Baroness Verma In Wonderland
October 27, 2014
By Paul Homewood
h/t Paul2
We really are ruled by cretins. Which planet are these idiots living on?
Just for the record, these are the CO2 emissions for 2008 and last year (million tonnes carbon).
| 2008 | 2013 | Inc/(Dec) | |
| UK | 142 | 126 | (16) |
| Rest of World | 8641 | 9735 | 1094 |
Or, to look at it in another way.
What has she been smoking to imagine that the UK’s reduction of 16 million tonnes can have had the slightest effect on climate, when the Rest of the World has increased their emissions by 68 times as much?
And, God forbid, this ludicrous woman is actually an Energy Minister! Heaven help us all.
25 Comments
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
How did I end up in this fantasy world? I want to get back in to the real one.
I thought BSE was supposed to have been wiped out in the UK.
Not quite only 500000 by the year 2000. Close for an expert
This is unbelievably twisted..
When I see them lie about issues I understand, I always wonder how much these politicians lie about the issues I don’t understand.
Yes, that one gets to me as well – and I have to ask myself “what else are they lying about? And why all the need for all the lies?
Ah, but their mentor, Machiavelli, made it the ‘duty’ of leaders to lie to the populace. So when we call them out for lying they lie again to cover it up, out of duty, whatever that means to them.
This ought to help:
Met Office to build £97m supercomputer
No, correction! Taxpayer to build supercomputer.
You can bet the cost will not be as advertised!
Also the resulting output will be as crappy as the previous unit.
If they put the same garbage in they will get the same garbage out , only quicker
I notice that they said that the new computer would allow them to forecast accurately further ahead, and do more frequent short-term revisions.
Which begs the question, if the forecasts are more accurate, why would they need to revise them more frequently?
Surely they should require less revision?
I think forecasts are like typing on a computer with spell check on. It really doesn’t matter if you can actually spell, as long as the spell check corrects your typing. Forecasts are “accurate” if after revision they are closer to reality. It’s only the end product, the forecast right before the event, that counts. Kind of a “forecast check” system. 🙂
“Reality check”
I am not sure whether you are being serious or not.
What would be the point of forecasting further ahead, if only the last one counts?
Another thing is, who is going to monitor the forecasts for specific locations when the new computer becomes operational – the Met. Office? I don’t trust them to be sufficiently unbiased to do that. They don’t at the moment, but that doesn’t stop them from making claims that the forecasts are “accurate”, or improving?
I’m being facetious. Forecasting further ahead just sounds better. Who actually checks the accuracy of the forecasts and what criteria do they use? I googled that one time and it’s pretty enlightening. It seems likely no one will actually moniter the supercomputer accuracy in any meaningful way. Plus, have you noticed that even now the forecasts change on every newscast (or they do where I am in the US)? There is no single forecast as it is. Having more updates probably won’t even be noticed.
I hoped you were.
There will be so many forecasts it will be virtually impossible to monitor them, but they need to devote a small proportion of the computer’s capacity to an agreed method of monitoring so that we really know whether it’s value for money. Of course that would need to be overseen by an independent body to avoid cheating. I doubt if that will happen.
Re the new supercomputer at the MetOffice, the chap said on 5 Live this morning “It will make our predictions a little bit better” or put another way “slightly less worse”. And a snip at £97M. Where in the private sector would you get a business case like that through? Yes we are really ruled by cretins but we must be cretins ourselves for electing them in the first place. 😦
A shame for a civilized nation ! UK is not the only one to blame, most western countries are like. Democracy, massively installed in Europe during 19th century, has been so expertly twisted by political parties, media and science of lie (teached by Goebbels) that it reached current paradoxal situation: Politicians are able to convince free honest electors to empower politician crooks acting fully against population’s desire and interest.
Systems is locked by those controlling Laws issuance and implementation, actually those taking exclusive benefit of the system: The new Aristocratic Class, politico-mediatic people.
No way to expel them, only a new Revolution (1648 or 1789 style) would expel them towards a new deal, less dishonest for a century, then probably again corruption will take over…
Herve,
Very good.
Why do you expect facts to have anything to do with anything?
all it takes is for someone (eg Liz Truss) to state “we know the world is warming”
and it gets reported and some knowledgeable from FOE/GreenPeace/RSPB etc etc
is invited on tv to waffle on about only 29 minutes to save the world
and job down
People trying to argue rationally are arguing against people who just make stuff up
and are given a large amount of media time and space to propagate their views.
And as someone once said. Something repeated often enough becomes true
“And as someone once said. Something repeated often enough becomes true”—becomes what people call the truth, not what is actually true. Lying long enough doesn’t make a truth, just really ignorant populations who will fall for anything.
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
Vladimir Lenin (though often attributed to Goebbels)
Not to fussed about politicians, but those in population without means or time or inclination to check for themselves become influenced and tend to believe what they are told. Particularly by tv
I’m not saying that people don’t perceive (or accept) the lie as truth. If there is any such thing as independent truth (reality, whatever you want to call it), then believing the lie does not change said truth. It’s quite clear one can lie to people and if they are lazy or apathetic, they’ll believe whatever they are told.
From the article, Baroness Verma say’s:
‘It may have slowed down, but that is a good thing. It could well be that some of the measures we are taking today is helping that to occur.’
Apart from the grammar, she doesn’t specify what “measures” she is talking about, presumably CO2 reduction, but why didn’t Ridley ask her to be more specific?
From the MO News release on the new computer:
“This supercomputer will be 13 times more powerful than the current system used by the Met Office and will have 120,000 times more memory than a top-end smartphone.”
What as the comparison with smartphone memory got to do with anything?
Item on last night’s Newsnight about Antarctic sea ice, including a discussion between Matt Ridley and Tamsin Edwards (climate scientist at the Open University). Putting forward the view that increased ice in Antarctica was due to warming. I found the smugness of Ms Edwards almost unbearable, and Ridley tended to be interrupted when he was trying to make the point that most of the temperature models were wrong.
About 33 minutes in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04n6s63/newsnight-28102014