My local Mp the proven libelist and windbag Paul Flynn is off on his moral high horse again, a dangerous position for someone who has been fined 30K+ for libel and who has made bad taste remarks about farmers and shotguns. Well it would appear that he has got himself all wound up over the Channel 4 debunking of the great "Global Warming" myth and so the MP for Newport has to defend the cause of the left.
So yet again its time to fisk our MP - well someone has to correct him. The comments in dark red are mine and the rest is the inane rubbish pumped out by a pro communist, pro tax, pro nanny state, pro dictator moonbat, oh and pro nuke(but only for his old buddy in North Korea that is). You can see the Channel 4 program here: watch it online. Over to libelist Paul Flynn MP. Yes go on file an Early Day Motion, after all that will make no difference to anything, oh appears that he has.
An appalling Channel Four programme parading as scientific comment was dangerous propaganda. The following Early day Motion will appear of the Commons Order paper from 14th March. See George Monbiot article in the Guardian - below.
On an Early Day
Channel Four and Science
That this House scorns the junk science of Channel Four’s “Great Global Warming Swindle”, which presented previously discredited claims as facts; notes that the work of Dr Eigil Friis-Christenson has been repeatedly exposed as mistaken and incompetent and that the oceanographer Carl Wunsh has confirmed that the programme misrepresented his views: calls on Channel Four to apologise for misleading their viewers and urges them to act responsibly in future by presenting issues of prime importance in a balanced scientific manner which allow listeners to reach an intelligent judgement.
Don't let truth stand in the way of a red-hot debunking of climate change
The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy
George Monbiot Tuesday March 13, 2007 The Guardian
Were it not for dissent, science, like politics, would have stayed in the dark ages. All the great heroes of the discipline - Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein - took tremendous risks in confronting mainstream opinion. Today's crank has often proved to be tomorrow's visionary.
** A right so you are expert on Global Warming myths then Paul? I think not. How about this for a few facts: According to science, it is a very gradual increase in the temperature of the planet of about ten degrees over a century of time. Has this happened? In the past hundred years, the temperature has gone up; to the tune of one half of a degree! This increase is within the Earth's natural variation of temperature. Yes, there have been warmer winters and summers, and the temperature in the large cities has increased slightly, but throughout the years, there has been no significant change in the Earth's temperature.
Keep in mind, that the variations in climate over the years is due to natural causes, more than human interaction. Changes in the Sun's energy output, rotation of the Earth, revolution of the Earth, and debris from comets, meteors, and asteroids, actually have an effect on the climate. Add to that, dust from earthquakes and volcanoes, and we have even bigger impact from natural events. One volcanic eruption for example, puts more pollution into the atmosphere than ten years worth of human activity.
He uses the phrase "junk science" - that could equally be applied to the "evidence" for the global warming mythology that is put across as so called proven fact.
Check out these links for more: Paul Flynn is wrong
But the syllogism does not apply. Being a crank does not automatically make you a visionary. There is little prospect, for example, that Dr Mantombazana Tshabalala-Msimang, the South African health minister who has claimed Aids can be treated with garlic, lemon and beetroot, will be hailed as a genius. But the point is often confused. Professor David Bellamy, for example, while making the incorrect claim that wind farms do not have "any measurable effect" on total emissions of carbon dioxide, has compared himself to Galileo.
The problem with The Great Global Warming Swindle, which caused a sensation when it was broadcast on Channel 4 last week, is that to make its case it relies not on future visionaries, but on people whose findings have already been proved wrong. The implications could not be graver. Just as the government launches its climate change bill and Gordon Brown and David Cameron start jostling to establish their green credentials, thousands have been misled into believing there is no problem to address.
**You say that they have been proved wrong, really by who exactly? Global tempretures are affected by the activity of the Sun. The public has been mislead and billions wasted on empty geatures that will have no real affect on the planet on way or another.
[Scientists should consider stretching the truth] to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.
By Stephen H. Schneider, Prof., Dept. of Biological Sciences and Sr. Fellow Inst. for International Studies, Stanford University
The film's main contention is that the current increase in global temperatures is caused not by rising greenhouse gases, but by changes in the activity of the sun. It is built around the discovery in 1991 by the Danish atmospheric physicist Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen that recent temperature variations on Earth are in "strikingly good agreement" with the length of the cycle of sunspots.
** Ok the program interviewed assorted scientific people including the professors of meteorology and oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg; the professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia; the professor of biogeography at the University of London; the professor of Earth sciences at the University of Ottawa; the professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Alabama; a professor from the Pasteur Institute in Paris; an astrophysicist from the University of Jerusalem; a weather satellite team leader at NASA; a former editor of ‘New Scientist’; a specialist in polar sciences; a co-founder of Greenpeace; an African economist; a British meteorologist who takes money off the bookies by predicting the weather through the measurement of sunspot activity; and a Danish scientist who’s verified the Brit’s research by correlating his theory against 400 years of available data. One would think that all of these learned fellows would know more about the facts than a minor back bench windbag from the Welsh valleys but it seems that is not the case. Not for the first time Mr Flynn has appointed himself as a self learned expert in a field.
Unfortunately, he found nothing of the kind. A paper published in the journal Eos in 2004 reveals that the "agreement" was the result of "incorrect handling of the physical data". The real data for recent years show the opposite: that the length of the sunspot cycle has declined, while temperatures have risen. When this error was exposed, Friis-Christensen and his co-author published a new paper, purporting to produce similar results. But this too turned out to be an artefact of mistakes - in this case in their arithmetic.
**Ah so what about all the other scientific bods? Any comment on all of there work? Global warming is a natural feature, trying to change that is a waste of time. Now you say about tempretures rising, well they have risen many times throughout human history and before then, oh and also cooled down. Do a google search on the medieval warm period for evidence of that.
So Friis-Christensen and another author developed yet another means of demonstrating that the sun is responsible, claiming to have discovered a remarkable agreement between cosmic radiation influenced by the sun and global cloud cover. This is the mechanism the film proposes for global warming. But, yet again, the method was exposed as faulty. They had been using satellite data which did not in fact measure global cloud cover. A paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics shows that, when the right data are used, a correlation is not found.
**Would advise that you re-watch the program, the data is correct. The main fact is that solar activity is one possible, among many variables, to claim that all changes are down to human activity is something that can not be proven. Just perfect for left wing conspiracy nuts.
So the hypothesis changed again. Without acknowledging that his previous paper was wrong, Friis-Christensen's co-author, Henrik Svensmark, declared there was a correlation - not with total cloud cover but with "low cloud cover". This, too, turned out to be incorrect. Then, last year, Svensmark published a paper purporting to show cosmic rays could form tiny particles in the atmosphere. Accompanying the paper was a press release which went way beyond the findings reported in the paper, claiming it showed that both past and current climate events are the result of cosmic rays.
Oh but hang on a moment, we can discredit one scientist but what of the others? What of the Stern report, that everyone was banging on about not so long ago? Richard Tol is a professor at both Hamburg and Carnegie Mellon Universities, and is one of the world's leading environmental economists.
The Stern Review cites his work 63 times; but that does not mean he agrees with it.
"If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a Masters thesis, perhaps if I were in a good mood I would give him a 'D' for diligence; but more likely I would give him an 'F' for fail.
"There is a whole range of very basic economics mistakes that somebody who claims to be a Professor of Economics simply should not make," he told The Investigation on BBC Radio 4.
As Dr Gavin Schmidt of Nasa has shown on http://www2.blogger.com/www.realclimate.org, five missing steps would have to be taken to justify the wild claims in the press release. "We've often criticised press releases that we felt gave misleading impressions of the underlying work," Schmidt says, "but this example is by far the most blatant extrapolation beyond reasonableness that we have seen." None of this seems to have troubled the programme makers, who report the cosmic ray theory as if it trounces all competing explanations.
The film also maintains that manmade global warming is disproved by conflicting temperature data. Professor John Christy speaks about the discrepancy he discovered between temperatures at the Earth's surface and temperatures in the troposphere (or lower atmosphere). But the programme fails to mention that in 2005 his data were proved wrong, by three papers in Science magazine.
**Oh and other papers agreed with his work, oh and what of the many scientists who are also now sticking their collective heads up and finally coming out to debunk the doom sayers. Here we see classic Paul Flynn, desperate to get some free pr, desperate to take a shot at the media (channel 4) and desperate to get his face onto tv again, desperate to keep the green cash cow plodding along.
Christy himself admitted last year that he was mistaken. He was one of the authors of a paper which states the opposite of what he says in the film. "Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected."
**According to some reports, the Antarctic is cooling and is instead putting on ice. In the meantime, we are experiencing warming in the northern hemisphere.
Until recently, when found to be wrong, scientists went back to their labs to start again. Now, emboldened by the denial industry, some of them, like the film-makers, shriek "censorship!". This is the best example of manufactured victimhood I have come across. If you demonstrate someone is wrong, you are now deemed to be silencing him.
** This would be opposed to the global warming industry that makes a nice penny out of providing governments with the excuse to tax us for green reasons. Note that he says nothing on once pro global warming scientists who have since changed their minds to an anti stance. As a New Labour hack it makes me laugh to hear the phrase manufactured victimhood, after all if anyone knows about that it would be the Labour Party.
But there is one scientist in the film whose work has not been debunked: the oceanographer Carl Wunsch. He appears to support the idea that increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible for rising global temperatures. Wunsch says he was "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" by the people who made it.
This is a familiar story to those who have followed the career of the director Martin Durkin. In 1998, the Independent Television Commission found that, when making a similar series, he had "misled" his interviewees about "the content and purpose of the programmes". Their views had been "distorted through selective editing". Channel 4 had to make a prime-time apology.
** The program described how ‘environmentalism’ as we know it sprang from a very unusual alliance between Marxists, politically dispossessed by the collapse of Eastern European Communism, and right of centre groups intent on smashing union power.
Cherry-pick your results, choose work which is already discredited, and anything and everything becomes true. The twin towers were brought down by controlled explosions; MMR injections cause autism; homeopathy works; black people are less intelligent than white people; species came about through intelligent design. You can find lines of evidence which appear to support all these contentions, and, in most cases, professors who will speak up in their favour. But this does not mean that any of them are correct. You can sustain a belief in these propositions only by ignoring the overwhelming body of contradictory data. To form a balanced, scientific view, you have to consider all the evidence, on both sides of the question.
** Well I leave the cherry picking to people like Paul Flynn, after all had you picked all the facts you never would have had to stump up 30K + in a libel case.Yes I know a cheap shot, but after all its only aimed at a failed old socialist whos glory days are well behind him. Indeed I agree that in order to form a balanced view you need to look at all the evidence and when in the case of the theory of global warming the evidence is not there, or at best based on flawed models then one should not leap to the defence of the arguement without considering the fact that global warming may in fact not be happening.
But for the film's commissioners, all that counts is the sensation. Channel 4 has always had a problem with science. No one in its science unit appears to understand the difference between a peer-reviewed paper and a clipping from the Daily Mail. It keeps commissioning people whose claims have been discredited - such as Durkin. But its failure to understand the scientific process just makes the job of whipping up a storm that much easier. The less true a programme is, the greater the controversy.
**Again I say that you choose to discredit people whos knowledge of the myths of global warming is far better than your own. After all who do we trust scientists who dare to speak out, or a proven hard line communist who has been proven wrong and had to pay out a libel payment? Oh the irony, whipping up a storm something that a certain Mr Flynn has done on many an occasion. One simple question to finish, why oh why are things heating up on other planets?
Global warming on Neptune’s moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets. Must be them nasty US of A types driving four wheel drive pick up trucks.
Previous bits on eco nonsense:
http://newportcity.blogspot.com/2007/02/vclav-klaus-president-of-czech-republic.html
http://newportcity.blogspot.com/2006/11/green-party-eco-rubbish.html
http://newportcity.blogspot.com/2005/12/pollution-may-slow-global-warming-bits.html
http://newportcity.blogspot.com/2006/11/global-warming-bollocks.html
http://newportcity.blogspot.com/2006/12/bbc-lefty-bias-climate-change-hits.html
http://newportcity.blogspot.com/2006/12/global-warming-utter-bollocks.html
http://newportcity.blogspot.com/2006/08/al-gore-global-warming.html
Oh and his libel apology:
Recently Paul Flynn was involved in a libel case where he made comments about an endowment pensions company, the result of which he had to pay out damages. He was sued after he posted an attack on such companies on his website, claiming they were out to "re-rob" the victims of endowment mis-selling by dishonestly over-charging them for their services.
But he made the mistake of referring to well-regarded company Endowment Justice Ltd, which represents mis-selling victims on a "no-win, no-fee" basis. The company and its directors sued and at London's High Court Mr Flynn made a public apology for the "unjustified attack" on the claimants' integrity.
The MP as part of the settlement put the following statement on his website: On this website in February this year, I made certain statements referring to Endowment Justice Limited, one of the companies which offers assistance in obtaining compensation for those people who were mis-sold endowment policies. I have been campaigning against companies providing professional services in relation to endowment policy compensation claims, but my facts about Endowment Justice were incorrect. As a result, I wrongly accused the company and its directors Nick Keca, Marianne Fitzjohn and Graeme Webber of having previously mis-sold endowment policies and now dishonestly overcharging those self-same victims to help them obtain compensation. I am happy to clarify that neither Endowment Justice Ltd or any of its directors were ever involved in any aspect of endowment policy selling. It was therefore false and unfair to suggest that they had profited from the historic mis-selling of endowment policies. I was also incorrect in stating that Endowment Justice, which offers its services in recovering compensation on a “no-win, no-fee” basis, could charge its customers up to 40% of any compensation gained. Endowment Justice in fact charge customers 17.5% plus VAT or 22.5% plus VAT of any compensation gained. I was wrong to give the unintended impression that the company or its directors acts in any way improperly or unlawfully in providing services to those seeking compensation for endowment policy mis-selling. I would like to apologise to Endowment Justice for my allegations, and to Mr. Keca, Ms. Fitzjohn and Mr. Webber for any embarrassment or distress caused by my false remarks.
Some bits on libelist windbag and piss poor MP Paul Flynn
http://newportcity.blogspot.com/2007/03/paul-flynn-grade-prick.html
ink to the libelists anti US drivel: http://www.paulflynnmp.co.uk/newsdetail.jsp?id=469
Link to Paul Flynn EDM's: http://www.paulflynnmp.co.uk/hotnewsdetail.jsp?id=1109
http://paul-flynn.blogspot.com/2006/04/paul-flynn-mp-libelist.html
My previous articles on the libelist:
http://newportcity.blogspot.com/2007/01/i-wish-paul-flynn-mp-would-do-this.html
http://newportcity.blogspot.com/2007/01/paul-flynn-you-are-lying-treacherous.html
ID cards: id-cards-list-of-mps-who-voted-yes.
http://newportcity.blogspot.com/2006/02/paul-flynn-mp-fucktard.html
http://newportcity.blogspot.com/2006/01/paul-flynn-libelist-mp-soft-on-drugs.html
http://newportcity.blogspot.com/2006/01/some-bits-on-jessica-morden-mp.html
http://newportcity.blogspot.com/2005/12/paul-flynn-convicted-of-libel-still.html
http://newportcity.blogspot.com/2005/11/paul-flynn-pays-out-36000.html
http://newportcity.blogspot.com/2006/01/labour-isnt-working-loudmouth-libelist.html
http://newportcity.blogspot.com/2006/11/paul-flynn-supporting-commies-no.html
media stories about the libel case where MP Paul Flynn ran his mouth:
From CSC site
from icnetwork
from independent
from money.guardian
The libelists site: http://www.paulflynnmp.co.uk/
Some links: http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/02/vclav-klaus-about-ipcc-panel.html
http://www.barking-moonbat.com/index.php/weblog/quote_of_the_day_021207/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Václav_Klaus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_skeptic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_petition
Tags:Václav Klaus
Global Warming
Urban Legends
IPCC
Czech Republic
European Union
0 people have spoken:
Post a Comment