« Royal time-share | Main | Welsh 108 »

June 25, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Paul Flynn

Some comments has been deleted others rejected as spam. This has been to avoid a deterioration into the coarse slanging matches of other blogs. we have our standards. Argument? yes. A foul-mouthed slanging match? No.

One deleted for its gratuitous offensiveness was from someone who spent time going through the Commons voting lists for Wednesday and claimed that I have not told the truth in saying that I had rebelled five times against the Government. What difference it makes, I do not know. He was wrong because he ignored the vote of the programme motion on which I abstained against the whip.

Paul Flynn

No Jolly Roger, you cannot except instant answers to your verse. I have a day job to do.
I would have loved to have the same effect on the Americans and fellow MPs by staying at home and faxing my comments or talking through Skype. Travel for me, especially air travel, is neither easy or comfortable. You must not be envious about the expenses. They do not cover the cost of the hotels where we stay or essentials like taxi fares.

I did an open analysis on whether my journey was necessary. Most MPs would not tell constituents that they ever go abroad. Given a week to think about it, I believe it was the best value trip I have any taken in terms of potentail influence. I live in hope that the home truths that I delivered at the Pentagon and the State Department may be fruitful in reducing the deaths of our soldiers in Helmand and Iraq.

Jolly Roger

Don't worry, Mr. Molyneaux.
Paul can be an unresponsive so and so.
I've asked him 'bout his recent sojourn.
But no reply. Now, who said curmudgeon?
His response to your list of credence.
Was two questions in the name of expedience.
He dismissed your 'experts' as if they are irrelevant.
Watch out, Paul, this room's got an elephant.

Rod Molyneux

Still no answer. I'm obviously wasting my time here!

Paul Flynn

A long list but a small minority of the scientific community. Are the allegations against the oil industry true?

Claims were made by one writer that appear to be untrue? Are they?.

Rod Molyneux

Right Mr Flynn, so now you have launched the predictable two pronged response typical of AGW alarmists of

1. Make an ad hominen attack on the individual concerned and/or their credentials. and

2. Accuse them of being in the pay of Big
Oil

Perhaps having done that you could now address the actual science and present your response to the refutation of the hypothesis of AGW put forward in the letter
If in fact you can do this why not pop over to junkscience.com and win yourself a cool $500,000. If it is such a no-brainer the money is there for the taking.

Also why don't you try and slag this lot as off well. All from Lawrence Solomon's book, The Deniers

Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."

Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."

Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."

Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."

Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

Oh and by the way Wikipedia? Don't make me laugh!

Paul Flynn

The SEPP groups appears to be a front for Global warming deniers. Dr Singer is a leading light in it. Wikipedia reports "In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. "

Enough said

Paul Flynn

Richard Courtney who claims to be 'peer reviewer' may not be all he claims. A quick search found these details about him. Could he tell where his degree comes from and what he peer reviewed.

Richard S Courtney has a degree from the Open University but tells everyone that he has a degree from Cambridge but when challenged can not remember which college when further challenged he becomes flustered. He is extremely bright but claims his face was reconstructed as a child - no such recorded are available. He claims to have been semi blind until the age of 11. He says he went to a boarding school for visually impaired from the age of 2, again not credible records can be found. He does have a scar at the top of his shoulder. He is a Spin doctor not a real doctor.

Courtney is often refered to without any academic degree, even if others are on the same page, like the ESEF member list of 1998 where he is not listed as 'Academic Member' but as 'Business Member'. [3] Even in a recent publication of Richard Courtney (August 2004 [4]) no degree is mentioned. There are however a few exceptions on Internet where he is mentioned as 'Dr. Richard S. Courtney' [5] [6] or 'Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D.'[7]
[edit]
Greenhouse skeptic

Richard Courtney was one of the speakers at the conference in Leipzig in 1995 organized by the European Academy for Environmental Affairs and the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) which resulted in the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change. In his speech he stated that he couldn't find any negative sides of the announced global warming. [8] Courtney was amongst the first group [9] of people who signed the declaration that begins with: "As independent scientists concerned with atmospheric and climate problems, we...". After complaints that many people who were listed as those who signed it were no scientists at all, SEPP made a new list which no longer mentions Courtney. [10]

Antipholus Papps

Thanks for your considered response Paul. With regards to:

"The Global war on Terror like the war on Drugs are both artificial ones that have been cynically used by politicains for their own ends."

I am in 100% agreement with that statement. And that is the reason why many of us are skeptical about anthropogenic global warming. Unscrupulous politicians have been using fear of terrorism/drugs/environmental devastation to consolidate power, remove civil liberties, and seriously jeopardise the rule of law. 'Combatting climate change' provides too perfect an opportunity for the political elite to create their 'new world order' (as I believe Mr Brown refers to it). I don't trust them. I think I am being lied to by those who have already proved that they cannot be trusted.

Rod Molyneux

"The tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." Thomas Henry Huxley

I still don't think you get it do you. There are no such people as global warming "deniers".
Everyone including the so called "deniers" acknowledges that global temperature has increased by about 0.6C Cover the last 100 years but what they disagree with is the hypothesis (for that is all it is) that human CO2 emissions have caused this and will go on to cause catastrophic climate change if they are not stopped or reduced. There is no emperical evidence to support this hypothesis.

Oh by the way if you want links to information challenging the hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming this is the only one you need . I suggest you spend some time going through the thousands of entries therein rather than watching Di Caprio and Gore spouting propaganda.

http://tinyurl.com/3yop6n

pooter

"I am happy to be branded a heretic because throughout history heretics have stood up against dogma based on the bigotry of vested interests. But I don’t like being smeared as a denier because deniers don’t believe in facts. The truth is that there are no facts that link the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide with imminent catastrophic global warming. Instead of facts, the advocates of man-made climate change trade in future scenarios based on complex and often unreliable computer models."

Professor David J. Bellamy OBE

I'm happy to stand with Prof. Bellamy as a heretic and call you a bigot.

Jolly Roger, slightly pyrexial.

"Is your journey really necessary"? That's the clarion cry.
I don't know why you bother, Paul, I really don't know why.
You've just returned from a chattering jaunt.
But what result have you got to flaunt?
The MPs claim a futile journey from alien lands.
I wonder, was it actually, they'd booked sun-beds on the sands?
"Reduce our carbon footprints" would be better I suppose.
It's easy to achieve it, by travelling on tip-toes.

What's wrong with Video Real-Time voting, Paul?
The technology's there for use by all.
It'll only take the use of a finger.
No need, around The House, to linger.
You can all carry on with your vital missions.
Around the World, raising no suspicions,
Of increasing your carbon foot-print area.
Just don't forget your shots against Malaria.

With regard to Global Warming issues,
Just be prepared to run for the tissues.
Not for tears, but to hold to your nose.
Against pungent, amateur, opinionated prose.
Listen to the previous comment here.
It's Scientific credence is clearly clear.
From a UN Expert Peer Reviewer.
Would you disagree Paul, well would you, er?


Rod Molyneux

If you get your "facts" on global warming from such utterly non scientific alarmist and totally biased pieces of propoganda such The Eleventh Hour and an Inconvenient Truth then there is no hope!!
Leonardo di Caprio ( high school drop out )and Al Gore (non scientist , arch hypocrite and proven in court to be liar) telling us what we need to do to save the planet. I don't think so.
Please read the following correspondence from an IPCC expert reviewer and climate scientist in response to another alarmist poster like you. Perhaps you would like to answer all the points he raises based on the science.
Sirs:

You say:

“And perhaps some scientists are coming out against the idea that humankind has warmed the planet and continues to spew increasing pollutants into our atmosphere. If so, they are awful quiet about their challenge. Perhaps they should post their arguments here and let NRDC's real climate experts take them on.”

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 AGW-hypothesis asserts that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs) – notably carbon dioxide – in the atmosphere will cause the globe to warm (global warming: GW), and that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing the carbon dioxide in the air with resulting anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW).

I think a clear distinction needs to be made between
(a) the science of AGW, and
(b) the perception of AGW - and the use of AGW - by non-scientists.

The science

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.
2.
Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is observed to follow change to global temperature at all time scales.
3.
Recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.
The global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose from 1970 to 1998, and fell from 1998 to the present (i.e. mid-2008). This is 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near-constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940
4.
Rise in global temperature has not been induced by increase to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide.
More than 80% of the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide has been since 1940, and the increase to the emissions has been at a compound rate of ~0.4% p.a. throughout that time. But that time has exhibited 40 years of cooling with only 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940.
5.
The pattern of atmospheric warming predicted by the AGW hypothesis is absent.
The AGW hypothesis predicts most warming of the atmosphere at altitude distant from polar regions. Radiosonde measurements from weather balloons show slight cooling at altitude distant from polar regions.

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.

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.

Hence, additional scientific information cannot displace the AGW-hypothesis and cannot silence its advocates (e.g. Hansen). And those advocates are not scientists despite some of them claiming that they are.

Richard S Courtney

paulflynn

Perhaps I should mention that I voted AGAINST this bill and in favour of the staus quo on planning. I also voted for the John Grogon amendment. The Tories' opposition is synthetic. If they are elected they will not repeal this change.

Tony

So, in the event of any unfortunate opposition to a new motorway (like the one proposed for Newport South that will go straight through a SSSI - on the current options) an unelected body will decide what will happen? I really think we should stop handing out homilies on democracy to the rest of the world you know (oh hang on, thats one as well.. never mind you know what I mean ..)

paulflynn

ThanKs Mr Tarbuck. If I was not inciting fear of the results of Global warming I would be neglecting my duty to my constituents. In my election message in 2005 to my electors I raised three subjects only. The first was the need to take urgent action against Global warming. The public fear of the consequences is fading in the story in the Observer.

The Global war on Terror like the war on Drugs are both artificial ones that have been cynically used by politicains for their own ends. The fear of Global Warming will be as productive as our hard wired fear of the sabre tooth tiger that has ensured the survival of our species.

Robert Tarbuck

I'm sorry Paul, please could you explain to me what it was about my post that you found 'perverse'? I don't think it is 'perverse' to suggest that an elected Member of Parliament should represent his or her constituents! I think it is 'perverse' to try to frighten people into accepting your world view. It would be less 'perverse' if you cited properly-sourced data and employed reason rather than fear to convince people that your interpretation of that data is correct. I think that promoting hysterical fear - be it of terrorism or man-made global warming - in order to force people to change their way of life or their legal system constitutes a form of terrorism in itself.

The comments to this entry are closed.