'Global warming is hoax': the world according to the BNP

[Kieran]

I wonder what the faux excuses will be when the ice cap goes?

Why a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round there in 1421 and found no ice - courtesy of Monkton and Gavin Menzies

*Yawn*

Do you base your 'AGW is crap' theory from the Monkton article in the Telegraph where he claims:

There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ve-it.html

Monkton spun that particular yarn from '1421, The Year China Discovered America' by Gavin Menzies (as you alluded to).

Fascinating claims but it seems like a lot of historians think it's all a bit of a fantasy.

Here's one angry historian's rebuttal:
http://maritimeasia.ws/topic/1421bunkum.html

Seems like these guys aren't too convinced too:
http://www.1421exposed.com/

I'm sure it's an enjoyable yarn but I don't think it carries much weight against the scientific consensus.

I don't have an AGW is crap theory, Cabrone. In fact I've agreed with it for about two decades now. The Monkton medieval chinese navy myth is something you come up against time and again on various forums and will be duly trotted out even more once all the Arctic ice melts. It's like arguing with religious fundies. They don't want to know.

Will have to make the object of my sarcasm plainer next time.

[biffvernon]

Humans don't deserve the Web - they have turned it into a ultra low signal-to-noise ratio mess.

One might say a similar thing about certain newspapers. Even New Scientist is one third adverts.

[Cabrone]

Why a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round there in 1421 and found no ice - courtesy of Monkton and Gavin Menzies

*Yawn*

Do you base your 'AGW is crap' theory from the Monkton article in the Telegraph where he claims:

There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ve-it.html

Monkton spun that particular yarn from '1421, The Year China Discovered America' by Gavin Menzies (as you alluded to).

Fascinating claims but it seems like a lot of historians think it's all a bit of a fantasy.

Here's one angry historian's rebuttal:
http://maritimeasia.ws/topic/1421bunkum.html

Seems like these guys aren't too convinced too:
http://www.1421exposed.com/

I'm sure it's an enjoyable yarn but I don't think it carries much weight against the scientific consensus.

I don't have an AGW is crap theory, Cabrone. In fact I've agreed with it for about two decades now. The Monkton medieval chinese navy myth is something you come up against time and again on various forums and will be duly trotted out even more once all the Arctic ice melts. It's like arguing with religious fundies. They don't want to know.

Will have to make the object of my sarcasm plainer next time.

Apologies Kieran, missed the sarcasm.

I agree with you about the religious analogy. No matter what the situation is a new BS excuse will always be found. Maybe when it goes the line will be something like 'we never wanted it anyway'.

[kenneal - lagger]

Sorry I too have doubts about GW. I read that he Martian icecaps are receding and some of Saturn's moons are also warming up. I can't say I've investigated it too deeply but there are some convincing arguments out there. There are lots of sites

google global warming hoax mars saturn

and then investigate

Here's the RealClimate rebuttal of the "Mars is warming too" story

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

It's quite short and to the point, so please read it.

[ziggy12345]

From ACRIMSAT Website

"The Earth’s weather and climate regime is determined by the total solar irradiance (TSI) and its interactions with the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and landmasses. Evidence from both 29 years of direct satellite monitoring and historical proxy data leaves no doubt that solar luminosity in general, and TSI in particular, are intrinsically variable phenomena. Subtle variations of TSI resulting from periodic changes in the Earth's orbit (Milankovich cycles: ~20, 40 and 100 Kyrs) cause climate change ranging from major ice ages to the present inter-glacial, clearly demonstrating the dominance of TSI in climate change on long timescales"

Also this

"The periodic character of the TSI record indicates that solar forcing of climate change will likely be the dominant variable contributor to climate change in the future."

[2 As and a B]

I just hope Gates or Branson sense the frustration and set up a series of well moderated paid-for blogs & fora where visitors can trust the posters to a reasonable degree.

I don't think being "well-moderated" or "paid-for" makes the information any more reliable, and I wouldn't trust either Gates or Branson to deliver a bias-free forum (after all, they represent huge corporate interests).

You get what you pay for.

If the service provider doesn't provide the promised service then the customer ... and the associated income ... walks away.

The shareholders won't like that, and so the service folds or is fixed.

It's how capitalism works.

Like the Daily Mail, for instance. That is fixed for its audience.

Paying for information doesn't guarantee truth. There is a logical disconnect there.

[ziggy12345]

http://biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_Climate_Change.html

Solar radiation measurement report

My conclusion is that the sun gets hotter heating the earth and in effect increases C02 levels. not the other way around

Cheers

[Vortex]

Paying for information doesn't guarantee truth. There is a logical disconnect there.

Life isn't binary.

All I'm saying is that paid for information is likely to be of better quality than most random stuff floating around the web.

For example, I use a lot of freeware on my computers ... but I suspect that paid-for software in general suits my needs better.

If I had an unlimited budget I'm not sure that I would look at too much freeware.

(To those of you looking confused: I don't use pirated software)

The phrase "You get what you pay for." isn't totally wrong.

[biffvernon]

the dominance of TSI in climate change on long timescales"

Well that's stating the bleedin' obvious, but maybe you didn't appreciate the significance of the phrase 'on long timescales'. Note that ACRIMSAT is within James Hansen's orbit, it being a NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies project.

]My conclusion is that the sun gets hotter heating the earth

That makes as much sense as the writings of Nasif Nahle.

He claims to be a biologist rather than a climate scientist so here's a sample from his work in his own field:

It is possible that the intensity of light emitted by a primal Sun stirred up to a first biosystem to experience a change from a state of low energy density to another state with a higher energy density without passing by the transitional states. It could be an event that occurred through a mechanism similar to the absorption of electromagnetic energy by the water molecules of our bodies. To absorb energy, the molecules of water should vibrate at a frequency similar to the frequency of vibration of the photons of the electromagnetic energy that would be absorbed. This is known like Absorption by Resonance.

Perhaps, the whole Solar System was synchronized at a frequency of vibration that would be normalized by an intermittent intensity and density of the electromagnetic energy emitted by an "embryonic" Sun and with the influence of the gravitational force.

It is realistic to deduce that the life's instant was promoted by the interaction of the Intergalactic Cosmic Energy, the oscillation in the density and the intensity of the energy emitted by the Sun, the correlation in the frequency of vibration of photons and molecules (resonance) and the gravitational waves with protobionts.

Sorry to say that I do not know the frequency of vibration of protobionts' molecules. It could be the same frequency of vibration of the chlorophyll molecules. If my hypothesis is demonstrated as true by experimentation, the conclusions will be extraordinary and productive.

The exact amount of movement of the energy, associated with its location in a given space-time, is denominated a microstate of the energetic molecules (or thermodynamic systems) and derives from the Biotic Field, that is, from the amount of energy assigned for the space in which an interaction of charged particles promoted by photons happens to generate the Proton Motive Force, which is the physical expression, detectable and quantifiable, of life. These interactions between charged particles through photons happen at any electrodynamic field.

More, if you really must.

[marknorthfield]

Indeed it is, and Greens should be asking themselves very carefully and honestly why that is, just as the race relations industry should be asking themselves very carefully and honestly why overt racism is a vote winner.

To bring this back to the topic heading slightly...

Of course the media focus on the BNP, because fear and controversy sell. However, they're not the only political party claiming that humanity driven climate change isn't happening: UKIP also do (though as far as I know UKIP don't claim climate change is a 'hoax', merely that human activity is not contributing). This is probably more pernicious precisely because the language is toned down and they seem more reasonable. They also have 13 MEPs, not 2, though no doubt that has rather more to do with Europe than their climate change angle. Nonetheless, they concern me more than the BNP, who will undoubtedly shoot themselves in the foot with their extra publicity (peak oil acknowledgment notwithstanding).

All that said, UKIP's vote decreased in real terms (by 152,000) as did votes for all the main three parties. The Green Party increased their vote nationally rather more than the BNP did (up 275,000 compared to the BNPs 135,000), and let's not forget that the BNP had a much greater increase in the 2004 election (up 705,000) despite the circumstances being so much more favourable for them this time round. It was unfortunate that the Green Party's increase this time did not result in an extra MEP or two, and that the BNP's more modest increase did, but that be the joy of thresholds.

(A slightly facetious analysis is to set UKIP's decrease against the BNP's increase and you get 17,000 fewer people voting for climate change denial. Add on the Green Party's increase and that makes 292,000 fewer. Silly, I know, but there we are.)

I think the majority of people in this country accept the scientific consensus; how much they're willing to change their behaviour for the benefit of future generations is the real issue and what still needs to be vigorously argued for. Inertia rules.

EDIT: got my figures slightly wrong for the GP (they did better than I suggested!)

[mcewena1]

Here's the RealClimate rebuttal of the "Mars is warming too" story

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192



It's quite short and to the point, so please read it.

Thank you kenneal. Like I said in my original post I hadn't reaearched it but your link certainly seems very scientific. It might be fairly short but still needs reading well. But I'm glad to see a decent rebuttal.

Andy

[Lord Beria3]

on a slightly different angle - is there a danger in the coming years (high prices will start to raise awareness among the public of peak oil) that if it is assoicated with the BNP - peak oilsters could be tarred with the 'racist'/'fascist' brush?

Lets be honest, the message of the Peak oil community is not exactly welcomed by most people - calling them a bunch of racists will be an affective way of shutting down any incipid public debate.

Something to think of folks...

[UndercoverElephant]

I suppose it's comforting to know that, as well as being really nasty, he's also really stupid.

Nick Griffin has some fairly unpalatable views. Stupid he is not. Nigel Farage is stupid - and harmless because of it.

Unfortunately, plenty of intelligent people have been hoodwinked into thinking climate change isn't real.

[UndercoverElephant]

The BNP are certainly NOT stupid.

A lot of the people who vote for them are stupid, though.

I agree with you that PO is a much more immediate threat to the UK. Part of me is also glad that the BNP won two seats in the european parliament. I would never vote for them myself, but I believe that the mainstream political parties have been too scared of the racism charge to seriously confront the problems concerning population, immigration and sustainability. The threat of the BNP may just be enough to force mainstream politicians to finally grasp this nettle. Until/unless they do so, the BNP can only get more powerful.

[biffvernon]

I use the term in the sense of:



Griffin et al. are Stupid.