What?

And do you really think piles of cash will stop that climate crisis? Really? How? Please tell, because 97%+ of the world’s climate scientists disagree with you. Are you one of them?

If piles of cash won’t stop climate change then why’s he sop insistent on spending everything everyone has to prevent climate change?

The Green New Deal is rather the argument that cash will solve the problem, isn’t it?

14 comments on “What?

  1. I was under the impression that the 97% bit was fraudulent and it’s actually nearer 0.3%. Still, margins of error I suppose.

  2. No, the “Green New Deal” is the State Seizing Control Of Everything, as usual, just wearing a different uniform this time.

    Never engage with the nonsense they put at the front of their plans, look at what is behind it, their primary motivation, always.

    Next week, it will be The Great Obesity Crisis. The week after that, who knows? Racism in football? They’ll think of something.

  3. Mr Connolley, 97% of regular readers here know the conventions. Links to the Tax research blog are verboten, by order of Capt Potato

  4. @William Connolley

    Google Richard Murphy.

    Read his nonsense.

    Try to engage him in rational debate.

    Be insulted by him and read his replies to you, which suggest he is even madder, unpleasant and more stupid than you first thought.

    Be banned from his site as a ‘troll’ or ‘neoliberal’ or ‘neoliberal troll’

    It’s a right of passage. Most of us have gone through this.

  5. 97% + of climate scientists agree that they’d be unemployed if they can’t convince the gullible that climate change is down to human activity. If they were to say”the climate throughout history has changed and the forces are out of our control – it’s nature innit” then who would pay them?

  6. At one point or another in time, 97% of all scientists believed that the earth was flat, that the sun orbited the earth, that human health and behavior was a function of humors, and that the letting of blood cured disease.

  7. 97% of “climate scientists” may have made up their minds (though science still isn’t decided by vote), but it is certainly not true that 97% of them are against more piles of cash being spent on the “problem.”

  8. @William Connolley October 17, 2019 at 9:48 am

    Assuming you’re referring to “97% claim”

    It’s 97% of “Climate Scientists” – most are BA not BSc, thus not Scientists.

    Try this
    Michelle Stirling on climate science – First thing they do is call you a denier
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSijLqKfDa4
    Letter
    https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ecd-letter-to-un.pdf

    iirc Tim W is a BA, thus “I don’t understand, I will accept what Gov’t/Stern say”

  9. IIRC the much-bandied-about 97% figure was from an ex-post-facto-highly-selective sample of survey responses. N=77 or something of that order of magnitude.

  10. Be very wary of engaging William M Connoley in anything

    He has form on this topic and was expelled from Wikipedia for overzealous editing of Climate change related posts. I am fairly sure he has appeared on this blog as well. a neo Pyongyangite of some fervour…

  11. “I am fairly sure he has appeared on this blog as well”

    Frequently in the past.

    I strongly credit William with highlighting (for me) on here, a fair while back, the need to distinguish more clearly between science, economics and politics.

    Ie scientists should focus on science and get the eff out of politics, if they are to retain their scientific credibility. And which of course the green activist scientists simply aren’t capable of doing, and which is why we’ve ended up in this place where so many of the more politicised activist scientists are regarded with such utter derision and contempt…

  12. Back to title subject

    “…Mr Maugham claims that if the court finds the proposed agreement is unlawful the government would be obliged to request an extension to Brexit negotiations, under the terms of the Benn Act.

    …”We believe the government’s proposed withdrawal agreement is contrary to Section 55 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018.”

    That part of the act states: “It shall be unlawful for Her Majesty’s Government to enter into arrangements under which Northern Ireland forms part of a separate customs territory to Great Britain.”
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50076186

    Looks reasonable challenge to me – if he/BBC correct. Gov’t shoots foot again by allowing RemoanerAnti-Brexit MPs’ Law

    Was case heard today and judgement given?

    Recent Brexit Interviews:
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl6dwDYMqMjnHQ-hmJoWp8A/videos

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.