Scottish Lobbying: GWPF – it's up to you – or it won't be done!

Posted on 2 May 2017 by Scottish-Sceptic

For as much as a decade I’ve been writing about the climate. I formed the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum and have had various goes to educate our politicians (both obviously and not so obviously). But over recent years, I noticed a dramatic decline in interest in my climate posts here … and to be frank the more effort I put in, the less anyone seems to appreciate the result. I’m fed up of that feeling that I have to act as unpaid (and due to no funding not very effective) lobbyist.
Despite that, I had mentally allocated time toward a Scottish campaign which would have been timed to ride piggy back on what I had presumed would be action by Trump to end the fraudulent “pause busting” stats coming out the US. Unfortunately nothing much has materialised.
Now with Andrew Montford starting at the GWPF, I think its time to call it a day with respect to the fruitless lobbying of the idiot politicians we have in Scotland (sadly in all parties including Tories!). It is not only soul destroying … but really!! They are the least scientifically literate group I know. Despite that, our politicians and numbskull civil servants have the gall to preach the climate religion to those like me who know the science and know they’re talking absolute bollocks. I’m sick to death of with the crazy system we have in Scotland where scientific illiterates and politicised academics run the system. Even if I had the time or patience to spend, unpaid, teaching basic science to those highly paid civil servants and politicians – they are so contemptuous and illiterate that they wouldn’t know global warming or cooling if it bit them in the arse.
We in Scotland, not only have the craziest politicians, the whole system from academics through to civil servants is positively bonkers. It’s like a Chimpanzee’s tea party, largely I think because the GWPF have done nothing at all in Scotland (as far as I know) and we got no support when we tried to form something equivalent in Scotland. So, unlike England where the climate idiots are regularly slapped down by the GWPF, the idiots in Scotland have been able to spread their madness so that throughout Scottish government, Scottish media, academia, etc,. there is the utmost disdain & contempt for anyone who dares to question their climate religion.
Fortunately, whilst I know their behaviour is extremely economically and socially damaging, immoral and unscientific, I’m able to say that they hardly affect me personally (as long as I only go out after dark when I can’t see the bird-mincers).
Unfortunately, unless someone in the Trump administration finally pulls their finger out their arse and ends the fraudulent metrics from the likes of NASA, … or more accurately the fraudulent temperatures produced by the Trump administration … I think it’s time I stopped giving any pretence that there’s any serious lobbying in Scotland. It’s time to say to the GWPF: I’m not going to do any more lobbying in Scotland – I’m not aware of anyone else who does it, and with Andrew Montford now committed to the (English) GWPF there seems little prospect of anything happening in Scotland.

GWPF – it’s up to you – or it won’t be done”.

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Scottish Lobbying: GWPF – it's up to you – or it won't be done!

  1. 4TimesAYear says:
    2 May 2017 at 18:54

    I think we all feel a sense of exasperation….hoping that Trump will not cave to Ivanka and her leftist climate agenda. She is a serious threat to his administration.

  2. TinyCO2 says:
    2 May 2017 at 18:55

    I have been somewhat bored of climate recently, not because of the great posts out there, including your own but because I’m fed up of waiting for the data. Everyone is in a holding pattern. There’s not even much Trump can do other than piss off the warmists. It still comes down to the data.
    England isn’t much far behind Scotland when it comes to madness. You’d think the government would take the Brexit opportunity to sideline AGW but the EU is insisting on making it part of the negotiations. Not that I’m expecting a deal. The only reason we’ll get one is if the hole in the EU finances is critical bordering on flatlining. Paddles! CLEAR! Buzzzzt. Wump. Nurse, put another bag on the money IV.
    Like you I’ve also got my own pet history sideline. I’ve semi mastered 3D modelling and my 1650 city model is coming along nicely. I can’t belive I’m about to say this but the model is making new sense of the data. LOL.
    I’m also spending time improving my own environment, much neglected over the last 10 years.
    I’ve stopped posting at Bishop Hill due to a lack of stuff to say but CLiScep still posts some good stuff. But even there, I think we’re all struggling to find something new to say. Sadly I see the CO2 machine still rolling for another 5-10 years at least. Only cooling would change that.

  3. Scottish-Sceptic says:
    2 May 2017 at 19:51

    To be honest, what has kept me going the last few years is the hope that it would all start to unravel so that the various frauds (like the Climategate inquiries) would be exposed providing a root to compensation for people like me who have put some much effort in.
    My last hope was that Trump’s people would expose the NOAA/NASA scandal where they deliberately cherry picked the data and science to “bust” the pause. That might have opened up an avenue to legal action in the US, but now (like so many politicians once in power) I don’t sense much enthusiasm from the Trump administration to make headway and as you say this could easily drag on for another 5-10 years.
    We won the war – in the sense that we (or mother nature) showed the science did not support catastrophic warming, but what we’ve been unable to achieve is that final death blow to dispatch the global warming beast.

  4. Scottish-Sceptic says:
    2 May 2017 at 19:54

    Let’s put it this way – Trump is better than Clinton – but having seen Trump in action in Scotland, I can’t say his failure on climate surprises me.

  5. TinyCO2 says:
    2 May 2017 at 20:14

    I think that Trump has too many irons in the fire. The talk of red teams is interesting but I won’t hold my breath.

  6. Scottish-Sceptic says:
    2 May 2017 at 20:30

    Ironically – when you’ve had two decades of research trying to prove CO2 “did it” … if you then remove research funding, all you will ever have is two decades of research done to prove CO2 “did it”, and you will never get the research showing what actually did do it.
    Likewise, if you reduce the size of the alarmist organisations – the people who will be kicked out are the non-conformist sceptics, meaning the cuts will actually be used by the alarmist s to make them more alarmist.
    And whilst I really do appreciate all the sceptic academics – at best they are always lukewarmers – who will say warming isn’t “quite as high as is being said” – because being academics they all more or less buy into the consensus at some kind of level. Funding more academics will never balance the equation and give a real voice to the sceptic view … instead we’ll just have “middle of the roaders” reducing not offsetting “extremists”

  7. TinyCO2 says:
    3 May 2017 at 09:52

    That was my view of the plans to defund climate science. It’s not enough to kill it, it needs a stake through the heart and only serious contradictory science can do that. However defunding the activists will make it less attractive.
    The lack of serious warming signal will be getting to the scientists. I know that they’ve drawn the warming as an increasing upward curve but that was never really credible. If the warming is missing now, it will be missing from the warming by the end of the century. To have any credibility at all they will need to admit that sensitivity isn’t what they feared.
    Wait for the headline ‘deniers were right but for the wrong reason’ or ‘fall in rate of emissions increase a victory over climate change’. All sorts of weasil words to pretend they weren’t wrong.

  8. Scottish-Sceptic says:
    3 May 2017 at 10:46

    My rule of thumb is that it takes about 5years for governments to do anything – less if you have someone really determined like May to get a project through – much more if they keep “kicking into the long grass” like the Beauly Denny power cable.
    If Trump had come in with a will to rid NOAA and NASA of the fraudulent science – and he’d have kept it as a priority – he might have succeeded before he was up for re-election.
    However, after the initial “redecorating the Whitehouse website” he’s clearly lost momentum on climate.
    That means if he is replaced by a Democrat next time, they will just redecorate the Whitehouse website, refund everyone Trump defunded, and we will be back to where we were with Obama.
    And if Trump fails to deliver on his promises, I can’t see him getting anything like the support next time – which means an idiot Democrat looks likely and it is now 7 years until we get the next opportunity to have a president who will rid the US of fraudulent climate data.

  9. Macha says:
    4 May 2017 at 10:45

    Rather than look for a model, try exploring observations like this man did……https://reality348.wordpress.com. He is a nice bloke IMO too.

Comments are closed.