badgerx16

St G, do you condone this, I'm sure you are aware of it ? Straight yes or no if you please. ( Following up on something I've just watched on telly )...... The American Council for Clean Coal Electricity, a group of coal industry companies opposed to a bill passing through Congress to control carbon emissions, hired a PR firm to lobby Congress members to oppose the bill, which was going to be a very close vote either way. This PR firm then hired another PR firm, ( plausible deniability ? ), which then forged letters to the Congress members hoping to convince them that the particular groups whose identities had been stolen had changed their minds and were now opposed to the legislation. The ACCCE found out that the fraud might be about to be exposed 2 days before the vote, but waited until after the vote had taken place, and the bill passed, before saying anything about it. Congress formed a committee to investigate this attempt to pervert the democratic process, and the ACCCE chairman lied on oath, ( allegedly ). There are many links on t'Interweb, here are a few... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-nelson/at-least-3-members-of-con_b_250588.html http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/10/clean-coal-exec-lies-under-oath-forgery-scandal.php http://globalwarming.house.gov/mediacenter/pressreleases_2008?id=0162#main_content http://enviroknow.com/tag/american-coalition-for-clean-coal-electricity/

As Tony Bliar was acting as Dubya's poodle, does anybody believe that a Tory PM in the same circumstances would have acted any differently ? The main drivers for the war were the CIA / MI6 'intelligence' that was supposed to prove Iraq's failure to comply with Resolution 1441, and as a consequence of the 'special relationship', ( a particularly one-way relationship it has to be said ), we were dragged in on the Yank's coat-tails. This was a war of Dubya's making, ( finishing off the job that Daddy failed to do 10 years earlier ), and a Tory PM would have been leant on to do exactly the same as Bliar.

"Sulaiman al-Fahim, who expressed disappointment at the decision, while informing the Guardian that he believed it had been mishandled. "I was not consulted over Paul's removal and feel unhappy that he is no longer with us,":D

He's still trying to work out the Maggie Thatcher conundrum George reminds me of the Happy Days episode where Fonzy tries to say the word 'wrong', and just can't manage it.

Only if Dubya stands next to him, and that will never happen.

Heard on the radio that the public are being invited to send in questions for the inquiry board to ask. Any good suggestions ? Could probably start with "Mr Blair, as a committed Christian; with so much blood on your hands, how do you sleep at night ?".

Yes, I agree that in 1978/79 it seemed that the left needed to be brought under control, but Mrs T went ( IMO ) too far in her hysterical crusade to re-order the country to her own design, ripping the heart out of industrial communities in South Wales, Clydeside, West Yorkshire, Lancashire, and the North East. As a consequence, all our heavy industrial capacity has withered away. She also ruled the cabinet with a rod of iron, only paying attention to the sycophantic wing of her party; so what I would have done is moderate my actions by actually paying attention to some of the more experienced people around me and being less dogmatic. With hindsight she was an incredibly divisive figure, which can be evidenced by the vitriol with which many still refer to her, after 20 years out of politics. I am sorry, nobody will ever change my opinion of that witch.

I did at the time, being unemployed for 18 months, and I still do today. If it's the wrong medicine, yes I do; and her policies were taken to an extreme bordering on the jihad, which was unnecessary and almost fatal for the economy.

Winston Churchill first entered Paliament in 1900 as a Conservative, then in 1904 'crossed the floor' to become a Liberal. He remained a Liberal MP until the First World War, when he became part of a coalition government, only rejoining the Conservatives in 1925, having gained a seat as an independant in the 1924 election. As Chancellor of the Exchequer he returned Britain to the Gold Standard, something he later regarded as the biggest mistake of his life, and which almost certainly was the main precursor to the General Strike. In the 1930s, when the governments were again coalitions, ( all the way up to the fall of Chamberlain's cabinet in 1940 ), Churchill fell out completely with the Tory leadership over his total opposition to any form of independance for the colonies, particularly India. He also supported King Edward VIII during the abdication crisis, in direct opposition to the vast majority of Parliament. He did, however, come into his own a a wartime leader when he was invited to succeed Chamberlain, and lead yet another coalition government up to the end of the war in Europe, at which point his Tories were soundly whipped in the 1945 election. He did manage to actually become a Conservative PM in the early 1950's, but this term was nothing to write home about - domestic politics was still mired in austerity, and abroad the Empire was slowly dissolving, and Britain was nowhere near the world power WSC thought it still was. On the other hand, Maggie was damned lucky that General Galtieri invaded the Falklands, she won her second term on the back of that, despite a disasterous economic downturn. ( We won in the Falklands purely because of the quality of our fighting men; their equipment had been severely cut back with savage spending cuts under Maggie's stewardship. Sending men off to fight without the right gear, surely only the 'lefties' do that ? ) I would argue the 'greatest' Prime Minister of the 20th century was David Lloyd George.

Do you know ANYTHING about, for instance, the geography of the Newlands Valley or the area around Co©kermouth ? The flooding in Keswick is due to 370mm of rain falling on Robinson, Knott Rigg, Hindscarth, and Causey Pike, in one day. No amount of dredging in Workington will stop Keskadale Beck or Derwent Water from overflowing when hit with that volume of water, and it's miles inland from the flood plain. And the local Cllr should realise that, but then again it makes a good sound bite. From Keswick, the river Derwent flows north into Bassenthwaite, where it meets the runoff from Blencathra and Skiddaw, again several inches in one day, before flowing out into Co©kermouth. No building on flood plains to manage an immigrant population, no dredging, just a freak weather event. Unfortunately these 'freak' events will more and more become the norm as the climate models are proved true. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8375576.stm; "They argue that without action there will be much larger changes in the coming decades, with the UK seeing higher food prices, ill health, more flooding and rising sea levels." )

It'll probably come to nothing, after all the Butler report said " that the intelligence on Iraq's banned weapons - described by Mr Blair as "detailed, extensive and authoritative" - had in fact been "sporadic and patchy", yet nothing seems to have happened about that.

This is what I use.

He won't !

St George's latest posting is from http://www.hyscience.com, who are world renowned impartial climate experts as can be seen from this, taken ( unedited and complete ) from their own "about us" page. Just put hyscience.com into GOOGLE; "The primary interests of Hyscience authors are Clinical Pharmacology, Medicine, the Middle East and international terrorism, and International News. Guest authors include highly experienced scientists and physicians with extensive medical-legal jurisprudence expertise and additionally, moderate Muslims with significant technical expertise and first-hand knowledge of the Middle East and Islam. " Well that's me convinced then.

She'd probably 'flip' her second home and claim ex's whilst inside !

Looks like 'commie' Obama is perpetuating the hoax http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8375248.stm And before St G posts up this by the renowned climate expert Lord Lawson of Blaby, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6927598.ece There is a counter to it here, http://www.leftfootforward.org/ Once again, feel free to read both and make up your own mind. If you choose the former, I promise there will be no name calling.

And while you're at it, Mrs Thatcher is still waiting for your explanation as to how she was wrong in 1989.

Which is exactly one of the points causing 'issue' in the hacked e-mails, how to interpret 18th century handwritten notes. The scientists trying to plot this data have to use extrapolation and 'best fit' at times, simply because the written record is occasionally unintelligible and otherwise there are holes in the dataset, all of which is entirely open and above board and subject to peer review scrutiny, but the deniers then accuse them of making things up.

This much of your post I completely, entirely, and without any equivocation whatsoever AGREE with. Where you manage to contrive the rest from is only known to your perverse, ill-informed, and misguided sense of reality.

All this means is that they will extra vigilant not to be seen to be against the 'anti's, so that the discussion is open and fair, and the moderation is impartial. Or "Given the ferocity, animosity, and unreasonableness of the opposition, we may buy ourselves some time to consider our replies to some of their posts so as to ensure we don't get caught up in their bear-pit, as they will jump on anything that might be deemed a slip, no matter how insignificant". Which probably translates as "we will try to ensure that the moderate majority, who may wish to partake in an informed and balanced debate, are not swamped by trolls and flamers who know that they cannot win when considering facts and science".

Did you go and have a look ? No ? Well that explains a lot, because if you did you would have seen, at the last count 19 pages, of posts from BOTH sides of the debate; the 'anti's putting up their claims, with the 'evidence' they have sourced from the hack, and the 'pro's arguing their rebuttal. All being reasonably moderated, and with both sides making some good points. But we can't let honesty get in the way of your bogus agenda, can we ? And while we are at it, I am still waiting for your answer to the Margaret Thatcher question. I hope the delay means it will be REALLY good and worth waiting for.

For anybody interested in understanding what the fuss is about, there is quite a good discussion, though lengthy, going on here ; http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/comment-page-19/#comment-143420 And whilst St G will dismiss the website as part of the con, the discussion thread actually has proponents of both sides putting their points of view with regard to the content of the e-mails in question, and surprisingly no 'slagging off'. Please feel free to make up your own minds, I will neither call you 'sheeple' nor 'denialists', ( that's left for our 'special' friend ), it's a free choice.

OK George, here is your opportunity Going back to post #199, the following is extracted from Maggie T's 1989 speech to the UN, ( which I think puts it well before the hacked data set was established ). Now as we all know, she wasn't exactly enamoured of the 'loony lefties, 'tree-huggers', or other cranks ( as you would no doubt put it ). But on that basis, especially now you claim the 'hoax' is blown wide open, what exactly was her motivation and intent ? Do you think she was deliberately lying and presenting what she knew, beyond any shadow of a doubt, were falsehoods and concocted data ? Or do you think she believed and, as a trained scientist, understood the basis on which she was building her argument ? Come on, shoot her down. after all, we all know how strongly she felt about centralist control and taxation, ( isn't the ability to raise additional taxation one of the justifications for the 'con' ? ) "What we are now doing to the world, by degrading the land surfaces, by polluting the waters and by adding greenhouse gases to the air at an unprecedented rate—all this is new in the experience of the earth. It is mankind and his activities which are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways. " "We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere. The annual increase is three billion tonnes: and half the carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution still remains in the atmosphere. At the same time as this is happening, we are seeing the destruction on a vast scale of tropical forests which are uniquely able to remove carbon dioxide from the air. Every year an area of forest equal to the whole surface of the United Kingdom is destroyed. At present rates of clearance we shall, by the year 2000, have removed 65 per cent of forests in the humid tropical zones.[fo 3] The consequences of this become clearer when one remembers that tropical forests fix more than ten times as much carbon as do forests in the temperate zones. " "Put in its bluntest form: the main threat to our environment is more and more people, and their activities: • The land they cultivate ever more intensively; • The forests they cut down and burn; • The mountain sides they lay bare; • The fossil fuels they burn; • The rivers and the seas they pollute. The result is that change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto. Change to the sea around us, change to the atmosphere above, leading in turn to change in the world's climate, which could alter the way we live in the most fundamental way of all. " "The negotiation of some of these protocols will undoubtedly be difficult. And no issue will be more contentious than the need to control emissions of carbon dioxide, the major contributor—apart from water vapour—to the greenhouse effect. "

As both the Hadley Centre and the UEA have admitted there is no doubt that most, if not all, of the e-mails are genuine, ( they simply haven't had time to check them all yet ), why would anybody wish to deny this ? As for the 'phony' database, this is composed mostly of publicly available data from various sources around the globe, so nothing 'secret' there. In fact one of the best arguments against your 'conspiracy' is just that, this data is openly available, as are the mathematical models used to analyse it, to anybody who wants to analyse them, as they are open source programs, and despite this the 'anti's have failed to disprove the main strand of MMGW/AGW. I suppose this is all part of the hoax ? http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091117.html (17 November 2009 ) " Latest research has shown that emissions of CO2 will need to be reduced close to zero by the end of this century if a rise in the mean global temperature beyond 2 °C is to be avoided. A temperature rise of no more than 2 °C is widely acknowledged as the ‘safe’ level to avoid dangerous climate change. This finding follows the development of a new climate mitigation scenario constructed using the same principles that will be adopted by the next IPCC assessment review using concentrations of greenhouse gases and other forcings as a starting point. Modellers have then been able to establish what level of emissions would need to be achieved so as to restrict global temperature rise. This research, revealed at ‘ENSEMBLES – A changing climate in Europe’ symposium at the Met Office in Exeter, is the culmination of five years of research from 66 institutes across Europe, led by the Met Office Hadley Centre and funded by the European Commission. John Mitchell, Director of Climate Science at the Met Office and ENSEMBLES co-ordinator, said: “This latest research emphasises the necessity to make drastic cuts in emissions as quickly and as soon as possible if we are to avoid dangerous climate change and highlights the importance of the negotiations that will take place in Copenhagen in December.” Dan Norris, Minister for Rural Affairs and Environment, said: “The revolutionary UK Climate Projections 2009 that we launched last summer, based on Met Office science, showed that not only do we need to tackle the causes of climate change but also that we must deal with the consequences. I’m delighted that the Met Office is hosting this symposium. It reinforces the leadership role that the UK and other member states are playing in international climate science and policy. Just as importantly, it’s a chance to take stock — to discuss the science that has been developed, advances made, and to look at the priorities and the next set of questions we need to address.” Other findings from the ENSEMBLES research program include: An ensemble prediction system giving the first probabilistic climate projections of temperature and rainfall changes fro Europe this century; An assessment of the impact of climate change on a range of sectors including agriculture, health, energy, water resources and insurance relevant to decisions being made today; A clearer picture of the physical, chemical, biological and human-related feedbacks in the climate system and how to represent them in models that will increase certainty in climate predictions; The development of the first high resolution climate observation datasets for Europe that can be used to validate ensemble predictions."