To echo many of the Bishop Hill commenters, congratulations to Danny Weston for attending this event, for spoiling the party by actually expressing doubts out loud about what Hansen said, and above all for writing his report of the event, for an influential climate skeptic blog.

Opponents, however
...continue Danny Weston on Hansen at the LSE]]> I recommend this report by Danny Weston (guest writing at Bishop Hill) of a talk at the London School of Economics given by NASA’s James Hansen. Hansen is a manic climate alarmist, and the audience was almost entirely other manic climate alarmists. But Weston himself managed to get a question in edgeways.

To echo many of the Bishop Hill commenters, congratulations to Danny Weston for attending this event, for spoiling the party by actually expressing doubts out loud about what Hansen said, and above all for writing his report of the event, for an influential climate skeptic blog.

Opponents, however manic, need to be listened to, and argued against. The point is often made here by commenters that arguing against such people as Hansen and this LSE audience is a waste of time and effort, and there is a definite and entirely understandable trace of this feeling in Weston’s own report. Wrong, wrong, wrong. In among that audience were other doubters besides Weston, a few of whom identified themselves to Weston afterwards sotto voce, congratulating him for what he said. Genuine undecideds, and even some of the majority who flatly disagreed with Weston, may also have been impressed by Weston’s sheer guts, as well as by his arguments. And by writing it all up, Weston greatly reinforces this silent bystander effect.

Weston ends his report with these words:

All in all a thoroughly depressing experience.

I hope that responses like this, and like the many other positive comments at Bishop Hill likewise full of congratulation and admiration, will have cheered Weston up a bit, and maybe even a lot.

I’ve been recording Plebs. In the opening scene of this latest episode, the three leading characters, Marcus (who wants to be more successful while still being nice about it, the voice of concerned normality), Stylax (more of a Jack the Lad type), and Grumio (their slave), are out and about in the town, watching the ancient Roman version of the media, i.e. people orating and/or selling in
...continue Are the comedians starting to see sense about climate alarmism?]]> Plebs is a sitcom set in ancient Rome. They showed the sixth and last of (the first?) six episodes of it last night on ITV2 TV, and they’ll be showing this again tonight.

I’ve been recording Plebs. In the opening scene of this latest episode, the three leading characters, Marcus (who wants to be more successful while still being nice about it, the voice of concerned normality), Stylax (more of a Jack the Lad type), and Grumio (their slave), are out and about in the town, watching the ancient Roman version of the media, i.e. people orating and/or selling in the market place.

Mad Soothsayer Woman: “The seas will rise up and drown the people living in the lowlands …”

Doughnut Salesman: “Doughnuts!”

Mad Soothsayer Woman: “… and the sun shall beat down and burn all those people living in the hills!”

Doughnut Salesman: “Doughnuts!”

Mad Soothsayer Woman: “And those people living on the lands that are neither high nor low will also die through a combination of burning and drowning! None of you are safe! The end is nigh!!!”

Doughnut Salesman: “Come get your doughnuts!”

Stylax: “So, when’s the world ending?”

Grumio: “I dunno, I were listening to that doughnut guy.”

Marcus: “Nigh, apparently.”

Stylax: “Alright, nigh. Hang on, doesn’t that mean soon?”

Marcus: “To the people that say it, it means soon. To everyone else it means you’re a nutter, talking shit.”

Grumio: “I’m going to get a doughnut just in case.”

Sam Leifer and Tom Basden, the two man team who wrote, produced and directed Plebs, are either climate non-alarmists themselves, or at the very least they reckon that a lot of us now are, and that we’re ready for comedy which takes the piss out of our mad soothsayer tendency.

My original title for this was: “Are the plebs starting to see sense about climate alarmism?”, but I reckon our plebs have been sussing this out for quite a while now. Britain’s telly comedians are following public opinion on this rather than shaping it. Until a couple of years ago or so, they were constantly going on about how stupid climate non-alarmists were. Then they went quiet on the subject. Are they beginning seriously to see sense?

- Martin Hutchinson

- Samizdata commenter RRS

- Matt Ridley

The point about faster, and greater, plant growth is often ignored by those who bleat about the dangers of greater carbon emissions. Indeed, the upside of global warming – assuming that is happening – such as greater plant growth is often downplayed against the supposed downsides (rising sea levels).

“Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”

- The Independent, March 20, 2000

As a less scientific but still useful, rough rule of thumb on demographic matters, I would recommend taking any prediction made by Paul Erlich in the first half of the
...continue Overpopulation, or not]]> Well done Jeff Wise at Slate. You have managed to notice what has been obvious to absolutely everybody who has been looking at demographic trends and population projections for at least the last 20 years. Specifically, growth in the world’s population is in fact slowing down, and the population will start to contract in aggregate within a small number of decades, and is already doing so in some places.

As a less scientific but still useful, rough rule of thumb on demographic matters, I would recommend taking any prediction made by Paul Erlich in the first half of the 1970s and assuming the precise opposite has happened since.

Physics doesn’t understand that rapid action on climate change threatens the most lucrative
...continue Climate change action: “The Science” gives way to “The Physics”]]> Just as the incoveniently disprovable “global warming” gave way to irrefutable “climate change”, so “The Science” (TSIS) gives way to “The Physics” (TPIS). Climate activist Bill McKibben will demonstrate:

We’re talking about a fight between human beings and physics. And physics is entirely uninterested in human timetables. Physics couldn’t care less if precipitous action raises gas prices, or damages the coal industry in swing states. It could care less whether putting a price on carbon slowed the pace of development in China, or made agribusiness less profitable.

Physics doesn’t understand that rapid action on climate change threatens the most lucrative business on Earth, the fossil fuel industry.

All you hoi polloi** with your so-called degrees in The Chemistry (TCIS), The Biology (TBIS), The Meteorology (TMIS), The Zoology (TZIS), The Geology (TGIS), The Climatology (TCIS), not to mention even those poor old bits of the The Science* (TSIS) that are so uncool that they have to have the word “Sciences” in their names (TPOBOTTS(TSIS)TASUTTHTHTWSITNIS), are just going to have to face facts. The Physics (TPIS) iz da maximum cool. You all want to be us. When times are tough for your cause, who ya gonna call? Who they gonna believe when they don’t believe you? The Physics (TPIS), that’s who.

Only slight problem is the physicists. Not that we have a superiority complex or anything, but we sometimes do get a leetle touchy when inferiors, sorry, less rigorous folk, start stretching our error bars. If I may recommend a strategy to non-physicists wishing to keep us on side, your best bet is continued abject flattery.

*Please note, “the The” is grammatically correct in this special case. I have discovered a marvellous proof but the footnote to this post is too small to contain it.

**And I can so say “you hoi polloi” if I want to. The Greek is not settled when you’re a physicist.

Middlefield, Dorset. Today.

So, the similarities:

In the Dreyfus case, the authorities faked the evidence. In the Climate Wars the authorities sought to “hide the decline”.

In the Dreyfus case, an officer who raised doubts was removed and posted to the desert. In the Climate Wars, anyone raising doubts will find himself in the academic equivalent.

In the Dreyfus case, the authorities were aided by a tide of anti-semitism. In the Climate Wars the authorities are
...continue Similarities between the Dreyfus Affair and the Climate Wars]]> I’ve been reading about both recently.  For those unfamiliar with it, the Dreyfus Affair of the 1890s involved the wrongful conviction of a French officer for treason.

So, the similarities:

In the Dreyfus case, the authorities faked the evidence.  In the Climate Wars the authorities sought to “hide the decline”.

In the Dreyfus case, an officer who raised doubts was removed and posted to the desert.  In the Climate Wars, anyone raising doubts will find himself in the academic equivalent.

In the Dreyfus case, the authorities were aided by a tide of anti-semitism.  In the Climate Wars the authorities are helped by a tide of environmentalism.

In the Dreyfus case, the author Emile Zola was sued for libel.  In the Climate Wars, the author Mark Steyn is being sued for libel.

In the Dreyfus case the authorities withheld evidence that would have exonerated Dreyfus.  In the Climate Wars the “scientists” refuse to publish their data.

In the Dreyfus case the authorities felt it was all right to lie because the truth was on their side.  In the Climate Wars some warmists, convinced that the truth is on their side, are happy to lie.

In the Dreyfus case, Dreyfus was exiled to Devil’s Island.  In the Climate Wars it’s the truth that is far, far away and under guard day and night.

In the Dreyfus case, and after many years, justice was eventually done.  In the Climate Wars…well, we’ll see.

Alfred Dreyfus begins to regret challenging the global warming orthodoxy