Harry's Place

I thought for moment this post might be a consideration of the issue that Tony Blair once said was as big as terrorism (although you would never know it reading HP). Instead we get the Daily Mail angle. Once again the peroration could come from a retired colonel in Hampshire spluttering over his cornflakes and Daily Telegraph. Some planes were delayed! Condemnations and fulmination! Middle England is outraged. Letter writers in Tunbridge Wells are suitably disgusted. The protesters were horrible Lefties. Weed them out!

The problem with eco fascists is they targets certain things and totally ignore others. The global emissions from personal computers equals that of the airline industry, so why aren’t the protesters burning up computer shops? Presumably because they think access to the internet is something that cannot be sacrificed, whereas air travel can be. But who are they to make that decision on behalf of everyone else? Air travel is crucial to many livelihoods and allows people to enjoy the freedom of the planet – why can’t that be a special exception as well?

We have to decide as a country, through the democratic process, what limits should be placed on what activities. Not have a bunch of self appointed student activists determine this for everybody.

Once again the peroration could come from a retired colonel in Hampshire spluttering over his cornflakes and Daily Telegraph. Some planes were delayed! Condemnations and fulmination! Middle England is outraged. Letter writers in Tunbridge Wells are suitably disgusted. The protesters were horrible Lefties. Weed them out!

You obviously aren’t very familiar with the Ryan Air demographic, are you?

A plea: For those that constantly bitch about the HP here, please go read the Telegraph, Mail or Times instead and quit whinging. That’s what the market is for.

Constantly complaining about a product (while buying or using it) when other more suitable products are available doesn’t seem the brightest thing to do. Especially in this age of the internet and all that.

These louts needed to be handed over to the local populace for local democracy. Switch the power station off, close the airports and then hand over the culprits to the locals to deal with!

We all get older, and some of us tend to lead more sedentary, comfortable lifestyles. We ’settle down’, buy houses, take the kids on the school run. We get respectable employment and lead respectable lives. After a while, barbarians appear at the gate: students become revolting, benefit claimants are all scroungers, protesters are menacing, ‘twats’, ‘fascists’, or worse. If, back in the mists of time, we had protested, even broken the law because we were passionate about something (however misguided), we have forgotten. Passions are difficult to kindle now, except in condemnation.

I’d have thought people who live near Stansted would be quite happy if the airport was closed… but the point of the post is worth making – when you have a serious issue like climate change you have to make the case in a way that brings more people over to your way of thinking… this action may well not have done that.

That’s a shame.

What the fuck am I talking about?

Some of us move to tax havens and make expensive long haul flights a few times a year, eh, Benji?

I vote for self-righteous twat.

Seconded.

Aviation Fuel, match and bulldozer would have reduced the protestors carbon footprint and future C02 output.

We would all admire their sacrifice.

I think the script was “Well, the Government aren’t listening” Tough Shit imbeciles! The Gov’t is listening but rejecting you. That’s democracy.

How different are you from Islamists who threaten terrorism because the Gov’t isn’t capitulating to their threats and altering foreign policy? (OK, so you haven’t blown anyone up yet)

Climate changes because it does.

BTW – shouldn’t they all become affiliates of The Weather Underground?

Neil D:

I wondered if a campaign of direct action might be in order.

If you mean flouting the law because you personally believe the end justifies the means, that your political views trump those of others ….the answer is an unequivocal ‘no’.

To avoid perceptions, or even accusations of incitement; I humbly suggest that you should clear this possible ambiguity up.

I’m not terribly impressed by grandiose vanity tarted up in moral drag, or by the notion that self-anointed “activists” get to determine, unilaterally, what constitutes acceptable behaviour, while granting themselves a license to transgress that they wouldn’t extend to others with different views. And the stated rationales for the disruption – claims that the protestors “aren’t being heard” and that “the democratic processes have failed” – are somewhat self-serving. One might, for instance, say: the protestors’ position has failed to persuade sufficient people to achieve the stated objective.

Not being agreed with isn’t the same thing as not being heard.

“The night-time slashing of car tyres, the pulling down of Christmas lights, the smashing of garden heaters, and the decapitation of the shining angel might make people think about their transport choices and use of energy.” Sounds like a good night out, Greek style. I’m in.

“If you mean flouting the law because you personally believe the end justifies the means, that your political views trump those of others ….the answer is an unequivocal ‘no’.” Tell that to the suffragettes! And they were only doing it to help one half of humanity!

All the Plane Stupid people I saw on the news seemed to be jmiddle class twats who desperately needed to get a proper job.

Neil D and others here prissy moaning about this minor disruption is very amusing. It’s all very British. The UK is a pretty gentle sort of place, and there’s hardly a great tradition of street protest. However, when there is minor disruption its treated as some sort of great offence. All these people did was get on a taxiway for a short time. This is nothing. Greece has had nights of national protest; Bangkok’s airport was entirely shut down for days on end; when the French protest, its a festival.

In a vaguely liberal democratic society, when the UK still is, this kind of thing happens occasionally, assuming that the population are not entirely zombies. And as I say, the British are generally limp wristed about these things, barring a few examples of more feisty protest. Email me when something actually happens. Meanwhile, have a cup of tea and calm down.

Its not like they have really worked this thing through yet is it?

I looked on their site and the first photo has a bloke with “Please Do Something” written on his jacket. The Rev’s wife in the Simpsons is more specific than that.

Then there’s the lad who was “terrified” as a snowplow hurtled towards him as he was carrying out his “peaceful protest”. Did nobody tell the Tarquin that might happen if the “other side” disagreed with him.

Pfff, protesters today eh?

All these people did was get on a taxiway for a short time.

Disrupting hundreds of people in the perfectly legitimate activity of going on holiday. And given that it seemed to be Ryanair that was worst hit, probably people who have had to save up for a considerable period of time to get away, not the kind of chinless twat who’d join Plane Stupid after their gap year bumming around South East Asia.

well, I really believe that education and awareness raising is a much more effective way to induce change. for instance, I have this game I play with my kids in the beach, it’s called ‘potentially saving turtles’ lots of turtles die because they eat small pieced of transparent plastic thinking its a medusa’. so we collect those plastics and the one who collects more is the winner. the kids love it and they learn that way that their individual behaviour has a real impact on the environment.

they don’t know what potentially means, but saving and turtles they know. the fact is that there are some very simple gestures that, if practiced by everyone, would make a real difference, and making people aware is possible. it’s cool to save turtles, everybody likes them…

Don’t know about where you live but we’ve been freezing our nadgers off around here for the last few weeks. And I read that the Alpine resorts are going to have their best snow in years.

Are we actually sure global warming is happening? Of course “climate change” is happening – that’s happening all the time.

There are two points: is global warming happening and if it is happening is it necessarily a bad thing on balance? Siberians may take a view on this. As may Canadians. On the face of it global warming should lead to a huge rise in agricultural production worldwide.

However, I accept that billions of people are essentially in the wrong place and the idea that Putin’s corrupt regime would be capable of turning Siberia into the world’s bread basket is risible.

So yes, if there is global warming and if it is caused by carbon dioxide we should do something about it. Campaigning about stopping flying in planes is about the most stupid thing one can do.

Much more effective is move to green energy, develop bio fuels for planes, move to electric cars, and sequestrate carbon at the point where it is released into the environment.

Can’t run the airport like a fortress? Could have fooled me, for the paying passenger it’s water bottle bans, armed cops, x-rays, metal detectors, ‘take your shoes off and empty out your pockets sir’, All before you get anywhere near a plane.

There aren’t many things more repellent than a bunch of spoiled brats who think wrecking the holidays of those they look down on is a jolly good laugh.

They said that their parents’ generation had let them down, which is true, raising your kids to have an almost sociopathic lack of empathy with others is letting them down.

The vanity of gap year radicals is always a thing to behold. But I wonder if Lily, Tilly, Leo and the other Plane Stupid protestors would be happy to extend their own license to transgress to other, no less passionate, groups? I’m pretty sure there are people with intense feelings about abortion, for instance, who feel that millions of unborn infants are being murdered. They too might say they “aren’t being heard” (i.e., they aren’t getting their own way). Surely the perceived injustice is a mandate for a spot of “direct action”? Surely they too could compare themselves with Rosa Parks and the Suffragettes? No?

“Surely they too could compare themselves with Rosa Parks and the Suffragettes? No?”

I’d personally respect a boycott of jet travel (with exceptions for Climate Change conferences held inconveniently on the far side of the world, of course.) I wouldn’t participate because I don’t personally believe much in this global warming hooey. But I’d respect it.

People are being brutally slaughtered around the world, and this is what HP concerns themselves with?

Retired colonel!
Cornflakes!
Tunbridge Wells!
Cornflakes in a teacup!
Tunbridge in a Colonel!
Daily Mail in a storm!

Email me when something actually happens. Meanwhile, have a cup of tea and calm down.

Blimey.

Folk.

Unsurprisingly, the Chimp Hundal is all for this sort of thing.

“Once again the peroration could come from a retired colonel in Hampshire spluttering over his cornflakes and Daily Telegraph. Some planes were delayed! Condemnations and fulmination! Middle England is outraged. Letter writers in Tunbridge Wells are suitably disgusted. The protesters were horrible Lefties.”

They’re not lefties, Benjamin. They appear to be the reactionary offspring of the middle and upper class, funded by nimbies.

Really, what should happen is that they personally are banned from ever flying, or perhaps even from travelling more than seven miles outside ther village, as with the medieval peasantry. That way, we could all go back to a pleasant life of rural idiocy, when their lot were in charge.

Email me when something actually happens. Meanwhile, have a cup of tea and calm down.

Why would we need to email you Benji? You are here every single day complaining that you don’t like what you read at HP. You are often the first to respond.

In fact, isn’t it you that is the retired Colonel Daily Mail reader who every day visits HP for the sole purpose of moaning about it? Colonel Benji who constantly monitors HP so he can leap in first and whine at his captive audience?

I guess you feel so sorry for yourself and your daily disappointment with everyone at HP that you can’t manage anything but contempt for the airline passengers who suffered “minor inconveniences” like the woman who missed her father’s funeral.

Have mercy on us Benji, go write something at saucerfulofsecrets. Something that will show those HP writers what a real blog entry looks like. We’ll email you when something happens here, in the meantime don’t bother visiting.

Blimey… We have a whole gathering of retired colonels in here now, all muttering into their port. Youth of today! Don’t know they lived! Now, in my day…

Don’t worry chaps, combined with the fact, as I mentioned, that the British hardly make a habit of protesting anyway, the government is well on the way to making protest far less likely in the future. Trebles all round!

you can’t manage anything but contempt for the airline passengers who suffered “minor inconveniences” like the woman who missed her father’s funeral.

Er, no. Not contempt… Just a feeling of “it’s not the end of the world”. Come to think of it, isn’t that more of British attitude than the hysterics and insults in here? Catch a wake up, guys, some passengers got delayed for few hours. That is all. I suggest you hop on a plane sometime (avoiding protesters of course!) and check out how the rest of the world is like.

Jon D, airports might be run like fortresses but that doesn’t make them in any way secure. Very interesting article here suggests that all the shoe inspections and similar are mere “security theatre” which doesn’t make you one iota safer from terrorism: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/airport-security

“In Minneapolis, I littered my carry-on with many of my prohibited items, and also an ‘Osama bin Laden, Hero of Islam’ T-shirt, which often gets a rise out of people who see it.”

I think direct action is perfectly reasonable, even important as a tactic. You have to respect that people who are willing to be arrested and prosecuted really do believe in their cause, and I think the public in general take them more seriously than if they just stood around with placards.

The fact that some instances of direct action are badly thought through or backfire does not make the tactic itself wrong or immoral. I’m not even sure this particular episode has particularly backfired in any case. It certainly keeps the environmental impacts of flying in the news and in people’s minds.

Talking of airports, I am always struck my the almost Zen like calmness that awaits me at Hong Kong International Airport, compared to other stops. It’s a remarkable technical achievement.

Climate change. Yep, goes on all the time, always has done. Always will do. So let’s make some trouble about it huh?

That will teach El Nino not to influence currents, that will tell the sun not to go through a sun-spot free period. Mmmm… What a jolly jape by people with too much time on their hands and too few brain cells.

Donkeys, braying over things they know so little about.

PS love the addition of “on public transport” by Neil D. In case we thought he was a selfish bastard instead of a correct-thinking person.

They’re not lefties, Benjamin. They appear to be the reactionary offspring of the middle and upper class, funded by nimbies

Having middle or uper class parents precludes someone from being a lefty?

That will teach El Nino not to influence currents, that will tell the sun not to go through a sun-spot free period.

Just because other things affect the climate as well it doesn’t mean that AGW is not a problem.

when the French protest, its a festival.

I see you’ve never spent a few hours whooping it up with the CRS. When the French protest, it often happens that people get their skulls cracked, their cars torched. And people die.

“Having middle or uper class parents precludes someone from being a lefty?”

On average and approximately speaking, yes. That’s how the class system reproduces itself.

Oh I don’t deny that the class system does perpetuate itself but that doesn’t mean that someone from a middle or upper class background can’t be a lefy. Actually, amongst those aged between 15-25 I would guess it’s quite common – it’s just that many of them settle back into conformity once they get older.

I agree, Andrew. That’s why I said “on average and approximately speaking”. But if differences in lived social experience, with its parameters set by one’s position in the economic structure, did not give rise to similar social, political, philosophical, cultural and economic outlooks—as well as a receptiveness, a predisposition to some kinds of belief and perception over others (precisely because of the ways in which they develop out of and chime with your common lived experience), there would be no classes—or, at least, no classes that were conscious of the common factors (of lived experience, of shared ideology or worldview) that bind and distinguish them, excluding outsiders.

Not so much ‘plane stupid’ as ‘plain stupid’

(apologies if someone’s said that already)

“Oh I don’t deny that the class system does perpetuate itself but that doesn’t mean that someone from a middle or upper class background can’t be a lefy.”

True, but it is hard to see how they can be a Marxists. Marxism requires us to believe that consciousness and history is all dtermined by class interest. A middle class Marxist is working against his class interest, but that debunks the theory. If they are not motivated by class interest, why should we suppose anyone else is (this is a version of the ‘Ishmael’ fallacy)? Marxists have spent quite a lot of time trying to square this circle, but they always end up at square one. Marxism is built on a central contradiction: if Marx was right, it follows that he was wrong.

We’re living in a time when politicians, journalists and 80% of bloggers would prefer to listen to a handful of politically motivated climate deniers – modern day equivalent of flat earthers – than listen to the near unanimous opinion of the worlds scientists who tell us that climate change is real and species threatening. We know that the world is getting hotter because for the past 1200 years we have been measuring temperatures, while weather may vary our climate is getting hotter year on year. If we carry on as we are the consequences will be catastrophic, to take just one example, if we lose the worlds great ice sheets sea levels will rise in excess of 30 meters, the great coastal cities – New York, Shanghai, London etc – will be lost, the economic impact is incalculable not to mention the historic and cultural legacy embedded within these cities. In light of this I for one am pleased that people are beginning to protest and take action – all power to them.

That should be past 100 years we have been measuring temperatures

“If we carry on as we are the consequences will be catastrophic”

If by ‘we’ you mean all the people on the planet, then mebbes yes, mebbes no. Nobody can say with any degree of certainty that climate change will be, on balance, better or worse for us.

If you are talking about people in the UK specifically, nothing we do will make any difference. We contribute about 2% to the world’s CO2 emissions. We could, at the cost of millions, maybe cut that by 20%, so reducing the total global CO2 emissions by 0.4%. I don’t think it would do much for the polar bears that.

And be a bit more sceptical about scientists. They are no better at predicting the future than taxi drivers.

John,

I have spent much of the past year talking to scientists around the world, I interviewed professors in Delhi, Oxford, Princeton, Harvard, Standford et al – for a TV series I produced (Discovery’s Earth project) – none of these scientists are in any sense radical, but all agreed that CG is real and presents an existential threat to humanity. They were not into making predictions because this makes them a hostage to fortune however, Prof Pacala talked about the ‘monsters in the cupboard – we know they’re there, some of them are real, some not, the real ones can wreak havoc.

Your point about UK is correct – thats why we need world wide system – I think a market based trading system in carbon emissions might work best.

Some people need cars, like my wife, who uses a wheelchair. Come slash my tyres and I will do some slashing of my own to prevent you from propagating your selfish genes!!!

If you are talking about people in the UK specifically, nothing we do will make any difference.

Right, yes, because Britain’s scientists, engineers, industry and Government policies have never had any discernable effect on the world.

Also, I imagine your average climate scientist is a fair bit worse than taxi drivers at predicting the traffic in Slough at 10am on a Thursday. This is why you wouldn’t pay one to drive you there.

“none of these scientists are in any sense radical, but all agreed that CG is real and presents an existential threat to humanity”

And npne of them are better qualified than you or me to make that judgement (the second part of it, that is). GG is real, but what it means is beyond us. Anyway, it may be in decline. No temerpature rise in the last ten years (even allowing for the outlier). When are the stats released for the last year?

“Right, yes, because Britain’s scientists, engineers, industry and Government policies have never had any discernable effect on the world.”

I don’t know what your point is. If the UK cuts its emissions it won’t mke any difference to GG. That isn’t up for debate, it is a simple fact no matter what your views on the causes of GG are.

I don’t know whay I keep typing ‘GG’ either, by the way.

I know everyone ignores Benji these days, but it’s ironic that he is more like disgusted of Tunbridge Wells than anybody on HP. He even complained to his MP about some canvassers; and his mouth froths here everyday. It’s transference.

“Marxism requires us to believe that consciousness and history is all dtermined by class interest.”

I don’t think that’s the case, John. Rather, it requires us to believe that class consciousness—a network of shared elements of identity at the macro-social level—is strongly conditioned by group positioning in the developing economic structure. But in the Communist Manifesto, for instance, Marx explicitly writes about how advanced, far-sighted, ideologically aware elements of the bourgeoisie—in particular, those who are able to grasp the broad movement of history (thought of as the rise of the potential for human freedom in line with the growth in productive power)—can, seeing the way the wind is blowing, sometimes come over to the side of the workers.

It isn’t a simple fact at all. For a start, your rationale for saying that UK cuts in GG emission are so small as to be worthless would work equally effectively against any collective human effort, whether it be my friends and I lifting a sofa up the stairs or tax collecting. Secondly, the technology developed by the UK for reducing GG emissions will help in the same efforts elsewhere in the world, as has happened in the past with other UK developed technologies, which has made Britain very rich.

Your point about no warming in the last 10 years is wrong also. Comparing time-averaged trends it is quite clear that there has been warming in the last 10 years, and it’s the anomalous El Nino year of 97/98 which makes it look as though the temperature hasn’t increased. It’ll be interesting to see what people will be saying next year when the 10 years comparison will miss out the El Nino year. This explains the 10 year thing well, especially the graphs at the bottom:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison

Well I went down the road the other day to do some shopping at the sales and met an elderly couple I know vaguely, standing at the bus stop, wrapped up as if on an expedition to the antarctic. “Off anywhere interesting?”, I enquired. “We’re off to Heathrow to take part in the Plane Stupid protest about the third runway.” they responded. He is a retired neuro-surgeon still recovering from a hip replacement, she is a former senior civil servant.

Not all airport expansion protestors about are gap year yoof. It’s just that the gap years are happier to talk to the meeja.

“For a start, your rationale for saying that UK cuts in GG emission are so small as to be worthless would work equally effectively against any collective human effort,”

No it wouldn’t. But if you mean ‘global collective effort’ I would be interested in an example of where that has worked before. I know people like making gestures, but really, why should the rest of us pay to make them feel better about themselves?

Of course it would. Why should I pay taxes when my contribution is so small and meaningless compared to the total tax paid? Why should I help someone carry a bag up the stairs when I don’t even own any of the things in the bag?

As for global collective efforts, there have been a few. The second world war could be one (albeit not quite global), or the banning of CFCs. Of course there are those that are flawed like the UN, or the prohibition of drugs. But these would go down as examples to learn from, not reasons to give up.

Eleven thousand steelworkers marched through Brussels last Tuesday in order to save their jobs from those who wish to destroy them while arresting or even reversing the development of the poorest parts of the world, and while re-restricting travel to the rich, i.e., themselves.

Yesterday, those rich were at it at Stansted Airport. Just try and imagine if the miners, or the Countryside Alliance, or the opponents of the Iraq War, had pulled a stunt like that.

But these are not the industrial labour movement, such the miners. These are not the old upper class or their rural workers, such as the Countryside Alliance. And these are not those two forces in unison (or, at least, on the same side), such as the opponents of the Iraq War.

No, these are the new ruling class.

Get used to them, if you haven’t already.

Also yesterday, Mr Ed The Talking Horse, fast rivalling even his brother as an advertisement for the restoration of the grammar schools, called, from the heart of government, for a “mass” movement to stop the masses from moving. David Cameron is signed up, and the Lib Dems pioneered this sort of thing decades ago.

Furthermore, that “mass” movement against mass movement’s propaganda is to replace both History and Geography in primary schools.

There is the idea of global commons – there have been some remarkable successes in the past – during cold war, world came together to eradicate smallpox, we took action against CFC’s and we’re currently waging war against HIV and Maleria.

Climate change is a more difficult problem to solve because of the issue of free riders. In this case we need every nation in world to act but individual nations get a perceived economic advantage in not acting i.e. free riding. This explains why since 1990’s there has been so much talk, so much good intentions and so little action. Scott Barrett has written extensively on this -
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/barrett_presentation.pdf

We need strong and determined leadership to confront this problem, this might be a new Manhattan project or more likely an effort comparable to that made by the allies in WW2.

Remember that Roosevelt went to the US car industry at beginning of war and told them that they must turn over entire production to war effort. They replied, Mr President if we do that there will be no more automobile industry. Roosevelt said Gentlemen if the Nazi’s win there will be no more economy. O

Of course, he was proved right, not only did war effort defeat Nazi’s but it revitalised US economy.

This is what’s needed today, a major international economic plan to reconfigure world economy on a new energy base, if this were to happen we might not only save our civilization for worst ravages of CG but we might save our economy too.

There is the idea of global commons – there have been some remarkable successes in the past – during cold war, world came together to eradicate smallpox, we took action against CFC’s and we’re currently waging war against HIV and Maleria.

Climate change is a more difficult problem to solve because of the issue of free riders. In this case we need every nation in world to act but individual nations get a perceived economic advantage in not acting i.e. free riding. This explains why since 1990’s there has been so much talk, so much good intentions and so little action. Scott Barrett has written extensively on this -
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/barrett_presentation.pdf

We need strong and determined leadership to confront this problem, this might be a new Manhattan project or more likely an effort comparable to that made by the allies in WW2.

Remember that Roosevelt went to the US car industry at beginning of war and told them that they must turn over entire production to war effort. They replied, Mr President if we do that there will be no more automobile industry. Roosevelt said Gentlemen if the Nazi’s win there will be no more economy. O

Of course, he was proved right, not only did war effort defeat Nazi’s but it revitalised US economy.

This is what’s needed today, a major international economic plan to reconfigure world economy on a new energy base, if this were to happen we might not only save our civilization for worst ravages of CG but we might save our economy too.

“Of course it would. Why should I pay taxes when my contribution is so small and meaningless compared to the total tax paid?”

Because if you don’t, you will go to jail. If that sanction wasn’t there, how many would pay taxes, do you think? Would you?

“Why should I help someone carry a bag up the stairs when I don’t even own any of the things in the bag?”

To help them? To be nice? I wouldn’t recommend staging a protest in support of them having the bag lifted up the stairs, though, they might not find that very useful.

“As for global collective efforts, there have been a few. The second world war could be one (albeit not quite global)”

Um … the second world war was not a collaboration, it was a, well, war. Not a great example.

“or the banning of CFCs. Of course there are those that are flawed like the UN, or the prohibition of drugs. But these would go down as examples to learn from, not reasons to give up.”

I think it is a good reason to give up, we all know the mission is impossible. You simply cannot co-ordinate a planet, especially when it is impossible to prove to most people that it is in their inetersts to do so. This is why the most active green campaigners frequently turn out to be worse polluters than their sceptical friends. They don’t really believe what they say. Revealed preference and all that.

“

“Of course, he was proved right, not only did war effort defeat Nazi’s but it revitalised US economy. ”

No it didn’t (the econiomic bit). That is just nonsense. The only economic gains to the US came from the economic catastrophe that the European nations suffered and the investment opportunities that presented. The war itself was simply an enormous financial drain.

John,

The US armaments program was one of decisive factors in defeating the Nazis – at end of war, American industrial base was not ruined but in fact much stronger than any of its rivals. US automobile industry quickly became strongest in world – due to fact that it had existent factories and skilled labour force.

“The US armaments program was one of decisive factors in defeating the Nazis – at end of war, American industrial base was not ruined but in fact much stronger than any of its rivals. US automobile industry quickly became strongest in world – due to fact that it had existent factories and skilled labour force.”

All this is true but irrelevant. The war benefited the US economically only because afterwards there was noone else left standing. It was not the war per se, but the spoils of war. The economic balance sheet globally, of course, was devastating, a massive loss to the global economy which we have only recently recovered from.

John, I’m letting you distract me from my main point, which I will put in the form of a question for you, Should the new American President convene a coalition of the willing to move the industrial economies from a carbon to a non-carbon energy base?

So there was no collaboration in WW2? There was no collective effort between the British empire, the US, Canada, the Soviet Union and other allied powers to confront the Axis powers? You didn’t say anything about CFCs either. There are other things, and obviously you can’t show that it is impossible to coordinate a planet.

In addition to this, it is obvious from history that once renewable energy has become better than non renewable energy, its spread around the world will be rapid. I would like to see the problem addressed that way rather than through Kyoto style measures, but then I would say that as I am in a good position to benefit from a big effort in energy technologies. However, I’m guessing that you don’t believe that renewable energy is viable, to go along with your beliefs that there is no man made global warming, and even if there was we couldn’t do anything about it. These beliefs seem to go together quite often.

“Should the new American President convene a coalition of the willing to move the industrial economies from a carbon to a non-carbon energy base?”

No, it would be an expensive waste of time that could acheive nothing. That is a good reason to think it will happen, though.

“So there was no collaboration in WW2? There was no collective effort between the British empire, the US, Canada, the Soviet Union and other allied powers to confront the Axis powers?”

Of course there was, but the collaboration wasn’t global, that is sort of the point about war.

“You didn’t say anything about CFCs either.”

What to say?

“However, I’m guessing that you don’t believe that renewable energy is viable, to go along with your beliefs that there is no man made global warming, and even if there was we couldn’t do anything about it. These beliefs seem to go together quite often.”

There is no viable renewable energy yet, but I am sure there will be. Solar energy looks like a good bet. When the price is right it will happen. There may well be man-made global warming, how could we tell one way or the other? But no, there is nothing we can do about it, that is why nothing has yet been done about it. Still, we are struggling on all the same.

I certainly hope that the worlds economies are incentivesed to provide solution to global warming, I suspect this will require element of central planning certainly in area of energy policy and adaptation, however, we’re already seeing explosion in private sector, after all the financial gains of saving planet might be enormous; I will predict that the coming green revolution will be greater than the internet revolution in terms of economic, environmental and social impact on our civilization. This will require vision and leadership – something Obama might well be able to provide.

There may well be man-made global warming, how could we tell one way or the other?

Gosh, I don’t know! It’s not like we’ve spent millions of pounds and decades researching it or anything.

Your lot are so predictable.

Aviation accounts for about 2% of global CO2 emissions.

Buildings and it’s associated impedimenta account for 50%. Transport in total – 30%. Livestock and the associated industry 18%.

They would have been better off going on a cow shooting jihad or propagating another outbreak of mad cow disease!

Or better yet, demanding more nuclear power plants be built!

This action was a bit like throwing paint over a Gap kiddies clothes ad to protest against pedophilia…..like eating lard sandwiches and going onto skimmed milk.

Twats.

David Herman, ‘That should be past 100 years we have been measuring temperatures’

- No, much longer than that – though not in a systematic, global way.

What’s not at issue is that there have been radical temperature changes; but can you explain to me why after the middle ages mean temperatures dropped in Britain – so much so that the river Thames froze over solid four times during the seventeenth century?

I mean it’s not as if human intervention could have been a factor as the population of Europe after the Black Death was about 75 million, while that in 17th cent. England was no higher than 5.25 million. And besides there had, as yet, been no ‘Industrial Revolution’.

I’m struck by two points.

One was the woman whose father had just died and missed a key part of mourning in Ireland; she couldn’t fly from Stanstead.

The other is the funding of “Plane Stupid” by a a retailer with 600 shops in 44 countries.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23598922-details/Soap+tycoon%3A+Why+I%27m+funding+airport+demos/article.do

How many of these premises have solar water heating, solar electricity or even up to date insulation? Half of carbon emission savings need to be made from buildings, not aircraft.

Because if you don’t, you will go to jail. If that sanction wasn’t there, how many would pay taxes, do you think? Would you?

But that proves SOC’s point. There is a collective benefit in everyone paying their taxes, which means that individuals face sanctions for not complying even though their contribution on its own is insignificant.

What’s not at issue is that there have been radical temperature changes; but can you explain to me why after the middle ages mean temperatures dropped in Britain – so much so that the river Thames froze over solid four times during the seventeenth century?

The most likely reason is that it was a variation in the strength of the gulf stream, see

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225804.300

Climate change? My arse!

They are trying to draw thousand year results from hundred year (at best) methods and recordings, plus a sprinkling of snake-oil mathematical adjustments that certain scientists are not prepared to publish.

We are expected to trust their assertion that the world is in imminent peril, but they won’t tell us how they worked that out.

There is a basic principle of the scientific method. You record and publish what you did, what you measured, and your calculations. Refusal to do any of that puts you outside of the scope of science, and into the realm of hype and religion. And that is a recurring characteristic of the global warming sect. They have proved nothing, but they will brook no argument, they don’t want to listen, they don’t want to read, they just want to shout “Hallelujah” and indulge in “holy” vandalism.

Smircky says:

“Not so much ‘plane stupid’ as ‘plain stupid’ ”

Sorry that does really count as a witty riposte does it? I mean given they are punning on plain stupid in the first place.

How about “gapocrites”? They certainly are if they’ve jetted to Thailand or Peru in the last 5 years.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/

Take a look at the above link. One would expect the global warming line to be accelerating now as China and India have been pumping huge amounts into the atmosphere in the last ten years. But 1998 was the warmest and the last few years have not been off the scale.

I certainly don’t think that the Gospel According to Gore (who nevertheless managed keep all the lights on in his 27 bedroom mansion AND clock up more air miles than the average pilot) has been proven to be true.

There is a basic principle of the scientific method. You record and publish what you did, what you measured, and your calculations.

Er yeah, that’s what they do.

Take a look at the above link. One would expect the global warming line to be accelerating now as China and India have been pumping huge amounts into the atmosphere in the last ten years. But 1998 was the warmest and the last few years have not been off the scale.

Short Order Coook explained this @ 3:27

The whole AGW proposition is based on false data, imperfect computer models, unconnected thinking, manipulated information, vague theories, idle speculation and emotional guff in order to create an illusion carefully maintained by pretend scientists, researchers looking for funding, political chancers, media luvvies angling for easy-to-steam-up subjects, people with strange guilt complexes about modern life, whimsical romantics who think living in the dark past is fun, various dimwits who love to fasten on to outlandish ideas and above all, governments who yearn to find new taxes to make people pay up more for less.

Other than that, carry on boys and girls.

Oh I love this country and this forum

Do we discuss the ideas and motives of Plane Stupid or even Climate Change
No, we indulge in reverse snobbery dressed up as comment.

“Gosh, I don’t know! It’s not like we’ve spent millions of pounds and decades researching it or anything.”

No, we have spent millions researching climate trends. What causes those trends (if they are trends) is entirely open to question. We must have theories but we really have no way of telling which ones are right. We may, in a few hundred years, have a clearer view, but that may be far too optimistic given the complexity of the problem.

Compare with an infinitely simpler problem where we have spent much more on research and much loner in reserching and consequently have much better data that can be laboratory tested (unlike a global climate): what causes cancer. Our answer so far … um … something to do with genes and something to do with environment.

When someone tells you they can be more positive about the much more difficult theoretical area of climate change, make sure you have your hand on your wallet.

“But that proves SOC’s point. There is a collective benefit in everyone paying their taxes, which means that individuals face sanctions for not complying even though their contribution on its own is insignificant.”

It doesn’t prove his point at all. Unless HMG can force the US, China and the rest of the world to cut CO2 emissions at gunpoint.

Well, I guess it’s your turn for a bad analogy. The underlying physical theories behind climate change are fairly simple, and certainly far simpler than the quantum mechanical studies of protein and DNA which are needed for a theoretical understanding of what causes cancer. We know that introducing CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere will raise temperatures, we know what effect other gases and particles will have in the atmosphere. Also, we’ve known about these theories for over a hundred years, and have been developing methods for studying the climate for far longer, compared to the 50 years that we’ve known about DNA, and less that we’ve been able to isolate and study proteins and DNA.

Also – “a few hundred years”! Have a think before you type! Three hundred years ago what state was science in? Newton was still alive and the Principia was less than 50, chemistry didn’t even exist yet, Darwin’s great grandfather hadn’t even been born. I’m not going to claim I know where science is going to be in a few hundred years time, but if we’re still crunching out models trying to work out the Earth’s climate, then something’s gone seriously wrong in the interim.

Andrew Adams did no such thing.

My point was not that there has been no global warming over the last ten or twenty years for that matter, it is that given the HUGE increase in carbon emissions in the last few years, this should be on a rising trend, not a weak rise, or a levelling off.

Some of the hottest summers in Europe were around 2000/2001 (not part of the Nino effect). They have since cooled.

I ain’t being blinded by science – or stats – on this one.