THE MAKING OF IRREVERSIBLE CORPORATE REVOLUTION: OSBORNE BANS FUTURE DEFICITS AS CAMERON BANS BBC JOURNALISM

camoshawhaw“Oh I say haw haw haw, what a perfectly ridiculous idea”

Two unconstitutional laws in one day from the Party that used to stand for individual freedom.

The Chancellor – economics illiterate George Osborne – is set to launch a law commiting all future governments to run a Budget surplus in perpetuity. There are strong constitutional legal precedents against doing such a thing, in that it quite obviously comes under the heading of passing laws to stop reversal of a political policy choice. But even setting that aside, it is ridiculous for an adult in public office to declare that in future all government spending must remain in the black: how would it have been in 1940 if the War Coalition had been unable to borrow in order to fight Hitler?

The Prime Minister – BBC charter illiterate David Cameron – wants to pass a law demanding that the BBC be impartial during the EU in/out referendum “as that is supposed to be part of its job”.

Nowhere in the six purpose remits given to the BBC under the revised 2013 Charter is there any requirement to be ‘impartial’. If BBC journalists uncover something illegal and scandalous, how are they supposed to be impartial about it? The BBC is required only to have the highest journalistic standards of reporting and verifying the news. That is something entirely different – and rightly so.

Under ‘Accountability’ this requirement for the validity of news stories is reinforced with the words ‘will actively seek the views of and engage with audiences in order to get the best out of the BBC for licence fee payers’. Again, this is not impartiality.

For example, suppose during the EU referendum, a prominent pro-campaigner makes a speech saying that “the constitutional probity, accounts diligence and corruption-free nature of the European Commission is beyond question”. That would be a lie, and an easy lie to prove. Is the BBC then to report the speech, or should it also be diligent and feature a no-campaigner of equal prominence quoting evidence to prove the mendacity?

In a lecture that could almost have been aimed at polticised legislation of the sort Cameldung is obviously after, the BBC Charter Section 4 on impartiality states unequivocally: (my emphasis)

‘Impartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences. It applies to all our output and services – television, radio, online, and in our international services and commercial magazines. We must be inclusive, considering the broad perspective and ensuring the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected..[but]….Due impartiality is often more than a simple matter of ‘balance’ between opposing viewpoints. Equally, it does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles.’

Quite so: the discussion on a BBC Channel of lawless bullying within EU/EC/ECB/Eurogroupe that has taken place in relation to Greece, Cyprus and Spain cannot be conducted by remaining ‘neutral’.

As with Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell before them, Cameron and Osborne are trying to make their revolution permanent – and the BBC their lapdog – by passing legislation of no public value whatsoever, and of a kind that goes way beyond British constitutional usage and precedent. They are in fact an attack on democratic principles and personal liberty. So in reality, the BBC would be duty bound by its own Charter to question them as of now.

The BBC won’t do that, of course, because the BBC is running scared. And this post will have little or no effect on the debate, because most UK citizens are too thick or dumbed down to grasp the difference between impartiality and social responsibility.

The Government is setting out here to hamper the independence of future British administrations, and one of our most important principles, BBC independence

Thanks to the Labour Party’s niche metrobollocks, attacks on the BBC, and disdain for a united front against corporate fascism….well blow me down with yet another legal instrument, we’ve got corporate fascism in full triumphal flow.

What a self-inflicted mess this all is.

Earlier at The Slog: Are you a Nazi or a Soviet? You must choose – it is the law, so there.

68 thoughts on “THE MAKING OF IRREVERSIBLE CORPORATE REVOLUTION: OSBORNE BANS FUTURE DEFICITS AS CAMERON BANS BBC JOURNALISM

  1. The BBC is not exactly a force for social good if it insists on stealing from the poor to feed the rich. This is precisely what it promotes with its output on ‘climate change’. It has its own agenda and non in the BBC dare to question it. It has in fact gone rogue.

    Like

  2. the BBC as is should be reborn. As a directly ad funded private enterprise free from licence fee funding which serves onky to politicise it .

    Like

  3. Cameron’s straight jacket for the BBC is simply designed to move attention from his own hypocritical position on the EU negotiations. Cameron is welded into the EU deep state machinery and all this referendum chicanery is mere windowdressing. Cameron will be sent home from Brussels with a few paltry concessions which he will try and sell as some kind of watershed landmark achievement of masterful statesmanship. We know of course that they will be nothing like this.

    Like JW says, the linguistic turn used by this government will convince everyone it is raining when in fact Cameron is urinating on our heads, and we are expected to like it.

    Like

  4. Like Minister Neville Chamberlain came back from Germany and claim we have peace in our time, we will have David Cameron returning from Germany singing the praises of what a brilliant deal he has for the United Kingdom.

    Like

  5. The BBC are impartial about covering up paedophilia in Parliament, so Cameron won’t have to bother passing a law to ensure it.

    Like

  6. The more private media press distort impartiality then the more the BBC is open to attacks of impartiality by being impartial & giving the opposing view as the charter demands,Cameron/libertarians right wing doesn’t want impartiality they want one voice, one mantra for remember neoliberal flat earth economics is economics & the amount of times i have been blocked from those mentioned above for pointing out the opposite?blocking the BBC is their aim,anti free speech,deny others their rights to be herd to protect their privilege because believe me you will not be herd or get a hearing in the private press!

    Like

  7. Do you really believe that all other forms of media i)haven’t got similar problems ii) knew full well & never reported it (until their own illegal actions came to light)

    Like

  8. Budget surplus forever … implication in a Keynes economy where you CTRL-P enough to deflate the soverign debt at the expense of the poorest already will be to create even more don’t you think?

    They will CTRL-P the extra needed for the bufget surplus and screw the poor over in the process because THEY will have legislated for THEMSELVES to do this. Very close to the Frenc concept of let them eat cake! The poorest to be stuffed even more now in the name of the legalised budget surplus.

    This is binding the taxpayer (all the mugs out there) to pay any debt government decides to run up with no accountability just to ensure a surplus is achieved. Dumb sheep!

    Think an apt thought is f**k you Osborne / Cameron in the above process and may you be GENETICALLY ERASED just to get rid of your kind that is no different to financially strangling the poorest using CTRL-P.

    Like

  9. Put simply…. Its all a load of bolusk anyway ! What is to stop the next government from abolishing the Osbourne law and go on a spending spree ? Indeed in a couple of years time I could imagine the Cameldung U turning (has some form here) on the law as the brown smelly hits the spinnery whirlygig…..

    As to the Beeb…… I’m with JW on this front ! I don’t like that it seems to have ‘collective groupthink’ and appears to have become the self designated ministry of truth…. But I’d rather it was reformed into the educational cum investigative cum honest reporter of “what’s going on ere then” institution which it really did used to be (IMHO). To do this however will take root and branch lopping and an absolute aversion within to anyone uttering a term such as “you can’t say that”…. But the corporate murkdoc muck spreading its filth as the main purveyor of ‘truth and honesty’ in the UK makes puking seem like an enjoyable way to eat a meal. The thing that brought us ‘The Sun’ having control of propaganda and ‘deaducation’…..I think would be a disastrous plan !

    Like

  10. I often give the BBC a hard time on JW’s threads and I still find their odious and repressive licence fee collection mechanism offensive. BUT to give the BBC their due, they have, from time to time, made some inspirational TV which truly has informed, educated and entertained. In the case of the this all three simultaneously.
    (available to watch FREE on thoughtmaybe.com)

    Like

  11. IP – one of my favourite authors, David Gemmell (now sadly no longer with us), once described politicians as men who could convince us that turds were honeycakes … and then actually have us enjoy eating them. Your description of Cameron piddling on our heads and remarking on the inclement weather as he does so would, I am sure, have had Mr. G nodding in approval.

    What really dismays me is the sheer number of people ready to be persuaded that the fat-headed fool is actually fighting on our behalf and are poised to scrawl their mark in the box with the invisible heading, “Sign away your right to self-government and independence here; your future as an indentured serf is ours to do with as we will”. I rather fear that the shameless bugger will get away with it too …

    Like

  12. In all seriousness, Osborne must be very worried about the level of productivity in the UK and also the strength of sterling going forward.
    The speech to Mansion House is his way of soothing the many nerves in these areas.
    There will have to be long overdue and savage cuts in the Public sector.

    Like

  13. Bitter Lake superb – and also just about everything he’s ever done. As far as the BBC is concerned, however, he is one of the few exceptions to the current rule of lalala and common purpose and manages this because his ability and reputation allow him to be largely independent.

    Like

  14. The biggest impact this will have is on debate Paul krugman article during the election on running permanent surpluses could be illegal at the next election for it advocates breaking the law,Any party advocating against austerity could be certainly labelled even possible charged with NVE & advocating law breaking??? stifling debate & ability to offer alternatives?

    Like

  15. Um, not quite following you there Helper.
    The BBC accepts that climate change is real and is happening now, thus its output reflects that view, as supported by the consensus view amongst the experts.
    Climate change is affecting the poor more than the rich – from Brazil to India to Bangladesh to remote Pacific island nations, the brunt of the effects are currently being experienced by poor people.
    Therefore the BBC is supporting the plight of the poor.
    I fail to understand who you think the BBC is stealing from, and who they are giving said alleged stolen funds to.
    Although, I shouldn’t be surprised. Logical thinking and climate science Denial are not often seen hand in hand, after all. If ever.

    Like

  16. BBC news is rubbish. It creates a bubble for the viewers which is safe, sterile, insulated, fluffy and cuddly. It’s an insult to the intelligence. Compare and contrast other news channels, even Foxnews, which at least is honest enough to lay it’s cards on the table where the viewer knows it’s politics. Foxnews covers the appalling mess Obama is making and is virtually alone in exposing the shenanigans surrounding Hillary Clinton’s run for the presidential candidacy and the scandal therein.
    Watching the BBC news is like watching one of the millions of TV adverts which have proliferated over the past few years where everything from financial services to medicines consist of cartoons, silly set piece perfect family scenarios with voiceovers by actors with silly, child-like voices.
    Don’t the producers ever watch Bloomberg, CNN and a host of other slicker news outlets? Even when they try to modernize their output it’s as if it’s been through an electronic sterilizer putting it back where it started – safe and boring.
    An indication of this nonsense can be seen when the guy and chick combo reading the news script spend half their time being oh so polite to each other with lots of “Simon, thank you” etc. etc.
    As for their environmental coverage, well that’s been mentioned above where the official diktat discriminates against those whose views on climate change are reasoned, sensible and of course absolutely true.
    Sorry but it’s time this mouthpiece for frustrated lefties is shut down.
    By the way, I’m not a right winger before you start characterizing me as one.
    Having said that the one reason to keep this part of BBC programming going is Andrew Neil – El Supremo in his field.

    Like

  17. Questions to ask yourself after reading that Forbes article…
    a) Do governments actually use double entry book-keeping?
    b) In the example given, where does the extra $100 taxes come from?
    c) Why is there no mention of the role of banks in credit creation, and the power of central banks in setting money supply and interest rates?
    d) Why is the case of a balanced budget not presented, where the government’s main role is to ensure that all spending is matched to income?
    e) In an inter-connected, global world, are the examples a bit too simplistic? Does the local case as presented hold true if expanded globally?
    f) If the premise of the article is true, how much budget deficit can or should be tolerated in order to create more private wealth? At what point should private wealth be forced back into reducing government budget deficits?

    Well, it IS exam season – no reason just the teenagers should have all the fun!!

    Like

  18. If you think CNN is slicker why don’t you hoof it back to USA along
    with all those climate deniers- you’d clearly feel far more at home there.
    Lefties- you absolutely must be joking- the BBC is now a scared rightwing mouthpiece- and a very substantial number of key journalists are right wing. Nick Robinson for example-, John Humphries, recently retired Jeremy Paxman etc

    Like

  19. Because the BBC is funded principally by your TV tax I believe their views should piss off people equally. If you find yourself agreeing to everything you see on the BBC then they are not doing their job correctly.

    Like

  20. If only hearing one side of the story is your idea of being honest then i really think you should stick to fox,because your obviously not interested in even trying to find truth or perspective

    Like

  21. So, let me get this straight: you want a 25% reduction in broadcast output (time the ad breaks in any popular ITV show), from a station that dare not offend its paymasters, i.e. business, instead of paying less than 50p/day for a huge range of (often niche) output. No, thanks i rarely watch TV, & I admit that it’s far from perfect, but even so I’d be happy to pay substantially more to keep the Beeb ad free.

    Like

  22. Well I no longer trust anything the BBC say anymore since Savile.

    And while we’re on the subject of left leaning papers – is anyone else pissed off with the Guardian the last year or so? It is so pro-feminist at the cost of male views it is hurting. it has done amazing stuff with Wikileaks, Snowden but the filler stuff re fighting for women’s rights is total nonsense. The idea that these cosseted female writers in London can identify with extremely brave women in Pakistan, India and the medieval Middle East is laughable. Chalk and cheese.

    Like

  23. Sorry, I can’t agree with that. “…directly ad funded private enterprise free from licence fee funding…”.

    So, we get yet another channel with news fed via BuzzFeed or similar…and more cr4p U.S. programmes…great!

    Sky 24hr news shows CBS Evening News overnight! WhoTF wants that?

    If anyone paying the annual licence fee, who doesn’t think that what they get from the B.B.C. is just about the best value you find a for 24hr TV (and probably the best radio network in the world) service, they’re out of their tiny mind, and IMHO don’t deserve the B.B.C.

    Leave our B.B.C. alone!

    Like

  24. Agree with you about B.B.C. news, it is paltry. Their coverage of the MH-17 disaster was an absolute disgrace, the editors should be ashamed of themselves. Sadly, and stupidly, they have got rid of a lot of their best reporters, and replaced them with ‘talking heads’. But as you say, those like Andrew Neil do indeed make it bearable.

    Having said that, there’s an awful lot more to the B.B.C. than just news. Great entertainment, documentary programming, and never forgetting B.B.C radio.

    Like

  25. So true Caratacus, what pains me is that he has now become a master of the dark arts of linguistic biasing and is abusing science to get his agenda across. I agree that the EU referendum is probably a foregone conclusion as Cameron and his EU puppet masters will use subtle methods to skew the debate in their favour.

    Like

  26. Didn’t the BBC decide 10 years or so ago that Climate Science was settled and that they would not countenance any criticism of Global Warming? Banned any discussion on Global Warming apart from what the BBC felt we should know.

    Like

  27. Yes. And a properly functioning media would expose Osborne as a hypocrite who is incapable of containing the country’s chronic and worsening overspending, never mind creating a surplus. But then why would the establishment media expose their own stooge?

    Like

  28. Osborne is quite clearly not the full ticket…. what we need is an expose like JW did on Gordon Brown, the man is high as a kite.

    Like

  29. @Rowan “The BBC accepts that climate change is real and is happening now, thus its output reflects that view, as supported by the consensus view amongst the experts. ” …hmm .. the real consensus view amongst real experts isthat there is no proff that man is ccausing climate change ; There is not ione document on the internet that PROVES man mad CO2 is causing either walming or cooling ..surely this is a pre-requisite given the vats sums of money dedicated to climate change propaganda ( research) . Note also that its always warming in places no-one ever visits or in spheres where we have no idea waht teh impact will be . CO2 remains a trace gas in our atmosphere , and a vital one at that .

    Like

  30. There’s a perfectly rational explanation: the Chancer had, in fact, marched all the way to Bolivia and back the previous evening and again that very morning. This left him with insufficient time or opportunity to ‘powder his nose’ (again) before the session. One’s entitled to look a bit peculiar under such circumstances..

    Like

  31. So you recognised my old persona as the Morningstar as a Gemmel fan ! (Possibly)
    Yes Gemmel span a good yarn though some of his later stuff got a tad samey IMHO…. Still miss his productions for all that and his research was pretty sound I found !

    Like

  32. Dunno where you get your information from, but a study last year showed that there is a 97% consensus that global warming is a) real and b) a result of human activity, predominantly burning fossil fuels.
    There is a “vats” amount of money being spent – on promoting dis-information about the state of earth’s climate, trying to pretend that warming isnt happening, when actually every decade since the 1940s has been hotter than the last. And 2015 is currently on track to be the hottest year ever recorded.
    It is not “always warming in places no-one visits” – unless no-one visits Brazil, Australia, California, Alaska, Siberia (I could go on) or Central England (the latter area having the longest running temperature series, going back a couple of hundred years – guess what, showing a warming trend).
    It is also not true that we “have no idea waht teh impact” will be – we know that a warmer world will, for example, have reduced (or no) ice caps and glaciers; and the impact of that will be an eventual rise in sea levels of several hundred feet.

    I do agree with you that CO2 is a vital gas in the atmosphere, being as it helps keep the air warm after the sun has set. If the atmosphere only contained gases such as oxygen and nitrogen (transparent to long-wave radiation) all the heat energy accumulated during the day would escape at night instead of being partially trapped in the atmosphere.

    There are plenty of documents on the Internet, and published in journals, that support AGW. You might not care to make the effort to read and understand them, but they are there.

    Like

  33. Oh – do you perhaps think the BBC should present “the other view” as a matter of “balance” even though the Denier point of view relies on dodgy science and cherry picked data?

    FFS folks, the basic underlying science re AGW – that CO2 traps heat – was first outlined over 100 years ago and has yet to be disproved. It is also indisputable that burning fossil fuels creates CO2 (and water) whilst reducing oxygen – all of which is happening and is measurable.

    So yeah, let’s waste even more time “discussing” a matter that should have been settled decades ago if not for Denialist propaganda that has to be debunked over and over and over again.
    http://Www.skepticalscience.com
    Top left hand menu.
    Debunked climate myths.
    That Deniers STILL can’t let go of.

    Like

  34. @JB indeed it is speculation based on models which have not even come close to predicting the close to 20 year hiatus in the small amount of increase over 50 odd years as CO2 has consistently risen. You must remember that Rowan is a ‘true believer’ and as such would agree with the BEEB pushing this agenda ! Probably a nice caring guy but a luvvie in the bubble ! As the whole shabang basically kicked off with the hockey stick which has been thoroughly rubbished years ago it seems imprudent to wonder how much tax money government will continue to steal on the back of the scam. Cuz that’s really what it’s all about !

    Like

  35. if the global warming thing turns out to be bollox then where does it leave stuff like the scarcity of oil? Anyone heard of William Engdahl?

    Like

  36. The scarcity of oil is another myth… There is plenty to go around and that’s without tracking etc. Have a look at empty wells which are mysteriously refilling and the Russian 20 year old experiment which cast serious doubt on it being ‘fossil’ based.

    Bear in mind that ‘peak oil’ HSS been just around the corner since I was studying geography many decades ago and you realise that the illusion of scarcity for decades kept prices high…. And now that its not all gone its been made ‘toxic’ enough to be heavily taxed both directly and via the green tripe ! Government loves money (your money) to give itself the means to enrich itself, its cronies and buy itself perpetual existence…. Which is why IT will keep on with the greenery until they think it’ll cost them their just desserts….. Note how making something scary manipulated a cameldung victory….. Same sh1t in different colour !

    Like

  37. Sorry a bit late to this post , but this is brilliant Ossie , he can cut welfare to the bone , to get the economy into the black, if Labour repeal the law they get branded as profligate spenders, thus re-causing all our economic woes since 2010 through to 2020, we are masters of the economy, etc vote Tory for ever. Well until the s*** hits the fan and the 3 big economic levers are swung into place and we head downwards , EU referendum, investment stops growth stalls till the thing is over , the austerity cuts depress demand even further among the people in the real spending world, and we really enter a real deflationary state. The big test is this 1/4’s growth figures is it back on the up as the Tories promise or back on the shrinking faster than a polar bears nuts like I predict. We will see how it pans out.

    Like

  38. Garet Jax – definitely!

    Gemmell’s spare style of writing never palled for me. The only book of his I have never read is “White Knight, Black Swan” (R. Harding) but I have hopes that a reprint will be available one day. – certainly can’t afford/justify the stratospheric prices being demanded for old paperbacks at the moment.

    Like

  39. 1) there is no hiatus. Keep up to date with the research, please. It has been discussed extensively recently after all. And the warming trend is still as predicted – go read Tamino over at OpenMind for all the statistical details.
    2) the hockey stick is still popping up all over the place and has never been reputably disproved. Only delusional Deniers think they have disproved it. Wasn’t there something, let me see, oh yes, Michael Mann successfully suing his detractors. The evidence, y’see, is in his favour.
    3) riiiight, the fact that the earth’s climate is warming is all a scam for governments to steal tax money. Except, aren’t US Senators some of the strongest Deniers of climate change? As are the current Canadian and Australian governments. Are they double-scamming, perhaps? And presumably all this alleged stolen tax money is used to bribe the hundreds of thousands of researchers working world-wide to lie their asses off. And cooperate to produce consistent but false results. And tolerate disgusting, hate-inciting comments from Deniers.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Logical thinking and climate science Deniers don’t mix. Note the attempt to dismiss me as a “true believer”, the disinformation about key aspects of climate science, the assumptions about my gender and sexual persuasion, and the obligatory “it’s a scam” reference. These are all rhetorical techniques used when your position is weak and your best bet to “win” is to attack your opponent personally. But this shouldn’t be a political debate; the politics should be reserved for discussing what we should DO, not for arguing against the now overwhelming evidence that earth’s atmosphere is warming dangerously fast.

    Like

  40. Strong claims like “wells are refilling” need a bit of supporting evidence please. Just a link will do.

    Let us define “peak oil”. It is the time at which the rate of oil production is the highest.
    Current production numbers are for Crude plus Condensate. (it makes the numbers look better)
    Strip out the Condensate, and Crude production actually peaked about a decade ago.

    If there is still plenty of oil to go round, why are the Americans so busy spending a fortune fracking really tight rocks? Why is Canada destroying millions of acres of forest to get at what is essentially oily sand? Do you not see these acts as signs of scraping the bottom of the barrel? Considering that 40 years ago, all you had to do was stick a pipe in the ground? Can you argue against the fact that discovery has in no way kept pace with production for decades?

    Garet Jax, if a doctor warns you that if you don’t change your lifestyle it will kill you, do you complain if you don’t fall down dead the next day? Can you comprehend that a warning can be made well in advance of the danger? That it takes decades to switch energy systems, so decades of warning was needed? Decades that were then squandered by idiots deluding themselves that earth’s resources were infinite.

    http://Www.peakoilbarrel.com
    Read the comments too.
    Just possibly you might learn something.

    Like

  41. @Rowan – You may well be right that climate change is down to human activity, and the precautionary principle would suggest that we should limit the production of greenhouse gases to be on the safe side. I would argue that we should be phasing out our profligate use of fossil fuels anyway, even if burning them had no impact on the climate as they are a limited resource and cannot possibly last for ever, so we should be expending the fuel that remains in investigating and creating sustainable alternatives. Neoliberals have never been able to understand the difference between physics and economics as the UK’s ‘dash to gas’ of the 80’s and Canada’s more recent tar sands obscenity demonstrates.

    I have little doubt that climate change is occurring though I am unqualified to judge the strength of the evidence for CO2 levels being primarily responsible. I do however take issue with the …97% of scientists thing though. I’m not sure science is democratic in the sense of majority opinion being conclusive. The history of science is littered with examples where the consensus view was incomplete or even completely wrong. In such cases, those whose alternative ideas were ridiculed by the majority often became celebrated and remembered while those who professed the majority view are forgotten.

    Like

  42. As I may have mentioned, America is now controlled by a small clique of committed (certifiably insane) nazi’s. (see; Operation Paperclip, Porter Goss and the gestapo, etc, etc.)

    These people, who completely embrace the concepts of fascism, eugenics, race superiority and other social diseases, have been dominating british politics for several years, through various traitors within ‘our’ own political system.

    Using methods such as economic blackmail, military intimidation, bribing british political traitors, infiltration by various cults, and social subversion they have systematicly destroyed all british power globally, starting with the british empire.

    They are the enemy. But nobody has the bollocks to say it. Its far easier to just take the money.

    On a lighter note, our fascist/stalinist overlords have just appointed Roland Freisler as the head of Reich Ministry of Justice (formerly known as the judiciary) and the Volksgerichtshof and one Joseph Goebbels as the head of Reich Ministry of Propaganda (formerly known as the BBC).

    Two splendid chaps who certainly can be relied on to do the ‘right thing.’

    SEIG HEIL !

    Like

  43. @Caratacus

    Strangely enough I am constantly on the lookout for the same book in the 2nd hand market and totally agree about the ridiculous prices being sought for his work !

    Like

  44. @rowan
    Most of what you have written is ut5er bollusk. I understand however that someone who’s parents named them after a tree was always going to struggle to be anything other 5han green (in oh so many ways)….. Problem with the sources you point to is that they only confirm your opinion ! Come back and tell me something about the lies which have been exposed and why these authorities felt they had to alter data if the science is so convincing….. On second thoughts….. No please don’t !!!

    Like

  45. @rowan

    And for last time on this thread…. If you arent aware of the issues I’ve mentioned you simply haven’t done your research thoroughly enough.! Ive been looking at this since the internet was young alongside other issues… Noone who is serious about finding out facts asks for a link as proof….. So many links confirming what people WANT confirming…. It takes a bit more effort than “link please” !

    Like

  46. And we’re back onto the personal attacks….. How sad.

    Altering data. Hmmm. Only a couple of years ago the Denier-sphere was up in arms DEMANDING that raw temperature data was adjusted to account for the Urban Heat Island effect that Deniers were CONVINCED was the only reason for the recorded rise in average global temperature over the past few decades. Anthony Watts at WUWT wrote hundreds of articles denouncing the unadjusted data and insisting that it was corrected for known biases.
    Thing is, the raw data has always been adjusted to account for known biases. Change the time of observations? You have to adjust the data to account for this. Change your thermometer? You have to calibrate the old thermometer with the new one, then adjust the data accordingly. Switch from predominantly ship-intake to predominently buoys to measure ocean temperature? You have to calibrate one against the other, then adjust the data.
    Garet, you really don’t have a clue about climate science, you show it in every comment you make on the subject. You espouse a typical Denier point of view, and a typical Denier way of arguing by avoiding the subject, making personal attacks on me, and denouncing the whole subject as a lie or a scam without a single shred of supporting evidence. “Because I don’t believe it” is not good enough. To be convincing, to overturn the whole AGW theory, you would need to counter all of the physics covered on Isaac Held’s blog. If you can do that, I will eat your dirty socks for dinner and send you a photo as proof.

    Like

  47. I asked for a link because I personally can’t find any evidence to support your statement that empty wells are mysteriously refilling. Refilling with what? Bullshit? Expectations? Delusions? I supplied a link to PeakOilBarrel, where there are numerous posts and tens of thousands of comments discussing production decline rates, yet nothing about your mysterious refilling mechanism. If the people in the field aren’t discussing this miracle that will apparently keep us in oil forever as wells magically refill, I think it reasonable to ask you where you’re getting your information from. It is a game-changer after all, if true.

    I would love to be convinced that Peak Oil is not a concern and that climate change isn’t really happening. It would save me worrying about the future of my daughter, for one. So please, do your best to convince me – but with evidence, not shrill accusations and refusals to provide links.

    Like

  48. Canexpat,
    How about this more accurate description of the 97% consensus?
    The study first used an online database to extract around 12,000 scientific papers (across a wide range of earth science disciplines) that used the terms “global warming” or “climate change”. Then the abstracts of those papers were independently rated into 5 categories – explicitly stating that humans are the cause of warming ; implicitly stating that humans are the cause ; no position espoused in the abstract ; implicit statement that humans are not the cause ; explicit statement that humans are not the cause. In conjunction, authors of those papers in the study were invited to self-rate their own papers (the full paper, not just the abstract).
    Both methods came up with a figure of around 97% of either implicit or explicit support of the statement that humans are the predominent cause of the warming that earth is experiencing.

    I do not think that science is “littered” with examples of the consensus view being wrong. Usually when people refer to something like this, they mean Galileo (who of course was fighting religious doctrine – a consensus view, sure, but not one based on science). Einstein didn’t prove Newton “wrong” – Newtonian physics successfully got us to the moon after all.
    I would rather say that the history of humanity is littered with examples of doctrine and belief stomping all over evidence and facts. That many scientists have been persecuted for trying to point out the bleeding obvious (Galileo again, and Michael Mann in modern times).

    Like

  49. @Rowan I respectfully disagree. Whilst it is true that the defenders of the Ptolemaic model cited scripture in their defence, Galileo’s ideas were actually a worse fit for the known data. It was not until Kepler cited eliptical orbits rather than circular orbits that the observational data was able to show a heliocentric model had the upper hand over the geocentric epicycle model. When I wrote “littered” this may be a slight exaggeration, but off the top of my head, Newton’s corpuscular model of light, the caloric theory of heat, Franklin’s electrical fluid, spontaneous generation and Newton’s instantaneous action at a distance were all supported by the consensus at the time. Kuhn’s approach to the history of science would suggest that many paradigms are adopted following a ‘propaganda’ battle between the proponents of different models. Indeed it has been suggested that proponents of the old paradigm often never change their minds, but simply become old and retire, while those steeped in the new paradigm take over the levers of scientific power. Anyway, as I stated, you may well be right about human activity being the primary cause of climate change, but as the cliche “correlation is not necessarily causation” appies here, I am wary of statements that are made in such an emphatic way, especially in a situation where the usual tools of the “scientific method” are of limited use.

    Like

  50. @rowàn just a suggestion but if you really want links a plenty I suggest you take your views on greenery over to breitbart where you’ll get all you can handle from bloggers who both know their stuff and would trash every argument you can dream up….. And I’m not a particular Delingpole fan – but the comments are usually informative..,..

    Like

  51. Garet – not giving a straight answer to a reasonable request leads me to think you are unable to provide the goods. You claim oil wells are mysteriously refilling; that there is no scarcity of oil. I say such a strong claim, that flies in the face of the laws of thermodynamics, needs supporting evidence. You seem unable to provide it, and indeed try to lead the discussion off at tangents.

    By the way
    PeakOilBarrel gets hundreds of comments of genuine discussion on every post.
    Breitbart gets a few tens of comments, and I haven’t found a decent discussion yet…

    Like

  52. You’re a liar, Rowan. On many points, but I’ll pick just one: “…every decade since the 40s has been hotter than the last. ”
    Complete Bollix: 40s to 70s was a triple decade of cooling, such that “scientists” & media were warning of the coming ice age.
    70s to 90s were a three decade warming period, which peaked 1998. Satellite figures show temperatures plateauing since then, with a small cooling trend apparent since 2002, which has not persisted long enough to be statistically significant.
    You’re a liar, Rowan.

    Like

  53. Thanks for the reasoned reply, Canexpat, it makes a nice change from the evasiveness of Garet.
    Let me frame the question a few different ways.
    If the observed surface and lower troposphere warming (and ice melting, and ocean acidification, and stratospheric cooling etc.) ISN’T a result of human activity adding CO2 to the atmosphere, what IS it a result of?
    What have we missed, after 100+ years of collecting data about the climate?
    If there is some unknown natural cycle causing the warming, how long is the cycle and when will it reverse? Why is there no trace of this mysterious cycle in geological history?
    If CO2 isn’t causing the warming, all our knowledge of molecular structure, electron orbits and their excitation levels, quantum energy packet sizes, IR energy absorption – basically, an awful lot of basic physics – would have to be redone. See Isaac Held’s blog for all the physics background you will ever need wrt climate!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s