingly Leftist as would be expected of the third leg of AQ's wonky table. Indeed, you would have to say he was somewhere to the Left of, oh, say Fidel Castro.
I suppose it is quite beyond the great man's ability to wonder whether his political persuasion might possibly have cross-contaminated his scientific judgement.
Like so many watermelons, he could not have failed to have been seduced by AGW. It was just what he and other socialists had been looking for since socialism died in the USSR.
Interesting article highlighted by Not A Sheep (apologies if you have already posted this).
New Scientist - "World will cool for next decade"
"FORECASTS of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter. We could be about to enter one or even two decades of cooler temperatures, according to one of the world's top climate modellers."
-----------------------------------
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327254.000-world-will-cool-for-the-next-decade.html
-----------------------------------
Personally I don`t claim to know enough about the science, to say what is what on this subject.
I do know that I am fed up of the BBC/MSM constantly ramming it down everyones throats.
Link to Not a sheep RE above -
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2009/09/global-warming.html
All this warming is a lot of hooey. Never a mention by MSM or albeeb of erupting volcanoes which pour more rubbish in the atmosphere in one go as man manages in years. If one analyses facts and not propaganda anyone can see that we are now in a cooling phase. The recent north west passage lies are the product of idiots in desperation. I recomend, as DV says, that you read the EUReferendum in detail from which you will see that these ships had to call out Russian icebreakers when they hit pack ice.
Actually, I do not believe that 'chucking large amounts of Co2 into the atmosphere could indeed impact the climate'. The reason is quite simple. The worlds average temperature has been static for 11 years yet the amount of Co2 continues to increase. Secondly, analysis of ice cores going back 40,000 years shows, conclusively, that temperature rises following cyclical ice ages; roughly every 10,000 years, precedes increases in CO2 by about 800 years. Is it perhaps pure coincidence that the Medieval warm period occurred 800 years ago? Finally, but not last, there have been periods when Co2 levels have been as high as 16 times the present level without any obvious ill effects. There are many other reasons but the modern journalist cannot be bothered to check and merely cuts and pastes any press release which he sees as sensational.After all his job is to sell newspapers not seek after the truth.
@Mailman:
This TED podcast shows such a study - go to 7m 7s in and watch.
Cassandra - apologies, I didn't clock the open thread - I picked it up from Eu Ref this morning.
Chris - I'm aware that Mother Earth chucks out a lot of CO2 each year - and that correlation (between CO2 and temperature) is not causation. Maybe a temperature rise moves dissolved CO2 from the sea into the atmoosphere or whatever ... but there will be SOME impact from our activity - the question is whether it's significant.
Martin babbles:
"The problem is that those of you on the left have failed to make a case based on genuine scientific argument"
Martin, for a nice chap you do spout some spectacularly dumb crap. I am not 'on the left'. I have never been 'on the left'. I have made it clear many times, including yesterday, that basically I am a market capitalist with an old-fashioned (i.e. real) liberal outlook. Haven't you been paying the blindest bit of attention? Or are you saying that the above means that I am 'on the left'?
The scientific case for large-scale release of CO2 destabilising the earth's atmospheric system - NOT necessarily causing a global and uniform rise in temperature - has been made pretty convincingly. The fact that you - and Cassandra - are refusing to grasp this, or maybe are inacapable of grasping this, namely that complex systems can be very sensitive and unstable and that perturbing them can cause very unpredictable effects, is lost on those who mock this possibility without having the scientific training to understand the concepts involved. Have you done any control engineering? Do you know what a Laplace transform is? Have you done any large-scale, fine-resolution system modelling?
N.O.
.
Laban,
Natural CO2 emissions are part of the pre-human system. Their effects are already built-in into the pre-human system. And as we know, the climate - and the weather - have a degree of instability even without human inytervention. Nobody is denying this.
BUT: if you add human intervention, it perturbs a system that is very fine-tuned AND that exhibits instabilities already. If you throw in additional perturbations, the likelihood is that you will magnify those instabilities.
But what the hell. Let's all fly abroad everyday, which David thinks is his god-given right, and the hell with the consequences. Let's flatten the rain forest to buy him, and Cassandra, and Martin, a new teak writing desk every year, and all the cheap burgers they can eat. After all, who gives a toss what sort of earth our grandchildren inherit, or even our children? Only quiche-eating wooses give a flying c***.
N.O.
"Like so many watermelons, he could not have failed to have been seduced by AGW. It was just what he and other socialists had been looking for since socialism died in the USSR"
The dumb idea that climate science is a socialist pursuit says all one needs to know about its detractors, the human ostriches.
N.O.
.
"The dumb idea that climate science is a socialist pursuit"
A week after Van Jones and the far-left have already forgotten their indiscretions, remarkable.
"The scientific case for large-scale release of CO2 destabilising the earth's atmospheric system - NOT necessarily causing a global and uniform rise in temperature - has been made pretty convincingly."
No it has not, if by "large scale" of Co2 is what is happenning in earth atmosphere, or even the double of todays value.
No one knows what is going in atmosphere. It is too complex for todays knowledge. We don't even have a reliable measure of temperature either in high atmosphere or in low atmosphere. And we don't have historic reliable data.
It is all speculation and low quality hypothesis.
lucklucky
Anon - Is the Ted link the best you can come up with? This is just the same old "Did they ever fit together" rubbish which Gore put on AIT.
CO2 lags temperature changes by 800 years.
If luckylucky's grasp of science is as shaky as his grasp of English syntax, we are lucky indeed that he is not a science.
N.O.
.
Nearly Oxfordian writes: "The dumb idea that climate science is a socialist pursuit says all one needs to know about its detractors, the human ostriches."
You really should brush up on you reading sills. What I said was that AGW appeals to socialists.
Which it does.
GCooper: learn to read before you sound off about others' reading skills. Martin addressed me quite explicitly as 'you on the left'. Several times.
Idiot.
N.O.
.
The story at the centre of this post is about those who support AGW being prepared to lie in order to support their case. I am not a scientist, but like Cassie have tried to understand what is going on in this heated debate by reading widely on the web and elsewhere. The fact remains that the science of climatology is at best only partly understood, and no definite link has been established between rising CO2 levels and planetary warming.
But the BBC has decided to present on a systematic basis only one side of the arguments. Further, on the basis of a shadowy meeting held in January 2006, the BBC senior management decided that the science was "settled".
Therefore, the corporation has become - instead of a journalistic organisation prepared to put across balanced argument and debate - a political organisation pursuing unproven green causes. This breaches its Charter. And it is as guitly of lying in pursuit of its fervent beliefs as Goebbels was in support of his Fuhrer. The north-west passage is another step in its distribution of blatant propaganda, the only difference here being that it an easily disprovable lie.
NO writes: "learn to read before you sound off about others' reading skills. Martin addressed me quite explicitly as 'you on the left'. Several times.
Idiot."
Then why append your puerile words to a quote from me and make no mention of Martin?
Not very convincing. Even by your standards.
A new teak writing desk for me and for martin every year?
Ooooh yes please!
N.O,
Has it crossed your mind that the complex systems you describe are not fine tuned and unstable but hardy and robust with a multi billion year period of refining that robust natural cycle with well evolved balances?
The earths natural cycles are well known, the Milanokich cycle for instance.
What you fail to grasp is that others hold different opinions to yours, there is always another side N.O.
I assume you feel that we are not qualified to comment but you are, is that correct?
The earths atmosphere contains 385 PPM of CO2 about 0.038% of the entire atmosphere, the percentage of naturally produced atmospheric CO2 about 95%, so of that 0.038% only about five percent is produced by us, have a think about that N.O.
The models you seem to rely on by the IPCC didnt predict the drop in global average temps BTW.
The link between CO2 rises and temperature has been noted BUT CO2 rises follow temperature increases they do not lead them.
No proof yet exists that proves CO2 causes warming, the models are based on a supposition which is further supported by models, no actual proof exists yet N.O so forgive me if dont swallow the consensus.
Correct me if I am wrong but our civilisation is littered with examples of a consensus being proved wrong again and again, in fact its often the rule that the consensus is mistaken, look at plate tectonics for instance.
You may be right and you may be wrong, try looking at the other side.
If nuclear power is the answer then I am for it hands down no worries, yet the AGW/AAM activists declaim nuclear power as the answer, why would they deny the positive role of nuclear?
If CO2 forcing is real then why are we not building nuclear plants now?
Cool i see not ox freudian has been on wiki to back up his so called theory ! because unless he puts up conclusive evidence that can be peer reviewed ,then it's just a unproven as he claims everything said on here is!.
"the human ostriches"? hmm not clever non oxbridge as ostriches are a very successful species how ever lemmings which you prefer to side with,have a very bad tendency " They will stop until the urge to press on causes them to jump off the cliff and start swimming, they then swim to exhaustion and death",
very like greenies?
Robin Horbury writes: "Further, on the basis of a shadowy meeting held in January 2006, the BBC senior management decided that the science was "settled"."
Yes, a meeting which one of our resident Beeboids (ipreferred perhaps?) tried to deny having happened. Unhappily for him, I was able to provide evidence to the contrary.
This was one of the most sinister turns the BBC has taken. No longer the unspoken conspiracy of the liberal Left, but a calculated policy decision
to suppress debate.
When one cuts through al the eco-mentalist and political crap surrounding global warming, it basically boils down to a few things:
1. Yes, atmospheric CO2 has been much higher in the geological past than it is now.
2. The atmosphere and climate are ridiculously intricate systems, but they can be understood. Weather patterns no not equal climate patterns.
3. We emerged from a series of glacial-interglacial periods about 10,000 years or so ago.
4. The main concern is the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere rather than the amount itself, as it gives plant and animal life less chance to adapt to the change in climate that arises.
5. If we want to make it easier on ourselves, we use the Power Of Science (tm) to sort it out using nuclear power, hydrogen energy and all that jazz, instead of returning to a pre-industrial state, which would kill billions of people.
Simples! But the eco-nutters would rather everyone went and lived in a cave.
Not one single output of 'warmism', including the BBC, has come up with an argument as to why taxes should rise to combat 'climate change'. Also, Gore, Madonna, Sting, Bozo et al have also not come up with one single reason as to why they can fly around the world in private jets but the rest of us on very modest salaries (I earn £26500 pa) are almost forced to due to costs (higher taxes) to buy a car I wouldnt normally buy. Come on. It is all a con. Socialists love more taxes and more control of the people. The very rich like to control the people. Do as I say. Not as I do.
Mailman: "So, can anyone point to any studies on the net that conclusively show temperatures rising in line with increasing amounts of Co2?"
Sure, any number, at least if you keep the scale small enough so it is not noticed that temps rose before the bigger Co2 increases and stabilised, perhaps fell, for the most recent decade. And it would be easy to build a graph to show that as humans used more water for drinking the [raw] number of deaths rose, roughly in proportion: just do not ask if that might have something to do with the concurrent population increases.
If you have a half-hour or so, go look at this video -
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-5949034802461518010
It is a BBC (!!!) documentary circa 1990 debunking the CO2 AGW alarmism. Dated, but still worthwhile.
No chance of this guy ever ending up on al beeb! :)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/accuweathers-joe-bastardi-makes-mincemeat-of-greenpeace-claim-that-california-wildfires-are-caused-by-global-warming/#more-10726
Mailman
Effectively deprogramming the AGW mindset isn't a simple project, because it's not a case of just countering false or misunderstood information with superior knowledge.
Understand that AGW alarmists don't want to be proved wrong. Evidence that global catastrophe is not at hand is not experienced as a relief but a positive displeasure.
I have neither the time nor patience to waste on their rehabilitation. I think they should all be shot.
Journalists and the "politically motivated" scientists are not doing anyone any favours. If there is a problem with "AGW" then lets debate it sensibly.
While unproven catastrophic claims are being made for man-made CO2 from Acne to Yellow fever http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm , how can anyone possibly take it seriously .
As long as the scientific process is being bypassed (e.g. the Hockey Stick) by dubious scientists and taken as "proof" by Harrabin, Black et al then "sceptics" will inevitably question other claims they make.
The so called "environmental" correspondents on the BBC should at least have a basic understanding of the scientific method and subject any claims made by interest groups to it before sending such allegations to the world. Are they so scared that the problem may be not as bad as they keep reporting, that they have to completely silence any opposing views.?
In any other branch of science this would not be tolerated but then as some say this is not science but belief.
It sickens me to see propaganda replace reason and debate on the BBC. If it was truly open to both sides of the AGW hypothesis and if the case for AGW was "overwhelming" as they claim then we would all benefit from this knowledge.
Nearly Oxfordian: YES YES YES. I am an engineer by trade and am well aware as to how to do a bit of maths and science (well I think but then I only worked on aircraft, bridges, cranes and so on so I'm not such an obvious expert as you. I guess my IEng status means nothing.
I notice that in your answer you dodged the question I really wanted to you to answer. How would you cut CO2? Taxes on the poor?
Your answer failed to point to any serious science on the subject of climate change, I didn't expect you to do so as 99% of the crap out there is from left wing nutters, politicians and eco mentalists who should be locked up in the nut house.
Even you must admit (although you probably won't) that CO2 is NOT the only possible contributor to what drives our ever changing climate?
Do you acknowledge other factors such as the Sun, the Earths orbit, natural geological activity and so on?
Where have we seen ANY serious science to show how these factors interact with the planet? The temperatures on Mars have been rising for years as well and there are no SUV's there. Whilst Mars and Earth only have one obvious thing in common (the Sun) the fact they can't explain why Mars is experiencing temperature rises with a simpler climate than ours shows how little the subject is understood.
The climate change models used have been shown to be inaccurate and unreliable.
The problem is people like you who have foam coming from your mouth every time you see anyone daring to question the eco loons are driving people like me away from what is a genuine cause.
I'm totally in favour of moving away from using foreign oil. Nothing would please me more than NOT to have to give a single penny to Governments in the middle east who hate our guts.
I'm also in favour or rewarding people and companies that work to reduce pollution and take better care of our planet.
But that isn't what people like you care about. For you it's a religion and just like Islam anyone who isn't a convert should be 'dealt with'
People like you are losing the battle of public opinion. As I keep pointing out IF it were the truth that the planet was heading towards dangerous climate change then politicians would be doing something far more pro active, such as closing down airports, restricting flying, stopping immigration, removing cars off the roads, building large numbers of nuclear power stations, rationing electricity and so on.
Yet we don't see any of that, instead we see third rate politicians backed by people who are mentally deranged talking about "green taxes" as if Madonna paying £15,000 for her first class flight from LA to London instead of £7,000 is somehow going to stop climate change.
Please assure me you're not that stupid?
Perhaps Uncle Joe's efforts to navigate the northern sea route were not considered 'commercial' by the BBC and Independent as they were uncontaminated by capitalism?
This is pure shoddy journalism.
Cometary impacts are far more likely to affect the planets ecosystem profoundly than MMGW.
There is increasing evidence (from Prof Fred Hoyle et al) that the last ice age was ended by 2 cometary oceanic impacts 13 and 11,000 years ago. Indeed we go through approximately 26 million year cycles where massive comets in the 5 10km size range, strike the earth. There have been at least 4 cometary impacts in the last 200 million years causing mass extinction of the biosphere.
There are countless smaller impacts, the last in Siberia in 1908.
Maybe we should be spending our resources on mapping the cometary near orbits, and preparing measures to deflect or destroy one, if ever we are in danger of impact.
In an ever changing world, it's nice to know there's always N Ox....
Martin said...
People like you are losing the battle of public opinion.
10:39 PM, September 13, 2009
A valuable point. Ignoring all the others you make, the issue of persuasion, which is about as hard to measure as it is to define, becomes key.
I almost fell off my chair laughing last week when Ed Miliband, on Newsnight, claimed he was good at persuading people. Oddly not a meme developed by the interview...er... question poser, in the face of his and his brother's daft and often totally hypocriticial (they don't seem to like talking about the odd disconnect of they and their teams flying hither and thither to decry flying, as their administration builds a 3rd runway. And the BBC can be 'selective', too - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2009/09/africa_gets_connected.html - first line) pronouncements of late.... which have almost universally been panned in the traditional comfort zones of the Guardian and Independent even.
Not that these publications seem to be working their spells too well either, even with near total, blanket, uncritically-assessed support for anything 'green' by the BBC. To imagine the 'world' is a small section of wealthy, if trendy North London being a major problem.
Like you, I want to effect all sorts of changes that can only be positive if they are practical and... be sold through logic and clear benefits to the public at large.
It must be clear that despite the clear dominance of certain agendas across all major media, and the billions thrown in support, most are not buying it, at least in the form this merry crew seem to be trying to pitch.
So, whatever the merits of their messages (and I think much does have value), this self-appointed collection of 'Don't do as I do; do as I, or my chums say' wallahs are serving the cause of the planet's future pretty darn poorly and should butt out.
Fat blooming chance.
Mailman:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/accuweathers-joe-bastardi-makes-mincemeat-of-greenpeace-claim-that-california-wildfires-are-caused-by-global-warming/#more-10726
Thanks for that link, I also noted that when I was in Alberta last xmas and they were experiencing the worst winter for 15 years, Greenpeace were NOT blaming GW, in fact, they were noweher to be seen!
Post a Comment