This blog supports Scottish Independence. Comments on it, and contents of linked blogs, do not necessarily reflect Munguin's opinions.
Tuesday, 8 December 2009
BROWN MAKES A DECISION FOR ME
When it comes to climate change most people don't have the foggiest (get it?)idea. Actually, whether it's climate change or the Lisbon Treaty or whatever, we can't be bothered to read all the stuff, and if we could be we wouldn't understand it.
The weather in Dundee doesn’t seem to have changed THAT much, so empirical observation hasn't done me any good.
For serious consideration then, I would have to read quite a few papers; papers for and papers against, then I would have to weight up the scientific evidence and make a decision based on what I had understood, which would be very little, because I’m not a climatologist or a meteorologist or a geographer or.... well anything like that at all.
So here’s what we do. We rely on other people to tell us how it is. People who are meteorologists or whatever, or maybe even their political “masters”. We still don't really understand it after they explain, but we know that there are some people you trust and some you don't, and some can put forward a convincing argument and some you wouldn’t believe if they correctly told you your name.
Life's too short. I could be burnt to death by the time I've worked it out.
So, I think, I don’t really believe any of them. They all have an agenda and I can’t be bothered to try to analyse the information filtered through their agenda, so I don’t care, and I’m changing nothing.
I mean, if you are not that well off you don’t waste fuel; you don’t sit with the heating full blast and the windows open; you don’t drive around for hours just to waste some petrol at £1.10 a litre. But to be honest, I’m not sifting through my bottles to make sure that only white glass goes in there and green glass here. What if it’s all for nothing? Life’s too short. I could be drowned by the time I get it done.
So, you look around and say, who can I believe? Who knows about this stuff that can advise? And you hear Ed Miliband’s glottal stops on the radio telling you how important it is that Copenhagen succeeds, and you think... Doesn’t he sound just like Tony Blair? Then, just as you stopped feeling nauseous you hear Brown calling doubters “flat earthers”, and that does it!
So clearly Brown is a passionate believer in global warming caused by man and anyone who doesn't agree with him is a "flat earther". So, who do you trust to make a right call? Brown? ....
Well, that’s me decided.
Posted by Anonymous at 19:47
Labels: Copenhagen, Global warming, Miliband
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
When one side resorts to insults then you know the game is up. The warmists have lied, hid data, refused foi attempts, blackballed opposing scientists, attempted to prevent opposing views being peer reviewed and generally acting like dogs in a manger.ReplyDelete
That was enough to make me sceptical and do some checks of my own, now I'm doubly sceptical.
I agree. I just don't know, but I have no way of finding out the truth because, as I say, even if I read all the reports, and there are thousands and thousands of them, I still wouldn't understand.
I'm listening to Brown telling me that if I don't believe him I'm a flat earther, but then, this is the same Brown that wanted to arrive at the G8 in Tokyo in the same style as the French President and the American President and probably the Chinese and Russian Presidents, so he hired a private jet from Texas, to fly empty all the way to London, to take him there.
Not that there aren't flights every day to Tokyo. He just didn't want to arrive on a scheduled flight. And he calls me a flat earther. (Besides, Brown doesn't have a very good record when it comes to being right about things. Actually, can anyone think of something he DID get right?)
Nah. If it is all true I'll be dead by the time anything drastic happens and if it's not true, wouldn't I feel a right wally if I changed my lifestyle for nothing! Selfish... yes probably.
There are some simple tables you can follow at eureferendum.com. Or here are 141 scientists saying they are sceptical about man made climate change....
I think most folk believe that the climate is changing but like me don't believe it's man made because we've had tropics and ice ages in Dundee ( not just at Broughty Ferry either !) long before man came along.
Tris - when I was a kid my family went on a wee drive to the east coast for a picnic. We ended up at North Queensferry on the banks of the Forth. I went down to the waters edge and ended up knee deep in oil sludge. That was in the early sixties. I realized right then and there what a mess we were making of our planet.ReplyDelete
Summits and carbon taxes are not going to clean up the mess. Only by changing our lifestyles can we do that. I don't believe anyone would argue that we're not turning our environment into a cesspool. So just clean up yer act will ye!
Tris....you have written such a lot of REALLY GOOD SENSE here. The climate is always changing. At various times, the earth has been a frozen snowball....and the earth has been a steaming hot house. The climate has been warming since the last ice age, and the ice ages are cyclical. Sooner or later, the earth will cool and the glaciers will once again advance.ReplyDelete
We are now in a warming period that will have an important impact on human life. And human activity in the form of CO2 emissions may be playing a part....maybe a BIG part. It's a VERY complicated scientific issue. And there really are honest differences of opinion among reputable scientists.
So I am sick to death of people advancing their personal political agendas, and telling me that the issue is now settled beyond doubt. For many of my liberal friends here in the states, ecological and climate issues have ceased to be scientific questions.....they are deeply held BELIEFS that have become no less than theological in character. Recently, email messages have come to light showing some scientists cooking the books to come to the "desired," and politically correct conclusions.
Lord knows what the Copenhagen Climate Summit will produce........besides the predictable hot air....and people with tear stained faces rending their garments and crying aloud about the impending disaster.
So why do you believe any science after all the snp say nuclear is bad well frankly how (using your method)can they prove it?ReplyDelete
what you should do is spend some time on a landfill sight if that doesn't change your mind on the environment probably nothing will.
"Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children."
I think the weather's getting colder, or am I just getting older....?ReplyDelete
The trouble is I can read these things till I turn blue (or green) in the face, and I won't really know the whys and the wherefors. Like so many other things, I depend on someone who is expert telling me the truth.
So for all that I could read the 141 scientists you suggest, with respect, I'm sure that someone could point me to another set of stats from scientists that would disprove everything they say. It's not really a political thing; it's just that on something which is not proven, I'm being asked to change my way of life. And I note that those who are asking me to do that, are not prepared to do it themsleves. It's not a party thing. I note that Brown uses private planes, but I'm aware that Cameron flew all the way to the Arctic for a photocall about climate change, and someone said to me the other day that Salmond travels in a helecopter (mind I don't know if that's true).
When they are all so sure of their facts that they are waiting for the bus, maybe I'll believe them. LOL.
I'm not denying that we are doing things that are detrimental to the planet. Dirty seas, filthy rivers, air pollution, etc. I'm not sure that by doing it we are causing the warming of the planet though.
Like I said, the taxation system and the privatisation and profit motive of the utilities (except water in Scotland) mean that we have to use them sparingly, and I'm not a litterer nor do I put my old cooking oil down the sink.... etc.
Some of the things we are being told we must do are pretty impracticable. For example, sifting out all our rubbish and putting it into separate bins is fine if you have a large back garden to hold all the bins, but, if like me you live on the top floor and have a kitchen that one holds one person, where on earth are you going to keep all you (plastic) bins for all this storage.
Just on the basis of I don't want to see a filthy disgusting world, I'm careful with what I do, I'm not turning my living room into a bin store so that I can separate my paper from my glass from Blue glass, brown glass, tea bags, etc, etc. I do keep a vegetable waste bucket and compost that.
And now Brown tells me that if I question this, I'm a flat earther. He who gets soooooo much right!
Scunnert I hear what you’re say8ing and I’m not a bad guy about it. I’m just n
oops... just not Brown's puppet...., that should have read before it disappeared into the ether....ReplyDelete
Hey Danny Ozarks...ReplyDelete
Thanks for that.
I suspect that Copenhagen will produce nothing. The important decisions have always be made well in advance of these summits. The leaders can't possibly afford to turn up to what will be a "disaster" if no agreements can be made.
You know I like Obama, but I note he didn't agree to go for the end of the summit until it was clear that the outcome would be favourable to his politics.
I suspect that the thousands of delegates will have enjoyed a jolly good junket, eaten well, drunk loads of Denmark’s GNP, spent heavily in the rather expensive shops of Copenhagen, and in the case of Brown, managed to neak a picture or two of him standing near to someone important.
It all could have been done without the great get together, and the numerous tonnes of carbon that will have been created. A lot of heating will be needed to keep these people warm Denmark’s is hardly tropical in Decembers. And of course the (self) important and the actually quite important will have arrived by private jet.
You actually couldn't make this crap up.
Well Comedian, nuclear is dangerous. The simple science of that is pretty plain to see and even I can understand that. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, plus all the outcomes tests that they used to do in the south seas using our troops and the islanders, show that they weapons are seriously dangerous. (Yes, I know all weapons are inherently dangerous, otherwise there wouldn't be much point in them, but I guess you know what I mean).ReplyDelete
Chernobyl and Long Island prove that peaceful use of nuclear is dangerous.
And there’s the storage. Of course we don’t know that the half life of plutonium is thousands of years, but I’ve never heard any scientist suggest that it isn’t. I mean no “flat earther has ever said, when it’s spent we can use it for compost, or let the kids play in it, or make it into bedding for the third world.
So, I’m not sure it’s the same thing. I don’t necessarily believe what the SNP says, although I personally I would be more inclined to believe them than I would Brown, but as you’ll rightly say, that’s just my preference.
I guess what I’m saying is I would be really scared to have nuclear processing plant at the bottom of my garden. I have proof that it going wrong would have unpalatable consequences for me. On the other hand a wind farm would be just an annoyance.
LOL. Trust you. Of course you're geting older. get your muffler pulled up round your neck and put your mittens back on...
Tris: I think you mean Three Mile Island and also I think closer to home you will find that Sellafield was called Windscale until there was a little hiccup of a potential disaster and they thought a name change was in order. So we don't actually need any scientists to tell us that nuclear is dangerous we know it is because it either has or nearly has been already.ReplyDelete
You have it right Tris about all those big carbon footprints leading to Copenhagen. Ironically, some of the people with the biggest personal impact on the environment are those for whom ecology and climate change issues are nothing less than a religion.ReplyDelete
The climate change activists at Copenhagen and elsewhere among the (mostly) liberal left community embody viewpoints which have at their heart some really interesting beliefs about the human species. On the one hand, they wring their hands over the destruction of the earth's environment by the human race. Oh how beautiful and pure the world would be without people....their pesky technologies....the manufactured goods they need and want....the trash they produce. But, conversely, only people can now save the world. We humble people....YES.....we can save the world.....if we come to our senses and behave the way certain people want us to.
Remember the last world saving crusade? We had to save the ozone layer. It was a disaster in the making. There was actually a hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole. OMG...OMG. So, we banned the manufacture of Freon. Did it save the ozone layer? Maybe...maybe not. Who knows, who cares? The environmental crusade moved on to save the world in new and ingenious directions. We discovered climate change, and the media (and politicians) promptly lost interest in the ozone layer.
So, we're now in the business of saving the world at Copenhagen, as the politicians jockey for political advantage. Of course if we were actually serious about it, we could take data and apply scientific analysis. But that's REALLY hard........and would take more time....and actual thought. And the answer when it comes might not comport with environmental theology.
I'll refrain from posting a minority opinion about the importance of nuclear power in the world energy picture and its relative safety when properly handled. (And the fact that nuclear power reactors have almost nothing to do with nuclear weapons.) Not being a Scot, I do realize that the issue of energy resources for Scotland is none of my business. (I wouldn't want a nuclear processing facility in my garden either BTW....LOL.)
I'm surprised there hasn't been more on the AH1N1 swine flu 'pandemic'. ( well not really, like AGW it's another media blackout).
Most folk aren't aware of the basic facts and I'm sure people would steer clear of the vaccine if they knew the full story. Certainly not give it to their kids anyway.
1. It has never been tested
2. It was made pandemic level by WHO so that full powers could be brought to bear to vaccine the population if required( this includes police holding you down and injecting you if it came to it)
3. The vaccine manufacturers are not liable to pay compensation if anyone has serious side effects.
4. No one knows what is in the vaccine.
5. A batch in the Czech republic contained swine flu.
6. Severe reactions are already appearing including miscarriages, irreversible nerve damage and death.
It's no surprise that an FOI request to NHS Tayside on the pandemic measures was rejected for "fear of worrying people". See todays Dundee Evening Telegraph.
More info at
That's interesting Anon... I'll have alook at the Telegraph on line and the link you sent... as soon as I've eaten.ReplyDelete
The great debate on global warming.ReplyDelete
As you say one of the more unhelpful features of the debate is that we rely on other people to do our thinking in this area for us.
At the moment there is a consensus around the interpretation of evidence that man is adversly speeding up climate change [even if Dundee is still the same wet affair!].
However if we are letting others shape our views, let me point in the direction of the estimable Lord Lawson- the foremost writer and scrutiniser of climate change as he is has reached some rather interesting conclusions. He argues that climate change is happening, yes- but that there is no evidence that it man has caused the cycle; merely speeding it up adversely.
Just thought you guys might enjoy the voice of an alternative view on this great debate.
Munguin.... I'm hanging my head in shame. Three Mile Island it is, or was, and I can only excuse myself by saying that 3 miles is quite long..... erm... ok.ReplyDelete
My point as you rightly grasp, although somewhat mired by my somewhat rudimentary grasp of American geography was that we need no one to tell us about the dangers of nuclear power; it's plain for all to see, and even changing names (officially, rather that by me) doesn’t' have any effect on the waste.
If I remember rightly, the Irish government has complained to the UK government about high levels of radiation in the waters on their east coast.
The Ukraine authorities have had to make huge part of their country out of bounds to all but nuclear scientists. What else do we need to know?
Dean. Thanks for your input. Is that Nigel Lawson who used to be Chancellor?ReplyDelete
I guess from what I hear of that theory, it's the one that sits best with me... but of course, unless I implicitly trust Lawson, I don't know whether he is any more believable than anyone else.
I don't mean to insult anyone. Well, except for myself. I just don't understand the science, so I can't judge the scientific evidence...
Dundee wet???? I'll thank you to remember Sir, that Dundee has one of the most pleasant climates in the whole of Scotland.... It does, really... honestly.
Today it is global warming; a little while ago it was terrorism and the war thereon and the ozone layer and I’m sure we could go back farther.
There is always something. And it is to a politician’s great advantage to be seen to be knowledgeable and involved with the latest craze.
It is these same politicians who drive big cars, live in enormous houses with all manner of heating and cooling and with all the modern conveniences, manufactured often in the third world, or in China, with large carbon footprints as a legacy, who take private jets to a conference that does not need their input. I suspect the communiqué for Copenhagen was written weeks ago.
I’m not saying that I don’t believe that global warming is happening. I think it may be, but as I’ve said, I don’t have the means to make that decision for myself. Now Mr Brown has told me that it definitely is I’m bound, based on his record for being wrong about absolutely everything, to doubt the existence of heat itself!
Typically of you, you are too polite to be controversial about nuclear power, when I know you have regard for it. As you are far better qualified than I am to judge, this holds some sway with me.
Properly handled, well built and maintained to the highest standards with interest ONLY in the discipline and safety in the plant... would be comforting. However, the way that things run here it is much more likely that we will have profit motivated, tick box, target achieving, equality based, inclusive management, that will bring about the kind of disaster that Homer Simpson would be ashamed of.
As you probably know Scotland is self sufficient in gas, and would be for the next 50 years or more, if we were not obliged to share it with our Imperial master... We have huge hydro and wind and wave capability. We really have to do something with this water apart from turn it into the water of life!!
Ah you should come down my way and feel the bonnie cold dry air of free Stirling; the saltire and Union flag fluttering romatically on the fine weathered breeze!
But enough of that..
Lawson yes, thats the man. The very same iron chancellor of the 1980s [after the Howe period, the more significant one I'd contend..but enough of such tangents].
And you hit on my point exactly, few of us can honestly say we have the time to sit and mull through the textbooks of scientific material in this area. Its one of the major probems, so as you indicated it is very important that one finds a commentator who does have such time to spend, and one which one can instinctively place faith in to tell the truth.
Keep the evidence presented all kosher so to speak.