Friday
Apr292016
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill The liberal society and its publicly funded enemies
Apr 29, 2016 Bureaucrats Greens Media ;)
In my absence, readers will no doubt have been aware of the attempt by several noble peers of the realm to silence dissenting voices on climate change. Headed by Lord Krebs, they wrote to a letter to the Times with the normal mealy-mouthed line of "we are in favour of free speech but you shouldn't publish people who disagree with us".
Today, the Times publishes another letter from Lord Krebs:
Sir, Matt Ridley (”Climate change lobby wants to kill free speech”, Opinion, Apr 25) misses the point of the personal letter to the Editor of The Times that we signed with 11 other peers. The letter was not an attack on free speech and we clearly stated that a free press is essential for a healthy democracy.Our point is that misleading stories on the science of climate change undermine the credibility of The Times. We expressed particular concern that the views of the Global Warming Policy Foundation appear to be unduly influential. That it was an adviser to GWPF who criticised us in your pages adds to our concern.The letter was discussed with several people, including the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, but it was from the 13 peers and not from anyone else.
The admission of the involvement of the ECIU in the letter really does stink. Krebs is the chairman of the Adaptation Subcommittee of the Commmittee on Climate Change, and is therefore a paid government adviser. Lord Krebs and his gang of environmentalist chums are therefore doing their anti-liberal-society dirty work on the public payroll.
It seems to me that his position is entirely untenable. Amber Rudd should sack him.
Reader Comments (62)
Good point by kellydown. Reveals a lot of their arrogant mindset. A cheap shot intended to diminish an opponent's credibility. W******.
EO. Thanks for that. Seems to be my day to be reading interesting things.
But what do you think the greenies are, stupidi or banditi? Bit of both perhaps, tilting towards the stupidi. Bet they think themselves intelligenti, proving their stupidi status.
How would the greenies classify us deniers/sceptics? I as a former oil company employee would definitely be considered banditi.
What we need is a relativistic version of the theory.
Cipollas point of course, is that the crooks and thieves are not necessarily harmful to the system. Their victims lose but they gain. Not nice, but the growth of the system is unaffected.
With stupid people, the system loses , everyone loses.
and if that does not sum up the greenies in one sentence, I don't know what does.
E0. But my point was that some greenies and I those masquerading as greenies (like those heavily promoting renewables) are in it for profit, influence or prestige. By definition therefore they are "banditi", foolish banditi!
The other aspect that Cipolla does not cover is that the inhabitants of one of the sectors will view those in other sectors quite differently from how those other people view themselves. Nobody would consider themselves stupidi, greenies would consider us as stupidi or banditi, whereas we would not. Everything is relative.
An interesting concept but one that, if considered more carefully , founders.
In German the word Krebs means cancer.
Mike. that's bad
but the English is much , much worse
Why did Lord Krebs become an ornithologist rather than a crustaceaologist?
Oh, good grief!
For reasons I cannot fathom in myself, I had a look at The “Conversation” on this topic… this lead on to reading about ocean acidification on ”Science” Daily, and then pursuing a line on how to Stop Global Warming…
We are doomed!
The “Conversation” is anything but, as Paul Matthews, Clyde Spencer and Cliff Berg found out when offering some mild criticism of Krebs. Will de Freitas (not, I sincerely hope, any relative of Chris) quickly leaping down their individual throats for daring – yes, daring! – to question the meme! (I am reluctant to post on there as they seem to question my name. Meh... their loss...)
Ocean acidification, according to “Science” Daily (an ironic title, given that so little science seems to be actually involved in any conclusions reached): “Ocean conditions are already more extreme than those experienced by marine organisms and ecosystems for millions of years,” the researchers say in the latest issue of the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution. In other words, an unsubstantiated reduction in oceanic pH (which has never really been verified) from 8.3 (the commonly assumed figure) to 8.2 (also commonly assumed, as there really has been limited monitoring to establish any of these figures, so much of it is just guesswork) is giving us extremes not seen for millions of years? It makes one wonder about the poor creatures living in estuaries, where the pH might even sink into true acidification of <7; funny how they manage to survive…
From “Science” Daily, I followed the link to find out how to Stop Global Warming… Oh, dear… Will this madness ever end?!
RR. So called ocean acidification is a very strange non scare. It is claimed by many (including marine biologists who should know better) that reduced ocean alkalinity causes a reduction in the concentration of carbonate ions and this means that calcifying organisms ranging from corals to coccolithophores will struggle to create their carbonate skeletons. Unfortunately for this hypothesis these organisms use the bicarbonate ion, which increases in its concentration with decreasing oceanic alkalinity. Calcification releases protons from the bicarbonate that enhance photosynthesis, either by the calcifyers in the case of coccolithophores, or by symbiotic photosynthetic zoozanthellae in the case of corals. Decreased alkalinity should therefore increase the viability of calcifying organisms, and this is shown in the real world. Yet the doomsters would have you think otherwise.
Mr K.: fascinating information – thank you! I shall now nick it, and use it whenever and wherever I can.
RR the relevant starting point is a 1997 paper by McConnaughey and Whelan in Earth Science Reviews (vol.42, pp 95-117). Unfortunately I've failed to find anywhere you can read it for free. I think it's one of the better papers I have ever read. It explains everything from how coral reefs can thrive in nutrient deficient oceans to why plants in deserts have calcified root systems. Enjoy.
If you read it, I would be interested in your impressions.
Look at the size of that pinky finger up by his chin. Yikes!
Eugene WR Gallun