Nick Cohen On This Week

[R K]

I think that is a bit harsh on Diane Abbott. While I think Portillo comes across the more intelligent thinker, Abbott seems to understand the social/personal level better. As a result, they have a good cross over and alternative views. While I'm inclined to agree that Portillo consistently has the better arguments, Abbott's contributions are worthwhile. It wouldn't be much of a debate if they both had the same viewpoint!

Exactly why it isn't much of a debate.

Two intellectual heavyweights and a smug 'social worker' who looks on in wide-eyed amazement at how well informed they are.

Her contributions are only worthwhile in the sense that she highlights how thick most of her brand of labour MP are.

I'm sure she's very good at representing her local constituents though.

[Traktion]

Exactly why it isn't much of a debate.

Two intellectual heavyweights and a smug 'social worker' who looks on in wide-eyed amazement at how well informed they are.

Her contributions are only worthwhile in the sense that she highlights how thick most of her brand of labour MP are.

I'm sure she's very good at representing her local constituents though.

Good points!

[LetsGetReadyToTumble]

It's weird how some people are using global warming like some new religion. Nick Cohen came across like some Methodist preacher, hell bent on repentance. Pratt.

He didn't know the behaviour of Sun spots, but tried to introduce some scientific evidence, but was obviously out of his depth.

This is the whole crux of the matter. Where's the evidence, or at least, if there is some, could they please tell me about it?

[Timm]

(...)Portillo then went on to say that he thinks that there will be another major economic shock in 2010. An unknown crisis and Neil pointed out that our cupboard is now bare.

IMHO the crisis Portillo is talking about will force us to stop spending, not encourage more.

[Game_Over]

Nick Cohen's performance was extraordinary

His line was entirely political which is not unsurprising since MMGW was always politically not scientifically driven

However, the political angle he took was new to me and pretty weird

He was basically taking the view that by relying on oil, the West is propping up extreme regimes in the Middle East which then of course threaten Israel's exsistence

Don't know if this is just something he has hit upon as an individual, or if it is a line which will now be taken by others

He was also very keen to brand MMGW sceptics, deniers, thus making a link with holocaust deniers

We will probably discover in a few decades that the term climate change denier was invented by Mossad and that MMGW was a plot to destroy the economies of the Arab states in the Middle East in order to strengthen Israel.

BTW, I am very pro-Israel - but this performance by Cohen was bizarre and an extreme example of Eco Fascism IMO.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Game_Over

[Game_Over]

Abbott of course is a good socialist

A single mother who pays for her kid to be privately educated

Nothing wrong with that of course - but it is hardly consistent with Labours attacks on privilege

[The Spaniard]

Did Cohen say "logarithms" when he should have said "algorithms"?

What do they teach these PPE graduates at Oxford?

[oracle]

Portillo then went on to say that he thinks that there will be another major economic shock in 2010. An unknown crisis and Neil pointed out that our cupboard is now bare.

I'm inclined to agree.

he's right about 2010(feb-march time was my punt and I'm sticking to it)

and economic shock could be putting it mildly.

[Traktion]

And now time for some attempted censorship: http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/11/un-security-stops-journalists-questions-about-climategate/#more-44722

Oh, and are GISS "adding value" to data too? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/giss-raw-station-data-before-and-after/

Edited December 11, 2009 by Traktion

[tinker]

And now time for some attempted censorship: http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/11/un-security-stops-journalists-questions-about-climategate/#more-44722

Oh, and are GISS "adding value" to data too? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/giss-raw-station-data-before-and-after/

This is scary, isn't it?

'Close down the debate, close down the debate, close down the debate... '

It's really sinister. It is all about power and money.

[R K]

This is scary, isn't it?

'Close down the debate, close down the debate, close down the debate... '

It's really sinister. It is all about power and money.

Well at least it's consistent.

* Banks lie about the true value of their balance sheet assets

* BoE and government conceal their support to banks

* Prime Minister lied about WMD (He's now told Fern Britton he'd have used any excuse)

* Oil field reserves manipulated

* Financial markets manipulated

It seems nearly everything of any significance is either concealed, lied about or manipulated in our so called western democracies. I don't see why 'man made glow ball warming' should be any different.

They start with a desired outcome and then fit the story to achieve that outcome. Most people are too gullible or busy to notice until it's already history.

[tinker]

Bizarrely, though I feel that there is not much I can do to the madness and the downright lies, I do feel that I'm not alone in my simmering anger. There is a community of the disillusioned and the disappointed.

The internet is a double edged sword, giving a voice but isolating the masses in a virtual reality, perhaps.

Life isn't fair. It is as simple as that, the 'bigger' man will always do you over (oh the irony!).

[timmyab]

Nick Cohen looks like a man drowning, he should remain in the shallows where he belongs.

I'd like to see a proper grown up discussion on this subject between people who know what the hell they're talking about, but then people might realize that it's all just a big con.

[Abstra]

Nick Cohen looks like a man drowning, he should remain in the shallows where he belongs.

I'd like to see a proper grown up discussion on this subject between people who know what the hell they're talking about, but then people might realize that it's all just a big con.

I think it might be caused by carbon dioxide, methane and/or hostile ET's. Just my opinion though. Don't call a Global meeting because of something I said.

[bogbrush]

Thank God for Portillo and Neill; this is the only calm yet forceful interrogation available on the BBC.

Cohen made himself look like an utter fool. The excursion away from MMGW and into propping up nasty people was hilarious; surely he'd been drinking before the programme?

[Avon]

I didn't see the programme and don't care about this Cohen-guy. Completely irrelevant to debate about climate change. Just as irrelevant as any item by Lawson, or any other who takes the contrary position. You can't explain the process in 10 minutes without gross simplification. Also, the science does not come with a policy solution attached. You can easily hold with the vast majority of scientists that climate change is happening and is predominantly human-caused and think the human race is not worth saving so we should do nothing. This is what I feel after reading this thread. The level of delusion here is breathtaking (I won't say 'denial' because I know that upsets you people). I still have yet to meet anyone who, starting from a disinterested point of view, ended up as a sceptic about the science of AGW after a decent amount of study. It seems that people are desperate for it not to be true. But it is pitiful to use some stupid segment of a light entertainment show as an excuse not to take seriously the field- and desk-based research of 1000s of scientists seriously enough to look at it properly. To say that these guys made it up is not onIy an affront to commonsense, it flies in the face of the fact that we rely on the science of the same people (and their methods) every second of the day in terms of driving, computing, flying etc. To deny the basic science of AGW is not so different to deny the basic science that keeps a plane in the air or the pc you are reading this post working. But, no, you guys want all that but you want the same scientific community to be wrong, deluded, or faking it when it comes to something you don't like.

I suppose everyone wants to be a contrarian, sniff out a conspiracy, especially if they don't actually have to do any serious analysis, take the appropriate module at Uni or whatever. They can simply cut-and-paste the output of some other crackpot the interweb as proof of a global 'conspiracy' designed to make us waste less energy.

edit for typos and more thoughts

Edited December 12, 2009 by Avon

[R K]

I didn't see the programme and don't care about this Cohen-guy. Completely irrelevant to debate about climate change. Just as irrelevant as any item by Lawson, or any other who takes the contrary position. You can't explain the process in 10 minutes without gross simplification. Also, the science does not come with a policy solution attached. You can easily hold with the vast majority of scientists that climate change is happening and is predominantly human-caused and think the human race is not worth saving so we should do nothing. This is what I feel after reading this thread. The level of delusion here is breathtaking (I won't say 'denial' because I know that upsets you people). I still have yet to meet anyone who, starting from a disinterested point of view, ended up as a sceptic about the science of AGW after a decent amount of study. It seems that people are desperate for it not to be true. But it is pitiful to use some stupid segment of a light entertainment show as an excuse not to take seriously the field- and desk-based research of 1000s of scientists seriously enough to look at it properly. To say that these guys made it up is not onIy an affront to commonsense, it flies in the face of the fact that we rely on the science of the same people (and their methods) every second of the day in terms of driving, computing, flying etc. To deny the basic science of AGW is not so different to deny the basic science that keeps a plane in the air or the pc you are reading this post working. But, no, you guys want all that but you want the same scientific community to be wrong, deluded, or faking it when it comes to something you don't like.

I suppose everyone wants to be a contrarian, sniff out a conspiracy, especially if they don't actually have to do any serious analysis, take the appropriate module at Uni or whatever. They can simply cut-and-paste the output of some other crackpot the interweb as proof of a global 'conspiracy' designed to make us waste less energy.

edit for typos and more thoughts

{{{{{HUGS}}}}}

[tinker]

{{{{{HUGS}}}}}

I was thinking that.

So we are the deluded fools.

[bogbrush]

not to take seriously the field- and desk-based research of 1000s of scientists seriously enough to look at it properly. To say that these guys made it up is not onIy an affront to commonsense, it flies in the face of the fact that we rely on the science of the same people (and their methods) every second of the day in terms of driving, computing, flying etc. To deny the basic science of AGW is not so different to deny the basic science that keeps a plane in the air or the pc you are reading this post working. But, no, you guys want all that but you want the same scientific community to be wrong, deluded, or faking it when it comes to something you don't like.

No, we rely on different people for that, unless you're telling me the UEA invented the aeroplane.

Oh, and yes they did fiddle it. It's clear to anyone who is - what was your phrase? - "starting from a disinterested point of view".

Perhaps that rules you out.

Edited December 12, 2009 by bogbrush

[Game_Over]

Thank God for Portillo and Neill; this is the only calm yet forceful interrogation available on the BBC.

Cohen made himself look like an utter fool. The excursion away from MMGW and into propping up nasty people was hilarious; surely he'd been drinking before the programme?

Did you pick up on his argument that climate change deniers were propping up evil arab regimes in the middle east who are Hell bent on destroying Israel

He seems to have decided that the MMGW bandwagon is a great way to cripple the economies of Saudia Arabia and Iran

Not sure if he has arrived at this on his own or if it is an angle that is being persued by other people.

Probably find in a few years time that many of the scientists backing the theory are working for Mossad

[Game_Over]

I didn't see the programme and don't care about this Cohen-guy. Completely irrelevant to debate about climate change. Just as irrelevant as any item by Lawson, or any other who takes the contrary position. You can't explain the process in 10 minutes without gross simplification. Also, the science does not come with a policy solution attached. You can easily hold with the vast majority of scientists that climate change is happening and is predominantly human-caused and think the human race is not worth saving so we should do nothing. This is what I feel after reading this thread. The level of delusion here is breathtaking (I won't say 'denial' because I know that upsets you people). I still have yet to meet anyone who, starting from a disinterested point of view, ended up as a sceptic about the science of AGW after a decent amount of study. It seems that people are desperate for it not to be true. But it is pitiful to use some stupid segment of a light entertainment show as an excuse not to take seriously the field- and desk-based research of 1000s of scientists seriously enough to look at it properly. To say that these guys made it up is not onIy an affront to commonsense, it flies in the face of the fact that we rely on the science of the same people (and their methods) every second of the day in terms of driving, computing, flying etc. To deny the basic science of AGW is not so different to deny the basic science that keeps a plane in the air or the pc you are reading this post working. But, no, you guys want all that but you want the same scientific community to be wrong, deluded, or faking it when it comes to something you don't like.

I suppose everyone wants to be a contrarian, sniff out a conspiracy, especially if they don't actually have to do any serious analysis, take the appropriate module at Uni or whatever. They can simply cut-and-paste the output of some other crackpot the interweb as proof of a global 'conspiracy' designed to make us waste less energy.

edit for typos and more thoughts

There is absolutely no way of proving what percentage of any warming that may or may not be occurring is caused by man made CO2.

So it all comes down to a balance of probabilities, which frankly is anyones guess.

At the end of the day, no politician is going to wreck their countries economy on the off chance that man made global warming might wreck their countries economy.

Of course all politicians love lining their own pockets, flying round the world on junkets, grandstanding and claiming they have saved the planet

But that is a different issue entirely.

[ccc]

You can't explain the process in 10 minutes without gross simplification.

I think gross simplification is usually the best way to debate. I truly believe in the mantra that the best ideas are the simple ones.

As for this one and an explanation ? I can explain it in less than 10 minutes. In fact in only 3 words.

'It just happens.'

[huw]

I agree

What I'm finding is that some of the most fervent supporters of MMGW absolutely believe they are morally superior to me

- specifically, they care about future generations whereas I don't

- I am some sort of 'carbon junkie' putting my own selfish needs ahead of the needs of others

- I probably aspire to drive a hummer while eating hamburgers

And they seem incapable of seeing the potential harm of the carbon trading scheme, probably through sheer ignorance of economics

So none of them are concerned about MMGW, while also objecting to the carbon trading scheme?

Let's face it, almost everyone puts their own immediate needs against the needs of future generations ... "taking the good stuff for ourselves" goes with the territory of living on a finite planet, MMGW or no ... the boomer-bashers should know all about that

[huw]

He was basically taking the view that by relying on oil, the West is propping up extreme regimes in the Middle East which then of course threaten Israel's exsistence

Don't know if this is just something he has hit upon as an individual, or if it is a line which will now be taken by others

Not Israel or the extreme regimes specifically, though you could see Israel as a geopolitical proxy for the West, and the regimes as incubators for extremism.

The argument that we are channelling funds to our enemies has merit:

The Fall of the House of Saud

Sourcewatch: Funding Terrorism

[Avon]

No, we rely on different people for that, unless you're telling me the UEA invented the aeroplane.

Oh, and yes they did fiddle it. It's clear to anyone who is - what was your phrase? - "starting from a disinterested point of view".

Perhaps that rules you out.

The worldwide network of scientists working at Universities with similar methods and peer review (not media-led) quality control is both a product of the same intellectual tradition that produced these breakthroughs and continues to produce them every year. And that includes commercial aviation, microchips, DNA, anti-biotics and pretty much all the things that keeps modern civilisation going and advancing. Why do you think the numbers of scientists on the two basic sides of the equation is so uneven?

I'm no fan of UEA. There is undoubtedly a bit of a bandwagon in research activity in climate change, though the problem here is in the social sciences and humanities (eg climate change and theatre; climate change and football blah blah blah). Also, hypocrisy - 20,000 plus flying/driving/hitch-hiking to Copenhagen. But this does not affect the basic science of the matter one bit.

I'm not sure what's going on at UEA. But consider this: the scientists are to busy either drinking lattes in Copenhagen or with their research (and don't have the money) to bug the phones, hack the computers or receive the media training to defeat the contrarians on tv debates. What would they find out if they did? We already know that the Bush administration doctored reports for several years when they didn't like what the climate scientists were telling them and we have the Luntz memo to help us understand the real agenda behind much of the US sceptic approach. We also know that the amount of money spent on PR and sceptic spin by the oil companies far surpasses anything given to UEA.

What saddens me is that ordinary, decent people are being suckered into doing the Oil and energy companies' work for free...

*http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf (Frank Luntz memo to George Bush setting out advantages of deliberate obfuscation of climate research)

* http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html (doctoring of White House reports)