Invisible cloud threatens

Stop seduction

There is a cloud on the Government’s horizon that’s invisible to the media. I have seen no mention in today’s papers of a possible Government defeat on Wednesday. The whips are dragging MPs back from foreign visits with the same thoroughness as they did for the 42 days vote.

An amendment by Sheffield MP Clive Betts has the backing of 60 MPs – more that enough to wipe out the Government’s majority. It challenges the undemocratic heart of the bill that could hand over major planning decisions to a commissioner who is not accountable to popular opinion.

It’s intended to cut the time that planning consents take. The Government’s main concern is the prolonged inquiries into nuclear power stations. While I am sympathetic with the notion of an accelerated planning procedures, I will be in the ‘No ‘ lobby on his one. The Government's seduction by the nuclear lobby must be frustrated.

Yankee Odyssey

Was my journey to the USA really necessary?

In these times of infinite cynicism of politicians’ motives   I do not expect many to agree with my subjective judgement.

The downside was

•    Missing out on three parliamentary debates in which I would have a lot to say. Two were on Afghanistan and one on Welsh Energy Policy.
•    Prolonged travelling time although, these days, more time seems to be spent in airports than actually flying.
•    Another dollop of guilt about adding to my carbon footprint even though I will offset the journeys.
•    Trying to avoid, not always successfully,  the deadly American vice of over eating.

The upside was

•    Face to face exchanges with influential top American politicians and officials. Challenging the brain dead Bush loyalists and encouraging those who are living for an Obama victory.
•    Puncturing the absurd claims that Afghanistan is anything but a disaster sliding down a vortex to hell.
•    Offering an alternative view to MPs from other Euro countries to the persuasive fables of the fading Neo-Cons. Both old and new Europe was well represented in our delegations and are open to disillusionment on the Iraq myths.
•    Spending a week with fellow British MPs of three parties and seeking common sense solutions free from the the boundaries of our party stockades.

More fear, please

Global warming deniers have undermined well-founded public alarm on Global Warming.  Panic is our only hope. Channel Four and Nigel Lawson have pushed the seductive message of comfort and reassurance that Global warming is not happening.

It’s bunkum, but the weak long for happy delusions that will ease their worries. Confronted by the loud-mouthed environmental ignoramus brigade of fuel gluttons and macho poseurs, British politicians' green convictions are wilting. Today's Observer poll suggests that six out ten
Britons are not convinced that global warming is the supremely vital issue.

The public fear must be cranked up again. The encouraging finding of the poll is that that the most intelligent are the most worried. There are more than a million environment organisations in the world. A new film  The 11th Hour says that each has a pixel in the mosaic of a sustainable future.

The new economy must be powered by renewable energy and based on a reusable economy. Back sliding politicians must be influenced by all decisions we make as consumers and in the ballot boxes

Comments

[Tonypandy Andy]

So what happened to rational argument and persuasion ? Not working for you, eh? Hence "public fear must be cranked up again."

As if that weren't cynical & condescending enough, anyone who disagrees with you is not only wrong (as per usual) but is now also less intelligent, loud-mouthed, ignoramus, macho poseur etc etc....

The politics of abuse don't win over many (intelligent) minds

[paulflynn]

Fear is the rational response to the threats that face the planet. The global-warming deniers do not have science on their side. Over 90% of the best scientists in the world are demanding immediate action from Governments. Some, but not all of the deniers, are in the pay of the oil industry. My description of them is a little too restrained.

There was a gobal warming denial vote in the Commons recently. 5 out of the 650 were found. It would be different in a meeting of Daily Express readers.

[Devil's Kitchen]

Paul,

"The global-warming deniers do not have science on their side."

*sigh*

I know that you are a politician, but do try not to lie. Let us have a look at two pillars of the AGW: the Mann et al. "hockey-stick graph", and arch-climate loony, James Hansen.

The hockey-stick graph was thoroughly debunked -- it was shown, by MacIntyre and McKitrick (try Google, Paul), that whatever data you put in the result was always a hockey-stick. Which is why, of course, the IPCC no longer relies on it. There is an example of the science being on the side of the "deniers".

And James Hansen... Well, where to start? I know, let's start with his speech of twenty years ago to the US senate, shall we? This gentleman has helpfully shown how accurate Hansen was: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/06/gret-moments-in.html.

Further, we have been told recently that the current cooling trend is due to cold currents in the Pacific and that this will mask the catastrophic warming. Really.

It is strange, is it not, that not one of the climate models predicted this cold shift. One might almost conclude that the models were not terribly accurate and that their predictions should be taken with a sack of salt. Especially since these "scientists" have all been using a set of equations that assume that the Earth has an infinitely thick atmosphere: http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973.htm

You might also like to observe that the only significant warming in the land temperature record is added after the figures are collected: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/11/signal-to-noise.html

There are, of course, also significant problems with the way in which land temperature figures are collected (urban heat island effects and suchlike) which leads one to wonder why NASA, for instance, does not use the far more wide-ranging and accurate satellite data (clue: because the satellite data shows insignificant warming as compared to the land measurements).

But I doubt that you will be interested in actual data, eh, Paul? You'll just take what you're fed, like the good little bit of lobby-fodder that you are. I can imagine you now, which your fingers pressed tightly into your ears, shrieking, "la la la la! I can't hear you!"

"Over 90% of the best scientists in the world are demanding immediate action from Governments."

Who says that they are "the best", Paul? You? What qualifications do you have to judge that?

And since when was consensus of any use in science? A couple of hundred years ago, the consensus was that the sun revolved around the Earth.

More recently, the consensus was that thousands, if not tens of thousands, were going to die of vCJD (remember that, Paul?). We're still waiting...

But what should we do? Well, why don't you have a look at the IPCC SRES A1 family of scenarios? http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/093.htm

They are the scenarios based on technological advancement, greater international trade and cooperation, and people around the world getting richer. Go on, have a read: you never know, you might like the idea.

Oh, and just while we are on the subject, the Stern Review made absolutely no mention of the A1 scenarios. At all. Nada. Zilch. Nothing. Which is just one of the reasons why those of us who actually know about the subject and who read his report dismissed it as useless scare-mongering.

Oh, and the scientific consensus supports us there, by the way. The only people who still quote the Stern Review without getting actively embarrassed are politicians, because they, as usual known no better.

"Some, but not all of the deniers, are in the pay of the oil industry."

Oh, yawn. Nearly every single one of the AGW scientists is in the pay of governments and the state is hardly a disinterested party. These scientists also know that if they mention AGW in their reports or proposals, they are more likely to get funding.

And do tell, what motivates those people who, you admit above, are not in the pay of the oil industry?

"My description of them is a little too restrained."

Paul, my description of mental fascists such as yourself is never so polite and yet I too am still far too restrained.

"There was a gobal warming denial vote in the Commons recently. 5 out of the 650 were found."

Sorry, Paul; how is that in any way significant? How many MPs have any scientific qualifications at all? How many of them have actually read any originalreports or studied raw data?

For god's sake, the vast majority of you could not even be bothered to read the Maastricht Treaty, or the Lisbon Treaty and I bet there are more lawyers in the Commons than there are scientists.

Most of you vote on issues of which you have little or no understanding and base that vote on little but your own prejudices, petty squabbles and party affiliations.

The only thing that we can rely on is that you MPs will, at every turn, vote for more money and more power.

No wonder the general public holds you all in utter contempt: you are, in the very clearest sense of the word, contemptible.

DK

[Henry Crun]

Paul,

Please, please, please, please provide sound scientific evidence to support the AGW theory. By sound scientific evidence I do not mean Al Gore's public safety film not do I mean the fluff report from the IPCC.

Midsummer's day in the High Peak the maximum daytime temperature was 10.5 deg C. That's summer! What happened to the Mediterranean weather the media promised?

AGW is nothing more that a tax-con. Another wheeze to squeeze revenue from the guilt-ridden chattering classes. But it has backfired spectacularly, hasn't it Paul? The VED will hit those people who can least afford it. Dressed up as a green tax, it is nothing of the sort. £400 to tax a car worth £400 or less - you've got to be kidding. What do you think the consequences will be? Lower income families just coughing up and saying oh well, or more untaxed vehicles on the road?

Paul, please see the AGW argument for the box of snake-oil liniment that it really is and just do your job. You know, the one where you represent the general consensus of your constituents in Parliament rather than trying to peddle a "belief" in the name of scientific fact.

[The Great Simpleton]

"The global-warming deniers do not have science on their side."

From here:
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2008/06/skeptical-response-to-greenie-challenge.html

a response to other smug AGW warriors:

"Well, I am an Expert Peer Reviewer for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); i.e. I am one of the often touted "thousands of UN Climate Scientists". I and thousands of others speak, publish and sign petitions in attempt to get the media to tell the truth of man made global climate change. And in response to your invitation I post that truth below.

...

The present empirical evidence strongly indicates that the AGW-hypothesis is wrong; i.e.

1. There is no correlation between the anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and global temperature.

...

The above list provides a complete refutation of the AGW-hypothesis according to the normal rules of science.: i.e. Nothing the hypothesis predicts is observed in the empirical data, and the opposite of the hypothesis' predictions is observed in the empirical data."

And now the bit that really applies to you:

"But politicians and advocates adhere to the hypothesis. They have a variety of motives (i.e. personal financial gain, protection of their career histories and futures, political opportunism, etc..). But support of science cannot be one such motive because science denies the hypothesis."

Go and read the whole post with an open mind, if you are capable, you might realise that the science isn't settled.

[Robert Tarbuck]

Paul, your job is to represent your constituents and give them a voice in Parliament. It is beyond the pale for you to use your office to spread fear. You are supposed to be a public servant, not a terrorist! If the the only strategy you can devise is 'panic', then you are clearly unfit to hold public office.

[Helene Davidson]

any theory that needs fear to convince people is flawed; if it is not evidence based, and compelling, it is, and should be, open to dispute and challenge.

[david]

Paul Flynn....d0 u honestly believe we can control the temperature of this planet like a thermostat on the wall, turn it up so more C02 goes into the atmosphere and temps rise, or lower the thermostat and temps drop?

if so, youre not fit to represent your constituency let alone be a member of parliament

[Colin Suttie]

"The public fear must be cranked up again"? How do you & people like you sleep at night?

[Henry Crun]

Paul, I note from the MPs Register of Interests that you are a journalist.

Did they not cover fact-checking at your journalism poly, or were you bunking off that day?

[Paul Flynn]

Henry Crun...what 'facts' have you got in mind in your mysterious comments?

[patrick]

To the above deniers
whether global warming is human related or not is of minor importance compared to the fact that it is happenning.
A rise of 6 degrees in the Permian period (fact) led to the demise of 95% of species(another fact).
I know that you lot above couldn't give a flying fig about anything except your fourtracks, fuel prices, and plane journeys but try ,if you are mentally capable to spare a thought for the other species on this planet.
A predicted 6 degree (coincidently) rise in the next 100 years will know doubt do similar damage.
A sensible conclusion would be to suggest that as warming is happenning (fact again) we should all do something to try and limit the impact(oh think again!).
Politicians are in a no win situation here.
The ones that do have any environmental interest are severely restricted by a voting public hell bent on self interest.
Patrick

[The Kusabi]

>

That's it? That's your response to the several detailed comments in answer to your position? Pathetic!

Why don't you answer the posts made by Devil's kitchen, or the great simpleton, or Henry Crum's 11.47 am? Because, um, you can't convince anyone factually and rationally?

[Paul]

Mr Flynn,
If you bothered to read anything other than the Guardian and Indie, you might be aware of just how illusory is the "consensus" of which the warming alarmists boast. There are thousands of scientists - real scientists, disinterested scientists (so please don't bother reaching for that lame "big oil" smear - it's a fact that funding for alarmism far outweighs that supposedly provided by energy concerns) who are adamant that the AGW/co2 hypothesis is little more than superstition. The measures proposed by the alarmists in pursuit of some chimerical low carbon future would amount, if enacted, to the greatest misallocation of resources in human history, dwarfing by far the sums spent on the nuclear arms race - all in order to solve a non existent problem. Those who agitated for this madness, which will blight millions of lives, will receive a deservedly harsh verdict from history - do you wish to be in the dock? Energy bills are already being inflated by the subsidies deemed necessary for "renewables" such as the hideous and useless wind factories with which Wales is being increasingly blighted - bills which have a disproportionate impact on poorer people. I imagine you profess yourself some sort of socialist - are you proud of that? Socialists used to boast of being rational - now they, you included, are embracing the worst kind of superstitious group think; be assured, your political forerunners are spinning in their graves.

[paulflynn]

Thank you Patrick. It's good to have a voice of sense in the chorus that my remarks have stirred up. I thought I was stating the obvious. there will never by accepatance of anything by all scientists but when 90% agree on subject, they are entitled to be belived.

[paulflynn]

Devil's Kitchen, you have sucked all popular tabloid prejudiecs about MPs. You are wrong. You accused me of being Lobby fodder?. I voted against my party 5 times today. Unscientific?, I am a member of the POST the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology and have long argued for science based, evidence-based policies.

The 90% of scientists who warn of global warming include visionaries like Lester Brown and dozens of others whose scientific integrity is not for sale. I know of no precedence for this. What Galileo challenged was superstition and religion, The forecast on the spread of CJD was limited to few alarmist individuals. I know of no comparision that fits your theory.

[pooter]

Are we now into censoring comments? I posted a perfectly reasonable comment (which just happened to disagree with your position) which has now disappeared.

Has the argument gotten too much for you?

[Henry Crun]

Paul, how about the FACT that a judge has ruled Al Gore's B-movie riddled with inaccuracies, how about the FACT that the IPCC document is about as scientific a document as an advert for soap powder - i.e., it was compiled by marketeers and political appartchiks. Peer-reviewed, isn;t that a bit like A-level students marking each other's papers. So concerned are the proponents of AGW that they spend half their time flying round the world to hand-wringing symposiums and seminars devising the next big scare story.

Need, I go on. We are constantly being asked to "believe" in AGW. Since when is science a faith that we need to "believe" in? The data and methodoligies used by Hansen has been tested and found wanting - i.e., it is complete and utter tosh yet a a whole industry sector has been built on research grants and renewable energy sources.

Let's take wind turbines for instance, how about enlightening us on how much Frennch farmers are paid in grants to host wind turbines on their land? How about checking how much energy is expended in the manufacture of a wind turbine and see if it is a "carbon-neutral" technology?

No, you would rather "scare" the general public into believing in the whole AGW charade. Tell me Paul, could that not be considered an act of terrorism? Gordy could have you put away for 42 days you know.

[NeilM]

I'm no scientist, but find it laughable that by increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from .038% to .04% in the last few hundred years is setting the stage for rampant global warming that is predicted. It is a trace gas, and the it has marginally more insulating properties that "clean" air.

Reports are easily spotted as propaganda for the undeducated by quoting Millions of tonnes of CO2 rather than saying what percentage of the atmosphere it is.

I am deeply concerned that "Global Warming" is seen as THE issue, rather than rampant population growth, lack of recycling, loss of habitat, rape of the seas, overuse of non-renewable energy, etc, etc.
To "crank up the fear" on global warming is ridiculuous, if you really care about future generations, start telling the truth about population, deforestation, species loss. They will affect us far more, and far quicker than "Global Warming".

[Obnoxio The Clown]

"A rise of 6 degrees in the Permian period (fact) led to the demise of 95% of species(another fact)."

Must have been all those Permian Chelsea tractors, eh?

I may not be a scientist, but I can tell when I'm being buffaloed and bullshitted, and the MMGW alarmism is setting off all my detectors.

[pooter]

"A rise of 6 degrees in the Permian period (fact) led to the demise of 95% of species(another fact)."

In the comment I made which was for some reason removed I pointed out that the scientific concensus is that the permian extinction was caused by global cooling. Not enough chelsea tractors?

[AsYouLikeIt]

"To the above deniers
whether global warming is human related or not is of minor importance compared to the fact that it is happenning."

Paul has at least admitted he doesn't give a rat's ass if we're the cause of his percieved AWG problem or not, nor does he care about the fact we're actually seeing cooling taking place.

"I know that you lot above couldn't give a flying fig about anything except your fourtracks, fuel prices, and plane journeys but try ,if you are mentally capable to spare a thought for the other species on this planet."

Paul must have mistyped.
This should read: "I couldn't give a flying fig about anything except the taxes that get slapped onto your fourtracks, fuel prices, and plane journeys"

"A predicted 6 degree (coincidently) rise in the next 100 years will know doubt do similar damage."

I wonder. Given the fact all species currently living on Earth have evolved from that 5% that survived.

"A sensible conclusion would be to suggest that as warming is happenning (fact again) we should all do something to try and limit the impact(oh think again!)."

Wonder if MPs would be willing to lead the charge. After all: noblesse oblige.

"Politicians are in a no win situation here.
The ones that do have any environmental interest are severely restricted by a voting public hell bent on self interest."

Hell bent on self interest (echo, echo).....like voting for someone you believe in?....like voting for someone who promises you something?.....like voting for someone who promises they are going to provide better education and healthcare? How dare these voters. Paul, I'm with you on this one. I propose we disband the electorate and elect a new one.

[Patrick]

re:As you like it.
It's always useful in a debate to quote references made by the authors of the quotes
not who you imagined made them, der.....
Patrick

[MrDavies]

"The public fear must be cranked up again"

That makes you a terrorist.

42 days in gaol without charge for you scum-bag. There's an orange jump-suit with your name on it.

[Trooper Thompson]

Paul Flynn,

you say you are against the government's 'seduction by the nuclear lobby'.

Don't you realise that it's the politics of fear, that you advocate, which has driven the government into the protective arms of the nuclear industry?