Like clockwork.

Jan 2, 2020 at 11:41 PM | Phil Clarke

Why do you still back Gergis and her lies?

Same old message from your posts:

"I am Phil Clarke, I is a w@anker."

Think about it, Clarke. You are a bad case.

You must read a lot of Oscar Wilde, Charley?

6 Conclusions
In this study we analysed processes which alter the atmo-
spheric content of carbon dioxide and δ
13
C of CO
2
using
artificial time series produced with a global carbon cycle box
model. For the investigation of these artificial time series
and their potential to be interpreted using the Keeling plot
approach, the absolute validity of our simulation scenarios
is not important. By using a simple carbon cycle model we
benefit from the fact that individual processes acting on the
carbon cycle can be switched on and off and their hypothet-
ical impacts can be analysed individually. We furthermore
developed a theoretical framework to extend the application
of the Keeling plot approach to long-term effects of terres-
trial carbon release.
All processes have been analysed...

Blah blah blah!

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250396588_On_the_application_and_interpretation_of_Keeling_plots_in_paleo_climate_research_-_Deciphering_d_13C_of_atmospheric_CO_2_measured_in_ice_cores

Shorter Clipe:

I do not understand this science, therefore I deny this science.

Meanwhile, in Australia, people take shelter on the beaches, watching their homes burn.

I mean, really, when will you people get it? What will it take? Moral Poverty indeed.

'Meanwhile, in Australia, people take shelter on the beaches'

How Churchillian of you.

I blame Eco-Nazis.

Phil Clarke – Alice in Climate Wonderland (or perhaps he is Humpty Dumpty) gives us climate science in a nutshell: mentioning uncomfortable facts is “tediously pedantic” and when he uses a word, such as “exactly”, it means just what he chooses it to mean.

Have PC an WC (as in William Connolley - with an 'e') ever been seen together?

I have rediscovered this site after a few years. I'm very pleased it is still active.

As a brief introduction, I'm appalled by lies about "Extreme weather" when most metrics show an improvement, Sea Level Rise when it is fairly steady at about 3mm pa., Record Temperatures when they are usually not or simply a consequence of warming from the LIA.

However, there is a major problem. Our government will eventually destroy our economy, industry and energy supplies on the alter of the Climate Change religion. We need to resist that.

Democratic challenge and normal debate are not an option because the BBC news and opinion shaping dominance bans any criticism or challenge. The BBC will not broadcast anything that criticises Climate change while it is happy to broadcast the most extreme and ridiculous claims of ER and Greta.

Even if criticisms can be lodged, The BBC will deploy people like Lord King and other alarmists to claim IPCC gospel to refute the claims.

This site has the potential to identify and neuter such claims and prepare a strong case to withstand BBC objections. Rather than spend hours on debating pointless trivia, this would be a worthwhile project.

I suggest that we challenge the BBC and Ofcom about their unfair climate balance and present them with a devastating case. Producing the devastating case would be a great project for this site.

Please give this some consideration. It might require some structure in terms of Project Manager, Chief Strategist, Comments Editor and and Facilitator in order to pose questions to the BH audience and select the best replies to build up a strong scientific case to make, if necessary, an ofcom level challenge to BBC climate policy.

Even if we do not take this to its ultimate purpose, preparing a dialogue that defeats the likes of Lord King will require research, definition and analyses, formulation of response and assessment of effectiveness. Such preparation is well within the capability of a wide audience of enthusiasts. We should use our vast resources to fight back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_King_(chemist)

You were vague on the detail but what you're describing sounds like the linked interviews on the Today Programme with Matt Ridley and Sir David King, December 28th.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000cpwb (around 1:33).

You described the former Chief Scientific Advisor to the government, a professor with 500 peer-reviewed papers and multiple awards to his name as 'no kind of scientist'.

What chance compiling a denier bible when you can't get basic facts right?

What chance compiling a denier bible when you can't get basic facts right?

Jan 4, 2020 at 11:51 AM Phil Clarke

Do explain your support for Gergis. She was Peer Reviewed.

" .... does the fact that he is a chemist justify his role as climate change spokesman?"

Jan 4, 2020 at 2:58 PM Radical Rodent

According to the BBC's experts, St Greta is far more qualified to answer that.

Odd, I thought you were dead against ad-hominem arguments..... LOL.

Mr Clarke – you never fail, do you? As usual, you merely attack the messenger, with no real reference to the message, other than blah blah bla-blah blah blah…..

Dec 8, 2019 at 8:57 PM Radical Rodent

a character-assassination article of Mr Ridley by George Monbiot, commonly known as “Moonbat”. Gee…. Thanks…

Jan 4, 2020 at 4:01 PM Radical Rodent

Monbiot made many points, the main ones being that Ridley's advocacy of applying free-market libertarian solutions to the environment would likely be as disastrous as his advocacy of free-market libertarian solutions when as a Director he applied them to the running of Northern Rock, and his book The Rational Optimist is strewn with significant errors and distortions.

Care to respond to those points or do you have some more funny names?

Taxpayers should not be funding professional liars

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/01/02/how-billionaires-tom-steyer-and-michael-bloomberg-corrupted-climate-science/#59c38674702c

The article is pretty much a character-assassination of Mr Ridley,

That's OK, there is no obligation on you to deal with the substance of Monbiot's arguments if you don't want to. Here are some of them, in case anyone else want's to engage with the 'Moonbat'.

The Rational Optimist is riddled with excruciating errors and distortions. Ridley claims, for example, that “every country that tried protectionism” after the Second World War suffered as a result. He cites South Korea and Taiwan as “countries that went the other way”, and experienced miraculous growth(11). In reality, the governments of both nations subsidised key industries, actively promoted exports and used tariffs and laws to shut out competing imports. In both countries the state owned all the major commercial banks, allowing it to make decisions about investment(12,13,14).

He maintains that “Enron funded climate alarmism”(15). The reference he gives demonstrates nothing of the sort, nor can I find evidence for this claim elsewhere(16). He says that “no significant error has come to light” in Bjorn Lomborg’s book The Sceptical Environmentalist(17). In fact it contains so many significant errors that an entire book – The Lomborg Deception by Howard Friel – was required to document them(18).

Ridley asserts that average temperature changes over “the last three decades” have been “relatively slow”(19). In reality the rise over this period has been the most rapid since instrumental records began(20). He maintains that “eleven of thirteen populations” of polar bears are “growing or steady”(21). There are in fact 19 populations of polar bears. Of those whose fluctuations have been measured, one is increasing, three are stable and eight are declining(22).

He uses blatant cherry-picking to create the impression that ecosystems are recovering: water snake numbers in Lake Erie, fish populations in the Thames, bird’s eggs in Sweden(23). But as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment shows, of 65 global indicators of human impacts on biodiversity, only one – the extent of temperate forests – is improving. Eighteen are stable, in all the other cases the impacts are increasing(24).

Northern Rock grew rapidly by externalising its costs, pursuing money-making schemes that would eventually be paid for by other people. Ridley encourages us to treat the planet the same way. He either ignores or glosses over the costs of ever-expanding trade and perpetual growth. His timing, as BP fails to contain the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, is unfortunate. Like the collapse of Northern Rock, the Deepwater Horizon disaster was made possible by weak regulation. Ridley would weaken it even further, leaving public protection to the invisible hand of the market.