Volcano lies may be key to locking us up

An aviation expert has warned that the ongoing problem with an ash cloud, drifting from a volcano in Iceland, could cause disruption 'for more than 20 years' - affecting the UK and the rest of the world.

Oh dear. I'm actually starting to get a little scared. I don't want to be locked in the UK. You'll need a special permit to leave soon, I can see it coming. Only the elites will be allowed to travel. I have a sudden urge to get out now, while we still can.

Recent headlines

Two equally remarkable observations regarding the subtleties of the environment and its myriad complexities:

Volcanic ash cloud: Global warming may trigger more volcanoes
Climate change could spark more ''hazardous'' geological events such as volcanoes, earthquakes and landslides, scientists have warned.

So far, so much hot ash. But how about this:

Women to blame for earthquakes, says Iran cleric
Women behaving promiscuously are causing the earth to shake, according to cleric, as Ahmadinejad predicts Tehran quake

Now that's a bit more plausible, albeit in a metaphorical kind of way.

Heretic

Red mist

There's an interesting idea suggested by Sean Gabb that the CRU hacking was in fact carried out by the Russians.

If true - and it is very plausible - the irony is heavy. And delicious.

Haha

Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.

Copenshmagen

AGW just baffles me:

1. It hasn't been proven that it's getting warmer, in any meaningful sense. Its pattern is indistinguishable from random. And as for the future - you simply can't project, it doesn't work like that. It could just as well plummet tomorrow and for the rest of the century. Who knows?
2. Even if it were proven that it's getting warmer now and in the future (it won't be - indeed, it can't be), it has to be proven that man is responsible. Through CO2 emissions. Even though they're small relative to natural emissions. Won't happen.
3. Even if it were shown that man is causing a significant upturn in temperatures through his actions, it would have to be shown that government policies and regulation would correct the problem. This is very obviously not the case, as all libertarians know. Getting out of the way would be the thing to do.
4. If it were shown that some super-duper law would fix the problem of AGW (flat-out impossible), what's so bad about it getting warmer anyway? In the past it's been the colder periods that have given us most problems. Warming always coincides with a flourishing of fertility and abundance. The last Ice Age was less of a hoot.

QOTD

Mark Steyn on Warmergate:

How hard should it be to confirm settled science? After much cyber-gnashing of teeth, Harry throws in the towel:

“ARGH. Just went back to check on synthetic production. Apparently—I have no memory of this at all—we’re not doing observed rain days! It’s all synthetic from 1990 onwards. So I’m going to need conditionals in the update program to handle that. And separate gridding before 1989. And what TF happens to station counts?

“OH F–K THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.”

Thus spake the Settled Scientist: “OH F–K THIS.” And on the basis of “OH F–K THIS” the world’s enlightened progressives will assemble at Copenhagen for the single greatest advance in punitive liberalism ever perpetrated on the developed world.

CRU leak

The Big story lately has been the leaked emails and data from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit. Some beautiful rantings here, here and here.



Look, all thinking people know that climate change is a fraud the size of Al Gore's new wallet. There seems to be a good deal of proof among all this data that the "scientists" working on the load of bollocks were messing things up in a big way. But will this change policy? The world politicos are going to go ahead anyway, just like they did with the second Irish referendum. You don't want to join Europe? Fuck you, we'll just keep asking until you do. You don't want an overarching World Government which will save the world and save all of you from yourselves? Fuck you, one day we're not even going to bother asking anymore.

A guy on Newsnight last night said that he was sad that people will look less favourably on science in the future. But, you prick, the whole point is that they were not practising science. Unless politically-funded and motivated malpractice, collusion and cover-up counts.

But there is a point here. The inexorable use by politicians of "science" to back their machinations has been gathering momentum for some time. The "consenses" on dietary fat, on sunlight and skin cancer, on the hole in the ozone layer, and so on, are all examples. People hear "scientists said..." or "experts say..." and then accept whatever is said as True.

Look, truth is provisional. Science is a method, not a goal. And there is no such thing as consensus in science. There are hypotheses and alternative hypotheses. Always.

The real tragedy is that people are trained not to think for themselves anymore. Which is why, I fear, this smoking gun will eventually stop smoking, cool down, and get polished and thrown into the river.