When I need a laugh there is nothing more Jolly than checking out the “environment” section of the Guardian where you can be sure to fine the latest in environmental Corporal Jones (Vale, Clive Dunn) impersonations:
click for source
Now there are a couple of really major and naive assumptions in this rather silly piece not the least of which is the fact that the judiciary does not have the powers imagined by the author in the first place, secondly even if they did getting members of the legal profession to all agree about something is rather like herding cats (strangely quite few lawyers are cat lovers) thirdly the argument is profoundly undemocratic and it denies the people the right to chose their own governments and to have those governments do their bidding. Finally it reveals that inner totalitarian that seems to live within the heart of every Greens supporter. Yep its the perfect pick me up for a conservative on this bright and sunny November morning.
Cheers Comrades]\
Related articles
- Dad’s Army actor Clive Dunn dies (bbc.co.uk)
Iain Hall's SANDPIT 
Dear oh dear Iain! For one such as you, I’d have thought that you would be much more discriminatory in your readings. The Guardian, like The Australian, are both regarded as ‘rags’, the term used to describe papers that deliver trash poorly researched and biased journalism to the gullible. Read a few balanced and scientifically based articles on the issue.
The point of my post is to highlight the nonsense that is written in favour of the AGW proposition and clearly you agree with me that much of that which is printed in the Guardian is utter tosh. That said feel free to offer me pieces that you think more worthy.
There are a lot of reputable journal articles related to AGW. I’d suggest you go to a university library and do some searching. Far be it from me to suggest ‘relevant’ articles (with the potential of the bias accusation) — I was always taught that the acquisition of knowledge required some serious legwork — and brainwork!. 😉
I am a good hour and a half drive away from the university library where I could read or borrow such things deknarf so can I ask you what screeds convinced you of the “rightness” of the AGW proposition? Further what swung it for you in those learned papers?
Elsewhere a certain eejet misses the point of referencing the late Clive Dunn in this post.
Here is an example of the “don’t panic” meme that came up so often in Dad’s Army, frankly only an ignorant eejet would fail to understand why this routine is just like the blathering of the author of the Guardian piece I cite here.
Iain,
See this;
http://deknarf.wordpress.com/2012/08/05/en-passant-8-climate-change-sceptics-conspiracy-theories/
which leads onto to two other blogs of mine on climate change. What convinced me was the logic behind the arguments about stuffing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and its effects as a greenhouse gas. Plus the reports from the UN Climate change group. I note that the latest World Bank report is indicating a 4 deg C increase in global temp by the end of the century, double that originally predicted, but I haven’t read this report yet and can’t comment, but will. Even worse is the potential for the release of methane currently trapped in the perrmafrost — if you want to see runaway global warming, release this stuff in huge volumes.
OMG deknarf, you’ve caught the AGW disease.
Really, touting the end of the century as a ‘4 degree increase’? Surely you can’t be serious?
Come on, ten years ago Flannery and the IPCC were screaming that 2012 was the ‘tipping point’.
Well, it hasn’t happened has it? The climate is experiencing a cooling phase, just stick your head out the window.
It’s funny that warmists are quite happy moving the goal posts every time their predictions fail to eventuate. It’s even funnier that they take no chances, jumping from decadal predictions to ‘end of the century’ predictions, which for all intents and purposes are completely worthless.
Keep dreaming, deknarf, and keep paying that useless carbon tax to prop up your hapless choice of government.
It won’t do them any good come November 2013.
Hmm! So as it was hot yesterday when I stuck my head out the window then the climate is experiencing a warming phase — C’mon GD, are you really that niaive?
I’d suggest you look at the basic science, consider the peer reviewed publications on the issue of AGW, consider the weight of the evidence, and whether it’s wise to invoke the precautionary principle on this issue. If you live in a forest were the evidence shows that its prone to bushfires do you put a fire break around your property and take other requisite precautions, or do you sit and say it’s just a load of bullshit?
I’d be more impressed it you could provide ‘scientific’ evidence, properly peer reviewed and published in reputable journals that increases in greenhouse gases are not causing global temperatures to increase along with the resultant effects on climate.
PS: Based on the science and the balance of probabilities I’d say that AGW is the most likely explanation for AGW than all of the other suggestions. Should be be acting to reduce GHG emissions, even as a precautionary measure? You bet your sweet life we should be!!
Deknarf
I have read your piece and I will prepare a detailed response to your reasoning in it, sadly though it seems to me that you have generally fallen for the mistake of being too willing to accept what those in the white coats tell us.
Essentially “peer review” is a rather flawed process that relies upon the integrity of anonymous reviewers and if there is one thing that Climate gate showed us it is the way that the process can be abused by vested interests pushing their own beliefs.
Hmm
Tautology much I think!
Careful Iain, I used to wear a white coat and was trained in sciences! 🙂
Fully aware of the issues around peer review and the potential for vested interest influence. Peer review is at least far superior to unfounded comments unsupported by evidence.
oops! I meant the release of greenhouse gases is the most likely explanation.
The fact that your claim is made in the past tense goes in your favour 😉
Your awareness of the issues does you credit, however I think that “peer review” will continue to lose its position as any sort of gold standard for scientific veracity with the rise of citizen reviewers and the publication of more papers on the net rather than in the low volume journals the gate keepers will lose some of their power and influence which was clearly the problem evident in the Climate-gate scandal.
Seem to be suffering from keyboard fingeritis today! Actually meant ‘superior! but we almost got to a new word ‘suspurious’! 😉
I figured it was something like that 😉
deknarf exhorts Iain to visit a university to research the AGW theory. He lectures me about peer reviewed papers and he calls on the authority of the World Bank with its prediction of a 4 degree rise in the world temperature.
Sounds impressive, doesn’t it, and authoritative too. Unfortunately, rather than following his own advice I reckon deknarf’s merely quoting the SMH environment section for his ‘research’.
This article,
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/degrees-of-devastation-major-report-warns-of-drastically-hotter-planet-20121119-29l3c.html
shows that deknarf is being even more alarmist than the report itself.
Rather than stating that the world’s temperature will rise by four degrees by the end of the century, the report actually downplays the prediction to
The report further intimates that unless the world follows the dictates of the warmists that the world is “plausibly” on a path to this four degrees as early as 2060.
Given the fact that global warming predictions over the past ten or fifteen years have failed spectacularly, post-dating this latest scare campaign fifty to ninety years in the future is indeed laughable.
As for your assertion that
Well perhaps you will be again….
Imagine if, in 1912, scientists were advising a course of action that unless taken, would result in the world facing catastrophe in 1999.
Fast forward a hundred years and that’s exactly the situation with predictions like this latest World Bank scare.
It was laughable then. It is laughable now.
Ah GD, I obiously poked you in a sore point there. I think in my reply to Iain I indicated that the report was out but that I hadn’t read it yet — I’ve now downloaded it from the World Bank site and will read it — have you? And yes I did see the article in the SMH, and on the ABC and checked this morning and found that it had run in many papers, except The Australian (well I coudn’t find a reference to it in a search).
Was also amused at your reference to white coats — mine was the knee length version of the ones you have so thoughtfully illustrated in your reply. Incidentally I stopped lecturing many years ago so I won’t bother now. I’ll just say ‘your wrong, AGW is a reality’ and move quietly on. Have a nice ‘non AGW’ day mon ami!