An overview of the political process from Climategate to present.
To quote myself: “even if you kick the political system between the legs, because like the proverbial dinosaur, the nerve impulse takes time to travel all that way up to the small brain at the top, it will still take many years for them to respond.”
good but ..
you need to include ..incidents of self harming
like the 2013 Clitanic Disaster
also the scale is wrong the skeptics are minnows compared to the huge lumbering Global Warming (bandwagon) dinosaur
Clitantic – and Gleick and the end of the hockey-stick. 28Gate, Climategate II & … III
Lewandowsky shooting himself in the foot. The BBQ summer, the “kids will never see snow”. Hansen turning up the heating in the US. Salby’s paper, the Met Office- failed 14 years prediction. The “things can only get worse … I mean … 95% of climate academics are certain they caused global warming. The 97% of climate scientists know it warmed since the little ice-age and 3% can’t fill in a simple survey.
“the scale is wrong” … and I was betting I’d get a warmist complaining that dinosaurs didn’t have testicles.
Over at http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/01/13/watt-about-bob-and-william/#comment-11856 it looks like you want to talk about wiki again:
“I watched as he and his group conspired so as to prevent even the simplest, well sourced edits by what are now know as “sceptics”.”
But you provide no details to enable anyone to check your claims. I think you should take yourself seriously: if you say something like this, you should expect people to be interested: which means, not that they’ll take what you say on faith, but that they’ll want to check up for themselves. So you need to provide more details: which article, which timeframe, ideally indeed which edits.
From what you’re saying, you think there are lots and lots of examples. So it should be easy for you to find just *one* example of a simple, well sourced edit that was suppressed by me.
And what would be the point? You did what you thought was right. The environmental movement did what it thought was right and in most other circumstances I would be applauding your/their/our behaviour.
What happened is that a particular set of historical circumstances created a massive imbalance in the public debate so that the argument was wholly skewed to one side. You were as much a victim of your circumstances as anyone else, and if it wasn’t you some other green activist would have got caught up in the same way. It will not do any good us opening up old wounds, so unless you suddenly return to your old ways, I’m prepared to forgive — although forgetting might take longer.
The point would be to get you to take yourself seriously.
Either you think there is a genuine problem – in which case you should be able to state it, clearly, with examples – or you’re sitting mumbling “they done me wrong” into your beer in a corner, in which case you can hardly complain when your reputation goes down. You need to put up, or shut up.
The point is to end this CO2 scare without doing irreparable damage to the environmental movement, academia or the economy. To deflate this scare, without leaving your lot totally discredited and an open door for big business.
Me attacking you isn’t going to do that.
Instead we need sustainability in the way intended by Brundtland: a balance between society, economy and environment. It was the lack of that balance in terms of the economic tail wagging the dog which Brundltand highlighted in his report. This was the 1970s third world “unsustainable development”, because the economic aims took priority over social and environmental aims – which was ultimately unsustainable and so did not achieve their economic aims.
You have made precisely the same mistake but only this time replacing unsustainable environmental coals, for unsustainable economic goals. That happened because a whole raft of institutions from academia, to the greens to the wind industry started pushing one aspect of sustainability to the detriment of the balance.
And the only people who realised the system was going out of balance because of the totally lopsided public “debate” were people like me.
So for a while we had the environmental tail trying to take precedence over both society and economy leading to the same mess the Brundtland report found: except this time it was a policy fixation on the environment meant it was unsustainable.
Fortunately, we are on the road to recovery. Society was sensible enough not to “tip over the edge” and let the environmental goals destroy our society and society.
Good grief, how much do you actually know about the Brundltand Commission? Perhaps you should at least get the gender of the report’s author correct.
You are hilarious in your complete lack of knowledge about everything you post. No wonder your reports got binned by the MSM.
> Me attacking you isn’t going to do that.
Then you need to stop doing it. Your comment at ATTP, “I watched as he and his group conspired so as to prevent even the simplest, well sourced edits by what are now know as “sceptics”, is hard to construe as anything but an attack.
What would be constructive, and not an attack, would be to actually provide an example of single edit that you think is problematic. Is it not obvious to you that anyone reading this is going to think that the reason you won’t provide such an example is because it doesn’t exist?
Again, this comes down to whether you take yourself seriously (and if you don’t, how do you expect anyone else to)? Your words need to be coherent and consistent. You can’t say “no attack” here, and then go off attacking elsewhere.
Have you EVER contributed anything to any debate except personal insults, Ian?
You know, like factual information or constructive criticism?
If you have, I’ve never come across it.
GEB.
William, Wikipedia is not important enough to get into an argument about. In terms of climate it is now only of historical importance insofar as it encouraged the development of sites like WUWT. These became the de facto “alternative view” which would have been on Wikipedia except for your efforts.
Then why do you keep bringing it up? If you don’t care, stop mentioning it.
And, again: you’re the only one who seems to want to argue about it. I’m asking you for just one single example of a problem you claim to be commonplace. Its pretty obvious by now that you won’t, because you have no such examples, so I’ll stop beating this dead horse if you’ll stop resurrecting it.
Where’s that old William Connolley?
Come on you used to do better than this:-
You threaten to continue animal cruelty …. unless I stop being a deity
(only gods resurrect).
The name of my book is: Kyoto Protocol is the biggest organized crime on the planet
“GEB”
???????????????
GEB yourself.