« Disabled Can | Main | Growth gluttons »

January 27, 2009


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


Kay Tie
"I am not being unreasonable when I question their motives."

I agree in that you are not unreasonable to question the motives here at all. The problem is that if we all waste time deciding which politician or scientist is being corrupted and by whom or in your case waiting for tax reductions it could well be too late.
According to Lovelock we don't have long.
At present the best we can do is rise above petty, tribal politics and work together.
We will hopefully follow Obama and reach our CO2 targets. If at the end of the day things work out then it was a small sacrifice.The other option as of the HOC last night we continue business as usual into extinction.

Kay Tie

"Unpicking one part of the tapestry of evidence does not make the opposite view true."

I'm not arguing against the science. I'm pointing out that there are many scientists being corrupted by the politics and that the claimed science is consequently tainted. It may or may not be true, but it has to be treated sceptically and not taken at face value.

If James Hansen was a proper scientist, he'd have no problems in putting all his raw data on the web for everyone else to review. That he refuses to do so is unscientific and deeply suspicious.

That people without a scientific background weigh in to support people like Hansen shows that this is not science: it's politics. A particularly dirty form of politics where science is used as cover for extreme political views. It's no surprise that the Left are vociferous in warning of the dangers of AGW and yet spurn the most effective CO2 reduction mechanism so far: cap-and-trade. If CO2 reductions were the primary goal then pragmatism ought to trump politics. It clearly doesn't.

There are countless examples in history where scientific orthodoxy is preserved because of ulterior motives, and that those who gainsay the orthodoxy are "heretics". Look what the scientific community (and the Government at the time) did to Professor Richard Lacey over Mad Cow disease. Look at Warren and Marshall's work on peptic ulcers and H. Pylori. If you think that AGW science is "settled" then you're deluding yourself.

I think it's fine to proceed on a basis of reducing CO2 emissions through a CO2 levy. Provided that other taxes are reduced it won't damage the economy (or, at least, no more than it damages the economy to tax jobs or trade as we do now). You don't need the science to be settled in order to follow the Stern Report's recommendations. The fact that politicians are still yammering away about AGW means they don't accept Stern's straightforward solutions and want to take for themselves the powers of a Roman Republic dictator. I am not being unreasonable when I question their motives.


Ah but Kay Tie, see we just don't believe you.
Because if you were a scientist, you would be aware, that in a similar way to evolution, Global Warming has been discovered, documented and ample evidence provided by many scientists working both independently and within organisations, working in many and varied, even often apparently unrelated fields who have rather to their alarm in many cases found that their varied researches have all led to the same place.
You would also understand that one scientist arguing with another scientist in one part of one area of research about quite how to interpret one dataset does not undermine or discredit all the work in all those varied fields by all those other unrelated scientists.

Your argument has all the sense and credibility of a creationist attempting to argue against evolution.

Unpicking one part of the tapestry of evidence does not make the opposite view true.


Professor Tie
I have just had a look through an Oxford dictionary but i cannot find the word in your above text of "refusig".

Kay Tie

Yes, Huw, I am a scientist. I suggest that you go and read the dictionary definition of science. It doesn't include tampering with data and refusi g to publish workings. That's more properly called "politics". And yes, you get politics in scientific institutions, as you'd know if you were ever a professor in a university science department.


Hopefully somebody from the IPCC will have read Kates link. After all this GW stuff was only ever a Worldwide conspiracy to try to make her buy a solar panel.
No doubt this will now be the end of the matter.


If we're going to support any industry, we need to ensure that it has a good chance of export earnings. Over-consumption coupled with under-production is the root cause of the current state of the UK. Equally, we need to start rationalising the banks. Bradford & Bingley, Northern Rock, RBS and Lloyds-HBOS could easily be merged into a single bank and colossal savings made.


I frankly am very uneasy about.... call it what you will.... the car industry. Virtually every company is now owned by foreign companies. Surely it stands to reason that IF and it's a big if - assistance needs to be given it should be given to people who will BUY what the companies MAKE?. What's the point of churning out yet more cars that nobody can afford to buy, or perhaps even want.

I suspect Mandy has his own good reasons for so doing, however.


So, now you are a scientist KayTie, is there no beginning to your talents.

The IPCC, the Royal Society and the Met Office all agree (amongst many other bodies)
that the global average temperature increase is due to rising concentrations of CO2, and that the primary source for this is burning of fossil fuels - oil, gas, coal.

Kay Tie

The best way to "Get real on climate change" would be to do proper science, not political pseudo-science:


Paul Flynn

Patrick, 'bailing-out implies that the industry is in trouble because of its own inefficiencies. This is not the case with the UK car, steel and aluminium industries. In normal times, they are highly efficient.

The Credit crunch has frozen the sales of cars which collapses the production of metals. A fatal mistake now would be to inflict the permanent damage of closure because of the temporary damage of a crisis. Investment will prevent that.

Government does a great deal to assist small and medium businesses. There have been an increases in the numbers going to the wall but there has also been an increase in the numbers of new small companies being set up in recent years.


Could you explain in laymans terms the difference between investment,subsidy, and bailing out?
They each involve throwing taxpayers money at a failing venture.Surely we need regulation to set up a level playing field for all business and industry?
Just for one example I don't recall seeing a dewy-eyed politician on TV when Thousands of corner shops went to the wall.Now we have Mandy giving away Billions to the car industry who themselves say the money is useless unless the punters can get credit.
So people that can't afford new cars will again be giving taxpayers money from banks to buy them from a failed industry again propped up by taxpayers.
Doesn't need a genius to realise who the main losers will be here, try picking a random local service.
It will be interesting to look at Mandy's accounts, where his new cars come from and who's bunged him his holiday homes.

Graham Marlowe

Patrick as I understand it, Peers do not get paid but they do get expenses. In the case of Taylor these seem to be somewhat excessive:


Where Clive Soley is concerned, he is behaving exactly as you would expect him to behave: for a man who was elevated soley (forgive the pun)for licking the boots of the former Prime Minister Blair, and who was a nondescript backbencher, as part of Heathrow First he can continue to lick the boots of his masters. He truly is the sycophants sycophant.

I am sorry that Labour, or rather, NEW Labour, which is a different and inferior brand altogether has a death wish: they don't listen to (in this case) the people of London, it is obvious that Mandy doesn't listen to anybody, since he is intent on "part privatising" the Post Office, which, nobody except any possible business beneficiary of such a scheme, supports and Iraq is coming back to haunt them again. If Labour seriously want even a remote chance of winning the next election, it is essential that anybody who has caused embarrasment through questionable behaviour is stripped of office or peerage.

Paul Flynn

you are right Patrick. The planet will continue. It's convenient shorthand. I did not hear Clive Soley but I believe he was unwise to revael his motives. He irritates the hell out of me on London television. More on the vote tomorrow.


You repeatedly mention 'save the planet' when we all know the planet is not in any danger. Danger only threatens the dumb species running it.
Listening to Mr Clive Soley on the radio today confirmed this dumbness. He failed to see a problem with any Lord selling their service. He thinks that part of his job is to except £27,000 a year to further the Third runway. Surely the job (that they get paid for) of such unelected cretins (whilst their awake) is to vote on respective bills using their intelligence and life experience. It's blatantly obvious that they lobby and vote on who gives them the biggest bung.
The disgracefully biased behaviour of the Commons whips shows that corruption is rife here also.
Brown is crazy to go ahead with the Third runway.

The comments to this entry are closed.