Godfrey Bloom

UK, Europe and Environment Blog

1 2 34

Is there a windfarm coming to a field near you?

Find out with my interactive windfarm map.

See where existing windfarms are located, where windfarms are being built,and where proposed windfarm sites are.

Click here.

Windarm campaigns

Are you running, or do you know of a windfarm campaign

Let me know on my windfarm campaigns page, and keep me up to date with your news.

Click here.

Ugly windfarms are spoiling Britain's natural beauty

Are you worried about what a planned windfarm will do to your favourite locations? Has a windfarm spoiled a place you know and love? Let me know - send me your stories, pictures and videos.

Click here.

J'Accuse Greenpeace...

Are the environmental NGO all that they seem?

Find out how this well-funded organisation uses violence and muscle to impose its ideology.

Click here.

Welcome to my blog. An unprecedented democratic deficit is developing in the UK. Our interests are being ignored for the benefit of pointless and self-serving EU and environmental bureaucracies. On this blog I will be offering unfashionable arguments in favour of freedom and democracy, and against the dangerous eco-zealots' attack on our economy, jobs, and industry. Read more...

Day 3 & Scientific Consensus

Wednesday, 09 December 2009 10:51

So it's day three of the Copenhagen conference. Yesterday I mentioned the term "scientific consensus" that is used again and again to try to win the climate change debate.

Today, a group of scientists have issued yet another challenge to the "consensus" view of science.

141 highly qualified scientists have written to Ban Ki Moon, expressing their concern about the unsound foundations of the Copenhagen conference.

Dear Secretary-General,

Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.

Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.

We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate.Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.

Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that: [READ ON]

This will be interesting. No doubt the alarmists will find a conspiracy theory to explain why these scientists cannot be trusted, while accusing 'deniers' of creating conspiracy theories and character assassination.

Comments

Add New

Ray Custance --- Subject: Mr --- posted at 2009-12-10 02:45:57

If these people were really serious about climate change and carbon footprints then there would be no such thing as carbon trading.

Should you not need to use all of your allocation of carbon output then your allowance should be lowered to the correct requirement. There would then be no excess to trade.

The industries that wish to buy more carbon allowance have either been under allocated and should be re assessed or should cut their emmisions to the figure allocated.

The object of the exercise is, after all, to cut down on carbon going into the atmosphere, not to make a fortune out of selling it.

A whole new industry of carbon trading has however been set up, How logical is that ?

Andrew Cranston --- Subject: Mr --- posted at 2009-12-22 01:19:37

Brown said: -

“It is no use saying that we are doing our best. You have to succeed in doing what is necessary.”

I think this is basically an application of neuro-linguistic programming. The first sentence from a psychological perspective is subliminally telling you that Brown & Co. are doing their best “we are doing our best”. Often it is emphasised by a change in voice to make the first part “it is no use saying” redundant to the meaning, but at the same time the logical mind is reading it differently. So you have a conscious meaning i.e. the logical, and the subconscious meaning that is picked up with subtle cues. Likewise the second sentence contains the phrase “you have to succeed” which is a command telling you and forcing you to go along with it. The second part of this sentence then tells you it is necessary so as to reinforce the potency of the command. When read quickly it also takes on the form of stating the obvious, so the mind accepts it without further enquiry. Indeed much of Blair’s speeches contained liberal use of NLP, so really it’s what one would expect from his successor in the regime.