High priest of climate deniers claims moral low ground

It's snowing all over the UK which for most people means snowmen and sledging, but climate deniers can't resist suggesting this means the globe isn't warming.

Trouble is this conflicts with their summer arguments. This summer saw an unprecedented heatwave in Russia and a deluge in Pakistan. Whilst the real story was of a humanitarian disaster at a time when the death toll was uncertain BBC TV's Newsnight asked if the Pakistan flood could be said to be due to climate change.  No, came the answer, a trend is more than a single event .

It's both sad and ironic that despite millions being left homeless by the deluge in Pakistan, that answer was given by an accountant living in Scotland thousands of miles away.

Andrew Montford didn't lose his home in the inundation, indeed, Montford takes a picture of his backyard to prove the world isn't warming.



Scottish snow which disproves AGW

 When I suggested that his winter argument conflicts with his summer argument and that as a result he should consider donating his disturbance fee from the BBC to victims of the flood Montford's absurd reply is "it's not obviously any of your business." Montford is the man who produced the GWPF's report into the three enquiries exonerating scientists implicated by the UEA hack.  Quite where the boundaries lie between personal privacy and public interest is a moot point but hopefully the answers will be found in the chapter of Montford's book dealing with the climategate emails.  If not, how can Montford pretend that those private emails are anybody's business other than the intended recipients?

The upside down world of Andrew Montford doesn't finish there though, ''you are talking bollocks'' Montford writes ''If you think I am carving a career out of any of this, think again. It's costing me a lot of money.'' Little point in asking for supporting evidence for that because Andrew Montford will probably fall back on his earlier statement "it's not obviously any of your business." So , poor Andrew Montford, the victim in all of this also argues in his book that much of climate science is driven by a desire for funding.

Myths can be created much faster than they can be debunked

I've been a fan of Potholer's gems for a while now. Does he suggest there is a secret plot by the media to keep us from the truth? Yes, I think he does.  Another beaut in this debunk is that the GWPF swallowed the original story.  A helping of humble pie Lord Lawson?

File under: Stuff I'm shamelessly plagiarizing

Credit to Slowpoke Comics. Hat tip Bart Verheggen and Jim Prall

Is the media biased ? Don't ask

I've been listening to Climate Connection on the BBC World Service. Five programmes around the theme 'what's stopping us from tackling climate change?' The listener is offered an array of causes for our species' dilemma of inaction. But one thing seems to be missing.

In episode one a Swedish advertising agency present their ingenoius solution: a staircase that plays a tune. Brilliant , why didn't we think of that before. At this point I wonder when the series is going to consider the media's role.

Episode two is largely in Africa where the witnesses are close enough to nature to notice but sadly not educated enough to understand it. One man confronted with climate change is sure it is god's will.

Episode three and we are in California. Psychology, the herd instinct, behavioural norms, motivation, and the "message selling global warming" are all examined ad nauseum. This episode steers clear of the politics and looks closely at individual behaviour. Yet it fails to note that individuals are informed by the media which is far from presenting the scientist's views. It is the missing piece in the jigsaw. An academic from George Mason University explains "cognitive psychologists say that we have a finite pool of worry".  We meet another ad agency who come up with a line too vapid to bear repeating.  

Episode four about leadership is somewhat inexplicably in Hong Kong. The most worthwhile quote in the whole series comes from Cambridge University's Stephen Peak "At the international level I think the problem is the way that nation states have decided to engage with each other on this issue. They behave like adolescents arguing with each  other about how we got into this sate that we are, rather than applying more energy being more constructively with more imagination on how do we get ourselves out of the situation. That principally is the international problem"
With carbon tax incentives deemed politically unacceptable the question of authoritarian solutions is discussed. So without the suggestion of a media slant we have slided on to the deniers favourite territory.

Episode five was a debate in Milton Keynes, 'nuff said.

So, everything under the sun get's a mention except  media slant.  We rely on the media for our information and without that information we cannot be informed. Is loss of belief or mistrust of the media largely an impossible sentiment to express?