Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Climate unbelievers should resign

Local Tory councillor organises a screening of Not Evil, Just Wrong – Labour group leader totally appalled. “I am totally appalled.” he said, “The council is committed to reducing carbon emissions, yet the Conservatives are pushing a film which threatens all of that.”

Really? Oh good!

And Labour councillor Ranjit Banwait, vice-chairman of the council’s climate change commission, said: “If the Conservatives don’t believe in climate change, then perhaps the chairman of the commission, Tory councillor Phil Ingall, should step down.”

Why? So that the believers can have a free run to impose whatever action they choose without challenge by the taxpayers’ elected representatives? Because it is not the role of a climate change commission to critically consider the evidence for climate change? They’re just supposed to toe the line?

This particular case doesn’t matter. It’s a minor local council of no global consequence and I’m sure one of hundreds who are just the same. And in any case, the Tories responded wimpishly, by saying of course they believed in tackling climate change. It was, they said, simply a matter of protecting free speech, and it was permissible within the party to disagree.

But it is one example of something that seems to happen everywhere. On this topic, you are not allowed to disagree. You are not allowed to participate. You are not allowed to “threaten” the unchallenged execution of their Green initiatives, not even by discussion and debate. Openly doubting is a matter for resignations, adverse publicity, and, I am sure, career consequences.

It makes you wonder just how many sceptics are in government, keeping quiet.

11 Comments

  1. El Draque says:

    I have a dream: that the “Gore effect” hits worldwide in December if not sooner.
    The effect, for those who don’t know, is that whenever he turns up to talk about global warming, the temperature falls for his arrival.
    Probably a satistical freak – but still. . . . .

    I dream that Copenhagen airport is closed by blizzards and the conference is called off.
    I dream that everyone laughs hysterically and politicians look humbled (sorry, that ain’t going to happen.)
    They will no doubt plunge on into the madness of trying to manipulate the weather . . .
    But keep an eye on this:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/25/the-cold-war-hits-home-october-in-like-a-lion-out-like-a-fridge/#more-12103

  2. Pa Annoyed says:

    El Draque,

    We can hope. :-)

    But even if it happened, I’m sure that after the numbers were “corrected” by their secret algorithms, it would prove to have been the hottest Copenhagen December in the past thousand years.

  3. Sunfish says:

    And in some parallel universe it would have been the hottest Copenhagen December on record. Would that be subjecting the data to the Copenhagen Interpretation?

  4. musubk says:

    I read these comments about the secret algorithms of Al Gore and his socialist climate conspiracy, and I read the ‘site policy’ which states:

    Those who propose conspiracy theories will be deemed idiots.

    And I realize I made a mistake when I subscribed to this blog, the many-worlds post that drew me in being the exception rather than the rule.

  5. DSD says:

    Well musubk, the algorithims *are* secret. Tell you what, you ring or email the Met Office and ask them to provide you with the not-at-all-secret algorithms by which they adjust their weather data to make their predictions on climate change. They will tell you that they will not make the data available to the public under any circumstances. Neither will NASA. Email them and ask, why don’t you?

    That’s not a conspiracy theory, its a simple fact. And the only person who mentioned socialism was you, old bean.

    That aside, the Tories could hardly complain about being censured for showing videos which contradict an orthodoxy. When the anti-EU Shockwaves video was released a few years ago, they suspended entire constituency associations simply for showing it.

  6. CountingCats says:

    musubk,

    If you wish to refute anything claimed here go right ahead.

    What Al Gore socialist climate conspiracy?

    I personally believe that there are a lot of people working with common purpose, but the idea that they constitute a cabal actively conspiring to destroy western civilisation is a bit sus. Is that your position?

  7. Nick M says:

    Cats and I “met” via Samizdata. Samizdata’s Perry is firmly of the opinion that the entire AGW scam is the result not of some fearsome conspiracy but of a convergence of disparate interests. A point with which I concurred 100%. Indeed a conclusion I had achieved off my own hook earlier. It was just nice to hear Perry say it as well.

    The real Greens want to put us back to the stone age (if we are lucky), the watermelons see it as a chance to control stuff and a wide variety of other odds and sods see it as an opportunity to make a killing selling otherwise unsaleable goods or getting nice sinecures that no rational organisation would deem fit to employ.

    There is no Kaiser Soze behind it. It’s more of a Zeitgeist. It is of course utter bollocks but bollocks can be generated in many, many ways.

  8. Peter MacFarlane says:

    I am more worried that if Copenhagen gets closed by a blizzard or whatever, the warmists will try to take the credit.

    “Look at all our wonderful windmills,” they will say, “aren’t they working well; look how it has cooled down again already!”

    This will prove that they were right all along, or so the bbc will say. So taxes must rise much more, and many many more windmills must be built.

    It’s a nightmare, but you know, it could happen.

  9. Pa Annoyed says:

    Mostly, I suspect a combination of confirmation bias, and an unfortunate tendency these days to place too much weight on arguments from authority. Scientists have to keep on relearning the same set of lessons, over and over again. No conspiracy is required or hypothesised.

    I’m pleased someone was drawn in by the many-worlds post.

    Have you considered the possibility that it wasn’t an exception, and there may be something interesting to discuss here? Perhaps rather than rejecting it out of hand, you ought to try asking some questions?

  10. Nick M says:

    Sunfish,
    It may amuse you to know that the Copenhagen Interpretation was largely figured out in Niels Bohr’s conservatory which is afterall a sort of greenhouse. I ac tually like the CI. It has a sort of stern beauty. I’m not saying it’s true but…

    Well, I am coming round to EV but still the CI appeals to the mystic in me and back in the days when I used QM it appealed enormously to the wizard in me.

  11. Paul Marks says:

    It is not just “climate change” – it is a general practice.

    Labour Councillors have it in their heads that as soon as a Council adopts a “policy” (whatever it is about) any member of the Council who speaks against that policy in future has committed some sort of crime and should be punished.

    No I am not joking.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: