Coffee House

Who is behind the ship of fools?

4 January 2014

As Chris Turney and his colleagues make their way home from their failed adventure, the next question is: who is going to be paying for their folly?  It certainly isn’t the general public. The efforts by Turney and his co-leader Chris Fogwill to crowd-fund money have been an embarrassing failure. They were seeking to raise $49,000 in this way – a small fraction of the $1.5 million overall costs – but they managed to raise a mere $1,000 from 22 people. Not even the promise of a signed copy of Turney’s book, 1912: the year the World Discovered Antarctica was enough to tempt donors into action: not a single one chose to receive the book.

British taxpayers, needless to say, have dipped in their toes. One of the sponsors is the University of Exeter, Professor Turney’s previous employer. The university is fast on its way to taking over from the University of East Anglia as the global warming lobby’s chief mouthpiece. Universities claim to have fallen on hard times but there seems to be no lack of money when it comes to broadcasting the global warming lobby’s case:  Exeter has just launched a ‘massive open online course’ on climate change which the public are all invited to sign up – all for free. I don’t think I would be pleased about that if I was paying £9,000-a-year tuition fees for one of Exeter’s other course.


Another question that needs to be asked about Turney’s expedition is how come the only journalists aboard are from the Guardian, which has sent two reporters, the BBC and Radio New Zealand – all eager mouthpieces of the global warming lobby.   I would be fascinated to know if anyone else was invited.

The timing of the publication of a paper by Turney’s current employer, the University of New South Wales, is also fascinating. That appeared in Nature on 1 January, claiming that current climate models under-estimate the level of warming, which could reach 4C by 2100.

As I noted here on Thursday, as the world fails to warm, the greater faith seems to be put into faulty climate models which so far have proved wrong in many respects – among them predicting ever hotter and drier summers for the UK, the exact opposite of the trend of the past decade. As a sign of just how far the climate debate has veered away from genuine science into ideological nonsense, have a look at this quote:

‘In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.’

Any ideas where it comes from? The IPCC report of 2001, when that body still recognised that predictions of the sort made by Turney’s colleagues are fantasy.

More Spectator for less. Subscribe and receive 12 issues delivered for just £12, with full web and app access. Join us now.

  • Dr Norman Page

    If you look at his publications it is clear that Turney is an excellent scientist and a bit of a data addict- which is a good thing. In his enthusiasm to finance data collection for his research projects he got involved with the BBC and Guardian CAGW faithful who saw the venture as a vehicle for propagandizing their religion. Basically he was in fact just unlucky with the winds and the trip was a public relations disaster for the “:cause”
    The current weather patterns result from the more meridional path of the jet stream on a cooling world as the temperature gradient from tropics to poles steepens. Very cold air pushes further south while across the frontal boundaries warm more moist air pushes north with the resulting extreme temperature gradients across the boundaries. See the three year update of my Thirty Year climate forecast at
    Weather is much more variable on a cooling world – very cold blocking highs in winter -hot blocking highs in summer. – generally more drought. – fewer strong tropical hurricanes. Fewer El Ninos – more La Ninas. Strong winds and gales across the steeper temperature and pressure gradients. Trouble for agricultural production.
    A warming world is more humid and there is more energy for powerful tropical hurricanes. More El Ninos than La Ninas. Generally Much better for world food production.
    The patterns of the last several years are clearly indicative of a cooling trend.
    Following the IPCC AR5 report it is now very clear that the IPCC models are useless for climate forecasting. A new forecasting method based on recognizing quasi-periodic quasi-repetitive patterns has been developed in several posts at http://climatesense-norpag.blo
    Here is a summary of the timing and extent of the coming cooling from the latest post on that site.
    “I have combined the PDO, ,Millennial cycle and neutron trends to estimate the timing and extent of the coming cooling in both the Northern Hemisphere and Globally.
    Here are the conclusions of those posts.
    1/22/13 (NH)
    1) The millennial peak is sharp – perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming – and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two – 2014/16 -with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.
    2) The cooling gradient might be fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 5) ( Fig 3 here) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at about 1.2 +/-
    3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 – 2700 a further net cooling of about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees
    4)The time frame for the significant cooling in 2014 – 16 is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.
    4/02/13 ( Global)
    1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
    2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
    3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
    4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
    5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
    6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
    7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
    8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
    9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.

    How confident should one be in these above predictions? The pattern method doesn’t lend itself easily to statistical measures. However statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigor for the uninitiated and in relation to the IPCC climate models are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up.This is where scientific judgment comes in – some people are better at pattern recognition and meaningful correlation than others. A past record of successful forecasting such as indicated above is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure – say 65/35 for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that certainty drops rapidly. I am sure, however, that it will prove closer to reality than anything put out by the IPCC, Met Office or the NASA group. In any case this is a Bayesian type forecast- in that it can easily be amended on an ongoing basis as the Temperature and Solar data accumulate. If there is not a 0.15 – 0.20. drop in Global SSTs by 2018 -20 I would need to re-evaluate

  • dodgy

    I’m not interested in how fascinated you would be to learn about the funding for this disaster.

    I’m interested in finding out where we should be putting FOIA requests to lever this data out of the bastards…

  • Treebrain

    Excellent article, by subjecting the participants to scrutiny the independence of any ‘evidence’ or information that they obtain can be placed in context.

  • RobertC

    The LibLabCon Party still believe in spending £ billions combating ‘Global Warming’ aka Climate Change, adding windmills to the National Grid (which will generate extra CO2 and consume extra fuel):

    closing coal fired power stations (because Brussels says so), putting up costs and creating a less reliable electricity supply, giving subsidies to Drax so it can burn clearcutwood from highly biodiverse forests:

    and tax us through our fuel bills.

    Here is a good summary of how broken the hockey stick has become:

  • nebakhet

    Anti-Science Climate Deniers Make Up Lies About A Ship Stuck In Ice In Antarctica


    • moonrakin

      Don’t need to make anything up – the ship ain’t stuck in ice – it’s trapped by irony.

    • itdoesntaddup

      That sounds like a description of Turney. He seems to deny the climate he’s in, and not be in favour of real science – and there are suggestions he lied about the location of the Академик Шокальский.

  • windy2

    Nobody is mentioning the potential conflict of interest that exists with Dr. Turney’s involvement in a carbon capture business venture. The success of any such venture depends on the promotion of the idea that CO2 is an immediate threat to the world. Was his ill fated voyage originally intended as a PR stunt intended to draw more attention to himself in order to promote his business venture? It is amazing that the media has somehow not explored this potential conflict of interest.

    • Caroline Cotton

      I made this point on CiF yesterday. To my amazement, they published my comment.

    • Time Traveller

      Indeed but most of the media sees to be equally complicit in the climate fraud – even the Telegraph has been disinclined to criticise this farce and refused to accept comments when it became obvious that the alarmists had succeeded in scoring a spectacular own goal. All power, then, to Ross Clark’s 3 recent posts and the Spectator – please continue to properly question this ruinous, anti-science belief system.

    • foxoles

      He doesn’t seem to have much of a grasp on his own subject. He said the ‘unusual’ conditions were due to the B9B iceberg, which – according to him – broke away recently, around three years ago. In fact, it broke away in 1987

  • Peter Crawford

    A serious scientist engaged in serious work or a giggling buffoon who could f— up a pizza delivery? You decide.

    • Alexandrovich

      If I’d been in two minds about this bloke before I watched your link I certainly wouldn’t be now. Imagine being stuck in a lift with this inane nincompoop.

  • itdoesntaddup

    Here’s the publicly available list of supporters:

    And yes – it includes the BBC and Guardian (see the very bottom of the page), as well as the University of Exeter.

    • nebakhet

      Supporting science is a bad thing is it?

      • itdoesntaddup

        I support real science – like the CLOUD experiment at CERN. They came up with some unexpected results from a carefully controlled experiment and duly reported them. No massaging the data to support their preconceptions.

  • itdoesntaddup

    I listened to a podcast of the Radio 4 programme on Complexity Theory recently (it is one of my interests). It was pitched at an extremely erudite philosophical level, and hosted by Melvyn Bragg. When Prof Ian Stewart started to mention the butterfly effect Bragg slapped him down, saying let’s not discuss weather and climate – it’s too contentious.

    • nebakhet

      Ironic then that climate skeptics like you attack an expedition to the Antarctica that was to prompt discussion of climate!

      • moonrakin

        I thought it was a “scientific research expedition” ! Next you’ll describe it as a penguin gawper tripper charabang…

      • itdoesntaddup

        That was not the purpose of the expedition at all. It was an attempt to shut down debate (see the Guardian’s reaction to the debate – it wants censorship). UNSW published a paper claiming another extreme warming trend timed to coincide with the peak of the expedition, which aimed to use its “findings” to support its junk science. And yes, it’s junk if Turney doesn’t even have a basic grasp of the facts about insolation of the planet. It’s clear that those doing rather more real science rather than indulging in vanity trips think likewise. Have you heard what the real scientists at Casey think about the expedition, or those in the French polar institute?

        Add in that it is obvious that Turney was ill-prepared – he appears not to have examined the satellite images of sea ice, before or during the expedition and ended up having to get a weather forecast that was provided by none other than Anthony Watts – and he thoroughly deserves the international lambasting he is getting.

  • Swiss Bob

    Christmas Turkey is a climate scientist?

    CHRIS TURNEY: Well, the fundamental issue is if you didn’t have carbon in the atmosphere, the planet would be about minus 50 degrees centigrade, give or take – that’s what you’d have. So a little bit of carbon warms the planet, and that’s good, it’s where we’re at today – an average planet temperature of about 14, 15, degrees.

    ABC Australia:

    • itdoesntaddup

      I think he’d fail that new Exeter course.

    • HookesLaw

      He is of course balmy. I think the greenhouse effect is 33 degrees isn’t it? So for him to jump to -50 is absurd.
      And of course that assumes all the so called ‘greenhouse’ effect is down to CO2 when in fact 90% of greenhouse gas is water vapour.

      • Swiss Bob

        Not to mention his use of ‘Carbon’ rather than Carbon Dioxide, the man is no scientist, he’s an activist and a rent seeker, see his and his family’s Carbonscape shareholdings.

        PS I think you meant ‘barmy’ but if he is ‘balmy’ that could be a reason CAGW worries him so much.

      • nebakhet

        Removing all the CO2 causes a lot of water vapor to be removed

        Removing all trace gases reduces temperature 35C

  • RavenRandom

    As the predictions of global warming models from the late nineties and early 2000 have been entirely wrong, at what point do the scientists involved can their theories? Never it seems, thus global warming begins to take on the aspect of religion not science.

  • SouthendViking

    Professor Turkey took his wife and two kids on the jolly. Did he pay their fares?

    The son, Robbie, along with some of the other tourists were out most the afternoon on a trip in the Argos vehicles on 23rd Dec (just hours before the storm came in and the ship got stuck.

    They went across the ice to the shore, several miles from the ship.

    Could the ship have made an earlier getaway before the weather turned, if they had not had to wait for the tourists to return?

  • HookesLaw

    The Guardian?
    ‘Guardian writer Alexander White beclowns himself by using a paid PR firm as a factual source for climate’

    An office full of fools. But I guess they do not care when the results spewed out fit in with the prejudices and political activities of its Editor.

    What a pity the editor of the Spectator persists in his opinion that the press are beyond independent control. Just how does he suggest that rank ignorance and prejudice like this is prevented by ordinary people.
    He himself is part of the same club and resolutely refuses to publicly attack the Guardian on our behalf.
    And lets be clear, what the Guardian want to see is censorship. ‘Should Australian newspapers, like Fairfax, publish opinion pieces that deny or seek to cast doubt on man-made global warming?’ Yes thats right The Guardian wants to see censorship – this the same newspaper that was happy to publish state secrets.
    it’s one thing for the Spectator to publish something like this article but it is itself being immoral in ignoring the elephant in the room.

    • the viceroy’s gin

      Yes, you authoritarian socialists are all alike, whether it’s silencing opposition to the LibLabCon global warmingist dogma, or silencing opposition to LibLabCon clones themselves.

      For you types, the important thing is to silence those who disagree with you. That’s key for you.

  • Uncle Brian

    The efforts by Turney and his co-leader Chris Fogwill . . .
    Excuse me, did I hear you say “Fogwill”? Is that a real name? The surname of a climate change expert scientist? Or plagiarised from an old Monty Python script?

  • chudsmania

    As far as the BBC goes , only Andrew Neil has stuck his head above the parapet and had a good old chuckle at the greenies/eco-loons expense. No doubt Turney and his mob will come out with a new hockey stick graph to prove they are right………….

    • The PrangWizard of England

      I’d like to see Turney the turkey questioned by Mr Neil, that would be one to watch. I doubt if the laughing idiot Turney will have the balls to face him.

  • Roderick

    Wikipedia is spot on:

    ‘The ship of fools is an allegory that has long been a fixture in Western literature and art. The allegory depicts a vessel populated by human inhabitants who are
    deranged, frivolous, or oblivious passengers aboard a ship without a
    pilot, and seemingly ignorant of their own direction.’

  • David Booth.

    What you must remember is that all this “Global Warming/Man Made Climate Change etc” has moved out of the disciplined constructs of science and into the world of political dogma where
    “A word means what I want it to mean” apols to Alice In Wonderland fans.
    University funding, research grants, academic job security are all now tied up with signing up to the prevailing Creed.
    The so called scientist trapped in the ice fields they went to discover were melting are well aware of the irony of their situation but most of them are I suspect trapped in the ideological mind set which if they challenge will lead to their unemployment.
    They may be on a Ship of Fools but they all have a life style they wish to sustain back on dry land.

  • Mike

    Should have left the buggers there until global warming melted the ice !

    • Jeff

      …they would’nt live long enough… could be 100 years before that happens…

  • John WB

    The BBC should be defunded and left to survive on what they can earn themselves like all other stations. They ceased to be a public service broadcaster long ago, now they’re just the lefts propaganda unit.

    • Jeff

      It’s exactly the same here (Australia) with the ABC…

  • In2minds

    Thank goodness our government is not taken in by all this green crap. And
    forcing hard-working families to pay for the myth of climate change. That would be awful, dishonest even.

    • HookesLaw

      Its not dishonest to be taken in. The problem the govt face is the information given them by their chief scientist and the activities at supposedly honest universities and allegedly reputable bodies like the Royal Institution and Royal Society. . What we are witnessing is a bowdlerisation of science. The real scandal is that real scientists are saying nothing and prefer to stay on the gravy train rather than get off it and stand up for truth.
      it’s too easy to blame governments and politicians; the problem is far deeper.

      And of course whilst we are on this subject – what we also are witnessing is a bowdlerisation of journalism, a profession and activity which our editor thinks should be beyond the law.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        …and lad, your buddy Dave is one of the bowdlerisers, in both cases, whether it’s removing material his global warmingist buddies object to, or removing press freedoms that his Londonistan bubble mates object to. .

      • Tom M

        The minute the IPCC was created it was recognised by most sensible scientists (pejorative term thesedays) that the IPCC would become a pressure group rather than a collator of evidence. They were right but the blame lies with the people we elected.

  • haywardsward

    2013 Australia Hottest year ever? See BOM Australia

    • John WB

      Manufactured data is so easy to come by nowadays. Just ask those Kiwis.

    • Regislea

      “Hottest ever” actually means since 1910, when records began.

      1877 was the year when Australia had probably its worst ever drought – and presumably it was pretty hot then?

    • HookesLaw

      Something which means nothing even of the data were not adulterated and skewed. Vast swathes of the USa are under snow and experiencing their lowest temperatures ever.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        …yes, but that won’t keep Obama and your buddy Dave from their global warmingist hysteria (and their man-love).

        • Makroon

          Ha-ha, no bites today viceroy. Why don’t you try a different pool ?

          • the viceroy’s gin

            …we may start to need a translator for you too, lad.

  • McClane

    Pity these people
    Prof Tracey Rodgers, specialist in predator-prey interactions, wondering ‘how has the recent warming off the Western Antarctic influenced the predator guild;
    Andrew Luck-Baker (soon to be aka Andrew Badluck-Baker, Andrew Luck-Icebreaker, 13 articles since 2008 0n BBC radio correspondent
    Laurence Topham Guardian reporter who is currently stuck in the ice with a craving for banana peanut butter milkshakes but who has deleted his YouTube account so we can’t see it.
    But it doesn’t matter, because Chris Turney has a theory.

    …But Chris Turney, a professor of climate change at Australia’s
    University of New South Wales, said it was “silly” to suggest he and 73
    others aboard the MV Akademic Shokalskiy were trapped in ice they’d
    sought to prove had melted. He remained adamant that sea ice is melting,
    even as the boat remained trapped in frozen seas.

    • Peter Stroud

      Just how can an academic, like Turney lie to the media, and the World, that he did not expect the Antarctic ice to be melted? He, with his boat load of climate scientists, left wing journalists and greenie tourists were on a mission to show we plebs, that we were destroying Antarctica with our uncontrolled use of hydrocarbons. His models showed the ice to be melting but had he bothered to study real data, he would have known that the ice was increasing. The man is an idiot,a blithering idiot.

  • Peter Stroud

    Prof. Turney is just another idiot, making a nice living from the Manmade global warming scam. He must have believed the failed computer models, that told him the Antarctic was melting. He could have found out that sea ice was actually increasing: had he bothered to study the published data. Now he, and his sponsors, have put lives in danger, at a cost of millions of dollars. Turney should resign his post, or be sacked. Let us not forget, he seems to have thought he would be telling us about rapidly disappearing ice due to man made carbon emissions. But the ice has trapped his ship, and the vessel sent to rescue him and his crowd of ‘scientists’, left wing journalists and tourists.

    • In2minds

      The Chancellor of Exeter University is the LibDem Baroness Benjamin. She
      presented the kids programme, Play School and Play Away. I wonder if
      she supports the Play on Ice now being acted out at the South Pole?
      Also Exeter University has the motto, Lucem sequimur, or we follow
      the light. Let’s hope they can follow the money and the bad PR too.

      • HookesLaw

        You make a good point, but ‘Chancellor’ is an honorary role. The blame for Exeter’s policy probably lies elsewhere.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          …perhaps it lies with a certain husky hugging poshboy ?

  • LB

    Hitler’s stuck on the icebreaker. … :-))))

    • dalai guevara

      Wonderful clip. I quote
      “I don’t think we can blame it on the wind again”

      Whahaha. Let’s dig out some old Delingpole tripe and blame windmills instead.

      • LB

        The wrong sort of wind and an iceberg called ‘Bob’

    • HurstLlama

      You might enjoy this one too:

      Hitler Gets Trapped in Sea Ice

  • McClane

    This is a non-story for the BBC. It doesn’t appear on the BBC UK newsfeed and on the BBC World news website it’s relegated to Science/Env under Asia.

    “So our time down south is not over yet and we are going to be delayed
    in our return to friends and family by some time yet, which is
    frustrating,” said Andrew Peacock, an Australian doctor and photographer.

    He’s probably less frustrated than the Guardian, BBC and NZBC journalists who went along for the trip hoping for AGW headlines when they got home.

    This is becoming a non-story, air-brushed off the front pages. But the agenda will carry on.

    • Jeff

      “…less frustrated than the Guardian, BBC and NZBC journalists…” add the ABC (Australia) to that…

  • dalai guevara

    these….sponging…..climate….flies….bssss……from….East Anglia!

    East Anglia? And the world cares? How big is your world?
    Would it include the Chinese or the coal-mining Germans even?
    No, your world appears to end in some static caravan park in Caister-on-Sea.

  • Graeme S

    Oh the irony , the wonderful sweet delicious irony

  • Colin

    Whatever happens, this has to go down as one of the laugh out loud, funniest episodes in the well documented history of left wing T!ts, making complete and utter T!ts of themselves.

    • Guenier

      Just finding this funny – which it is – misses the real issue.

      As I commented on Ross Clark’s previous article, what’s at stake is deadly serious. Because of people like Professor Turney and their media supporters such as the BBC and the Guardian, the UK has imposed upon itself the “world-leading”, hugely expensive, potentially disastrous and completely pointless Climate Change Act. “Completely pointless” because – even if Turney and co. are right about the dangers of mankind’s contribution to climate change – reducing Britain’s tiny 1.3% share of global emissions cannot possibly make any difference. Countries responsible for nearly 70% of emissions have said they’re not interested in reduction: China especially (alone responsible for 23% of emissions and ironically Turney’s saviour last week), having humiliatingly defeated the West at the “make or break” climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009, made it clear (together with the so-called “developing” economies) at the UN’s Warsaw conference a few weeks ago that it had no intention of reducing its CO2 emissions in the foreseeable future.

      Yet still we plough on with our absurd policy – apparently because we’re setting an example to the world. I suppose that too would be funny – if it were not so serious.

      • HookesLaw

        One big plank of the global wrming scam was to get a tranfer of money from the wealthy countries to the developing ones – all under the guise of things like carbon transfers or whatever you want to call them.
        Its that ploy that went too far and failed at Copenhagen I think. Indeed, the whole scam was started by Canadian marxist Maurice Strong with this in mind.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          …and your boy Call Me Dave is in on the scam, like all good LibLabCon socialist clones.

          However, he does profit by it, which is nice for him .

        • Guenier

          I don’t think that referring to the issue as a “scam” is at all helpful. The science is complex and, although I’m no scientist, I suspect much of it – but probably not the warnings of catastrophe – may be valid. But my point is simple: the Climate Change Act is hugely expensive, potentially very damaging and completely pointless – “pointless” because reducing our tiny share of emissions cannot, for the reasons stated above, make any difference – whatever the scientific reality. That’s the point our “leaders” should be hearing. Arguing about the validity of the science has been shown time and time again to be completely futile.

          The main reason the West was humiliated by the “developing” economies at Copenhagen (and at subsequent UN climate negotiations) and will continue to be so humiliated in future was put succinctly by Su Wei, China’s chief negotiator at pre-Warsaw discussions. He said** “China could not impose caps on its rising emissions because it needed time to focus on economic growth”.


          • Swiss Bob

            Prof Jones of UAE fame admitted to not being able to plot a trendline in Excel, a piece of S/W I loathe and have no interest in but was able to work out how to do it in minutes. I’ve got a few ‘O’ levels so make of that what you will.

            • Drabble

              Global warming identified by Wateringbury Vicar (1895)

              Extract from Parish magazine of October 1895

              The chief excitement of the month has been the fires that have occurred in the neighbourhood: three at Wateringbury and several others not far distant, within a short period. They have been due probably to careless smokers and the exceedingly dry state of the ground. A shade temperature ranging from 75 to 85 many successive days is a record of heat for the end of September. What can have have happened to the warming apparatus of our universe? The sun to-day (September 30th) is at the same height in the heavens as it is about the middle of March !

            • Tom M

              Nothing unusual about that Bob. The head of the IPCC started life as an apprentice for the Indian Railways moving subsequently to do something in economics before landing himself the job he is in at the moment.
              Clearly perfectly qualified to head up the International Panel on Climate Change somebody thought.

              • global city

                It is Intergovernmental panel on climate change. I apologise for correcting you, but the ‘government’ structure of the group is vital, as most people think (because they are purposely lied to by ecofreaks) that it is stuffed to the gills with scientists, rather than bureaucrats and activists.

                • Tom M

                  You are correct. No apology required.

              • Makroon

                And don’t even mention our succession of bought-and-paid-for Chief Scientific Advisors, desperately scrabbling for an establishment sinecure in exchange for brain-dead endorsement of the latest fashionable pseudo-science.

                • Guenier

                  That’s quite probably true. So what hope is there of persuading these people that their “pseudo-science” is faulty? No better, I suggest, than trying to persuade a committed Al Qaeda activist that he should abandon violence.

                  But a considered argument about the absurdity and pointlessness of domestic and international climate policy would sideline such people. It must be the better approach.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …and also don’t even mention that you socialist Camerloons enable those bought and paid for advisors, like the good little global warmingist luvvies you are .

          • Zdzislaw Meglicki

            No, very little of what passes for “climate science,” as represented by Turney and his ilk, is valid, and, yes, a lot of it is “scam.” This is not to say that there is no real “climate science,” that looks at a variety of factors such as cloud formation, interaction with the sun, the role of ocean currents and, only recently understood, multi-decadal ocean oscillations and so on–many factors are of interest. There is real “climate science” that does satellite observations of the whole globe. But whenever you hear about “global circulation models,” “computer modelling,” and the like, this is pseudo-science, precisely because, as IPCC 2001 report said, “the long term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” It is not possible not only because “we are dealing with a coupled chaotic non-linear system.” In the first place, it is not possible, because physics that goes into “climate models” is incomplete and resolution insufficient.

            • Guenier

              ZM: all that may well be true – not being a scientist, I’m not able to judge. But you’re missing my point.

              The UK’s economic and social future is seriously threatened by the probable impact of the Climate Change Act. I believe the repeal, or serious amendment, of that Act is a major priority. So far attempts to achieve that have been almost entirely focused on the science. And they have made no impact whatever – largely (a) because the political, academic and media establishment has put up impenetrable barriers to any discussion of what they insist is “settled science” and (b) because almost all our “leaders” and decision makers have no scientific training and so are 100% dependent on their advisors.

              So a wholly new approach is essential. And I believe that, if we can demonstrate that the the Act is not only extremely expensive (they know that) and potentially disastrous (e.g. power outages could cause immense harm to our fragile economy and to the most vulnerable people in society) but is also completely pointless – for the reasons I have outlined above – we would be pitching the argument at a level and in a context that would have a far greater chance of being heard and understood.

              • Baron

                You, Guenier, are missing the even bigger point.

                The political tossers in charge will never give up on the idiocy of AGW, we’ll all freeze they’ll be still hanging on to it. Since when has common sense been a part of the modern political discourse, ha?

                The scope for higher taxation, levies, subsidies and what you have is unlimited, and the more they squeeze us, the more we’ll depend on the State, beg it to help to save us.

                That, my blogging friend, is what they want, and we, stupidly, vote for them, give them the license to do it.

                • Guenier

                  So what, Baron, would you have us do? Let it happen? Sit around and do nothing? Watch while our economy is yet further damaged? Wait until the lights go out and the poor become the desperate and the desperate the ruined?

                  Perhaps it’s a long shot – but my approach has some chance of success. And the cause is not lost: George Osborne for one has said he’s not prepared to move if the rest of the world fails to do so – which it will.

                  No – giving up is not an option.

                • Baron

                  Good point, Guenier, good point except for this: any meaningful change could only be delivered through the ballot box, the country doesn’t do revolutions, and you name Baron one political party that has both the sufficient backing of the unwashed and the policies to do so. Can you? For that matter, you name one single other institution that hasn’t been poisoned by the rainbow nonsense, PC, moral relativity bla bla humbug,

                  Claire Wolfe got it about right about the Republic over to the West, it equally applies here: “It’s too late to work within th system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”

                  /* Font Definitions */
                  panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
                  mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
                  panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;
                  mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
                  /* Style Definitions */
                  p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
                  font-family:"Times New Roman";
                  mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
                  mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
                  @page Section1
                  {size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
                  margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;

                • Guenier

                  OK – well I’ll leave you to sit there nursing your grievance and polishing your conspiracy theory. Or maybe planning that bloody revolution.

                  Just don’t expect me to join you.

            • Makroon

              There is a lot of conspiracy theory nonsense on here, but you are exactly correct. The worst aspect of the pseudo-science lobbyists is to destroy public trust in science.

              • the viceroy’s gin

                …and you Camerluvvies are helping with that destruction.

        • Alexsandr

          yes HL. but also it was the justification of a mass of tax increases. VAT on domestic fuel, the car fuel tax escalator etc. It was just a massive scam to raise taxes.

      • itdoesntaddup

        You’re out of date – China was 27% of global CO2 emissions in 2012 and rising.

        • Guenier

          You’re right. It’s probably close to 30% by now. And it’s interesting that between 2010 and 2012 China increased its emissions by three times the UK’s total emissions in 2012.

      • BoiledCabbage

        – an example in masochism perhaps, in which Britain is world-leader.

        • global city

          well, perhaps vicarious masochism, as the elites who impose these self flagellating idiocies never personally suffer.

      • Colin

        You may well be right, but it cheered me up, no end.

Can't find your Web ID? Click here