Veronica’s comments are quite clear.

“I’m neither a denier nor a sceptic, as it happens.”

I note from an Irish Election thread the other day the following exchange:

****

Comment by
David Quinn
Dec 4th, 2009 19:12
Hi Veronica,
Just to clarify -are you calling those of us who are sceptical about the degree of influence of human activity on changes in the climate that are being claimed by the IPCC “deniers”?

Comment by
Veronica
Dec 4th, 2009 23:12
David,

No, I’m not. My reference, above, was specifically directed to extremists on either side.

****

So, if you don’t agree with the existence of AGW, what are you exactly? (Apart from someone who has worked as a PR person for BNFL in the past, isn’t that right?)

“Today the climate change extremists and deniers … have stopped this nation taking action on climate change,” Ms Gillard told reporters.

Very scientific langauge.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1202/breaking4.htm

This underlines a point I’ve been making for years: To be successful, climate policy will need to last for decades. It therefore needs broad support. The secrecy and polarisation as practised by the likes of CRU is counterproductive.

but not a dickie bird about the actual scandal itself.

Certainly John Sweeney looks like a leading expert on climate change if the funding he receives is anything to go by (see http://geography.nuim.ie/staff/sweeneyjohn and scroll down the page).

The mainstream media silence is really quite predictable once you realise their bias (see: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017451/climategate-how-the-msm-reported-the-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science/). The Pravda Times have two op-ed columnists dedicated almost exclusively to propigating this pseudo-science (John Gibbons and the guy in today’s edition whose name escapes me). The intriguing question is why the bias? I hope you are close to experiencing your ephiphany re the MSM.

Yes, the silence is intriguing. I’m not sure how the data feed from Ireland works, but I would have expected the media to have asked NUIM’s John Sweeney for a comment on what’s being going on at CRU at the very least.

You suggest the level of media interest ‘may soon change’ by which I take you to mean that there’s some article in the pipeline on the implications of CRUgate for climate change policy?

Mainstream media in Ireland are indeed quiet. (That may soon change.) So are the officialdom (EPA, SEI, Met Eireann).

Enjoyed your post and keeping abreast of the updates. The decision to destroy the original data compounds the problem, don’t you think, in that it casts further doubt on CRU’s credibility?

Right now, if I was a climate change scientist attached to the University of East Anglia, I’d be burrowing out an underground nest for myself and lining it with the print outs of those e-mails with a view to not emerging from my self-enforced hibernation until well into next spring.

It’s disturbing too that the mainstream Irish media have paid so little attention to the CRU-emails scandal. Obviously, there’s no ‘local’ angle, at least none that has been revealed as yet. But more important that that may be the general Irish media and political consensus that a scientific consensus on climate change exists and is absolute. Therefore the worst case predictions of the IPCC reports, or their interpretation by fundamentalist climate change ideologues, can neither be validly critiqued nor challenged. It’s not much of a leap from that to signalling ‘game over’ on any policy issue that can be even remotely related to ‘climate change’ predictions. The added bonus is that anyone who raises a question may be condemned as a ‘climate change denier’ or sceptic, or both; and of course any event like CRUgate can be ignored

I’m neither a denier nor a sceptic, as it happens. But I’m increasingly weary of a political environment where our political class, in a bid to replace their smashed-up, development- driven economy model, are producing elaborate competing blueprints for a ‘smart green economy’ model instead.

It’s hard to see the wood for the trees, so to speak, when the various ‘smart green economy’ ( or is it ‘green smart economy’ (?)) models come embroidered with the promise of tens of thousands of much needed jobs. No such remarkable revolution in Irish development policy would be complete without a ‘hell and damnation’ clause; in this instance, putative legislation to criminalise Taoisigh or Ministers who fail to meet future climate change targets.

If there’s anything to be taken from the CRU scandal in national policy terms, I think it may be that we should be careful about assigning credibility to any ideologically or environment NGO-inspired dire predictions about climate change. That’s not the same thing as stating that AGW is not soundly based. But in framing policy, whether industrial, planning and development, energy, and agriculture, we might do well to accord priority to local environmental factors and national economic interests ahead of fanciful endorsements of international consensus on climate change impacts.

Breaking down the major long-term policy decisions we confront into their component parts and realistically debating a range of possible responses to each one on their respective merits, seems a more intelligent approach than foreclosing any and all discussion with a climate change mantra as tends to be the case at the moment.

Raining on the present media and political ‘climate change’ parade would undoubtedly lead to floods of recrimination that might dwarf those inconvenient real floods in the west and midlands. The alternative, though, may be to risk heading off in the wrong policy direction on a range of fronts; and, in the process, making several big mistakes instead of the usual one or two big mistakes.

I like your comment. I think a lot of internet conversations descend into slagging matches. It’s an interesting facet of the web’s psychology. I’ve always taken AWG as a given not having the inclination to learn all the science myself. But even this morning on Tom Dunne on Newstalk they had a climate sceptic debunking climate change theory so I think unfortunately I’m going to have to make some effort to learn the issues. So far, I still have a long long way to go to being convinced by the sceptics.

Thanks for the sex change. Your powers are truly miraculous.

I did not remove the second posting of the same material by Greg. I will not discuss it. This blog is not the place to take away people’s misconceptions about climate science.

I did remove another posting by Greg whose understanding of the law is as under-developed as her understanding of climate science.

@ Richard,

“The test is whether the observed climate record can be explained without the enhanced greenhouse effect.”

It’s a pretty big “ask” for those who wish proof of AGW if the Sun is left out of the analysis.

Can the observed climate record be explained without the Sun?

The climate changes. There was the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1300?) and the Little Ice Age. Now if the Little Ice Age ended around 1850 and temperatures began to rise what does that say about the start date chosen by the CRU 1850 (?).

Did man cause the MWP? Did man cause the Little Ice Age?

But never mind that. The last full scale ice age ended (what) around 12 thousand years ago. Hardly worth counting in the study of planetary climate change. Scotland under a mile thick ice sheet.

“The last glacial period was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age, occurring in the Pleistocene epoch. It began about 110,000 years ago and ended about 9,600 - 9,700 BC. During this period there were several changes between glacier advance and retreat.”

Now that’s from Wikipedia so it’s probably not scientific.

Did man cause that to end?

I don’t think anyone questions whether the climate changes. I, and I’m sure many others, question whether humans have much influence on that change.

Maybe this will help you with your deprogramming. It’s a comment that your High Priest Richard Tol thought was ignorant. Maybe it is. But he decided not to answer. Instead he “moderated it”. You know, Holbrook, he deleted it, just like the CRU are busy doing right now. Nobody (or Human) gets to ask the High Priest questions the High Priest doesn’t want to answer.

Oh, sorry, Holbrook, you’re new to your religion. Well, the way it works is this. If the Science doesn’t support your religion you make you “Statistics” (that is you corrupt truth) to fit your religion.

Don’t you just love moderation and truth?

So this is a comment that didn’t pass your High Priest’s view of truth. And there was I, just a simple peasant asking questions of the High Priest.

Well, I don’t need to tell you Holbrook. I’ve learned my lesson.

So here is what your High Priest doesn’t want mere peasants to ask.

No doubt your High Priest will delete it again

No need to thank me.

Not a problem Holbrook.

Just trying to help.

[REMOVED: INSULTING]

And if it helps (I don’t know but it might) there is life beyond AGW.

Thanks.

“What i am interested in is policies that will bring about a more sustainable future in terms of energy and material resources usage, protection of ecosystems and equity amongst people.”

You are a true champion of humanity.

Now let’s make more bio-fuel from corn and starve Africa ….Again.

But hey, Holbrook, as long as it is in the name of your AGW God you need not consider your conscience or Science.

After all the AGW Religion is not unlike Scientology. Just make it up as you go along, take the money, they’re all stupid, they deserve to have their money taken from them.

Join us. Be rich.