Off topic, sort of. A pedantic point about Cromwell.

Marina says that her enemy is the property laws dating back to “the English revolution, and Cromwell’s time and the enclosures” can I just point out that Cromwell and co overthrew an absolutist monarchy and set us on the long-road towards a Parliamentary democracy.

He was not when the rot set in, but represents a big step forwards for our liberties – no matter how imperfect.

[deleted]

“Me, I’ll just go on growing my carbon footprint, providing employment for others and contributing to global economic growth”

Don’t forget to teach your kids to swim, baby.

[deleted]

Why do these f*cking climate change denying nutjobs have to pollute every thread?

6

“Why do these f*cking climate change denying nutjobs have to pollute every thread?”

It’s probably part of the Wedge Strategy. That’s them, right? Yeah, that’s basically them.

It doesn’t help you deleting their posts, though. You’re encouraging this idea that the ‘truth’ is being strangled by eeeevil scientists and their eeeevil facts and figures.

Yeah climate change skeptics have a bit of a victim complex, despite having massively more coverage and credence given to them than their unscietific ramblings warrant.

I’b be funnier to just delete the comments and replace the words with a link to a website on climate change like http://www.skepticalscience.com They might learn something.

@7

Well, all conspiracy theorists do. If you truly believe something, no matter how laughable, it’s going to appear unfair that the world shrugs its shoulders at you. And that’s their problem, of course.

But I still don’t think that it’s a good (or indeed reasonable) idea to feed into that. Whoever DocBud is, and whatever they said, they can quite fairly claim to be being censored because they are, thanks to Sunny and his weird attitude towards freedom of speech (i.e. freedom for those who either agree with Sunny or disagree in a way he considers acceptable). Basically, it turns a crazy conspiracy theory into an actual conspiracy. Not good.

‘former actress and model?

Marina Pepper (née Baker) has quite an unusual background.

She was a nude model and appeared on Page 3 of The Sun and later a soft-porn model including being a centre-fold for Playboy, for whom she worked for some time. (When she unsuccesfully stood for parliament she said facetiously“I’m not sure Page Three girls can become MPs”

She claims to be a witch and is a follower of the wicca cult. When she was chairman of Lewes Council she hosted a British Legion do for former members of the Royal Sussex Regment including World War Two veterans. Unfortunately Marina was heavily refreshed and after a few inappropriate remarks the veterans walked out.

She has also been an “Agony Aunt” for the New Statesman.

Still good to see she’s still active.

Wonder what she makes of her party’s coalition with the Tories?

[deleted]

[deleted]

@Chaise Guevara:

I thought the Wedge Strategy was Intelligent Design.

Wouldn’t surprise me if climate deniers were up to the same thing, though. They have no chance of winning everyone over with science, so they might as well try and win them over with propaganda instead.

@7

Or just respond to each of their points with, “Yes, but do you actually have any qualifications in climate science?”

Admittedly I don’t either, but then I’m not the one running round saying that people who do have those qualifications are all wrong.

Climate change denial = creationism for people who think themselves too clever and educated to believe in silly things like creationism.

I always quite admire people like this, even when they are badly mistaken.

Though of course she is not helpful to the environmental cause.
Allowing / encouraging the association / conflation of “environmentalism” and “anti-capitalism” is almost certainly a mistake.

Why do these f*cking climate change denying nutjobs have to pollute every thread?

Having been deleted on another climate thread on LC this morning, I might now find myself labeled as such, even though I don’t ”deny” anything. I’m just not convinced by these climate activist groups. It’s OK to have differing opinions on what groups you do and don’t support I take it. (?)

“Or just respond to each of their points with, “Yes, but do you actually have any qualifications in climate science?””

Not sure you really want to go down that route at all. For every comment thread about matters economic would be me, Chris Dillow and Luis Enrique alone, none of the rest of you being allowed to even have views on the subject. For what are your qualifications in economics (or Alan Johnson’s for that matter, as Chris points out).

“all. For every comment thread about matters economic would be me, Chris Dillow and Luis Enrique alone,”

Haven’t you described yourself as an “interested amateur” before? which rather implies you don’t have expertise yourself.

17 – Not all people with qualifications in economics are professional economists.

“Haven’t you described yourself as an “interested amateur” before? which rather implies you don’t have expertise yourself.”

I do have a degree in the subject, a qualification, even if that doesn’t make me a professional economist.

The original point above was “what are your qualifications” not “what is your job”.

There is nothing neccessarily wrong with people getting involved in discussions on topics in which they are not qualified, and actually a lot of the arguments around climate change don’t really involve in-depth discussions of the actual science. Which is good, because my only scientific qualification is an ‘O’ Level in chemistry. But when people make authoritative sounding statements it is perfectly reaonable to question their authority for making such statements.

She was a nude model and appeared on Page 3 of The Sun and later a soft-porn model including being a centre-fold for Playboy, for whom she worked for some time. … She claims to be a witch and is a follower of the wicca cult.

Does this at all undermine her standing as an expert on climate science?

I do wish she wouldn’t compare herself to Rosa Parks. Climate activists have it easy by comparison. Really, they do.

@12 Andy

“I thought the Wedge Strategy was Intelligent Design.”

It is. I be drawing parallels. As you point out, the tactics are similar: if you can’t win with facts, try being noisy.

@ 21

“Does this at all undermine her standing as an expert on climate science?”

I have to admit that her rap sheet must make every reader, regardless of their POV on climate change, wince at least once.

I wouldn’t say that “wince” was quite my reaction when I looked up her early modelling work, I have to admit.

“I wouldn’t say that “wince” was quite my reaction when I looked up her early modelling work, I have to admit.”

LOL. I’d look myself (to corroborate the claims made in the thread, you understand), but I think I’d be heading straight into NSFW territory there.

Does it matter what she did? It is what she does now that it is interesting (wrong in my view, but still interesting). I suspect having more people who have done nude modelling or whatever in politics could only improve it – it would start to remove the stupid moral barriers currently in place (thanks partially to our old friends the tabloids…).

“. I suspect having more people who have done nude modelling or whatever in politics could only improve it ”

Frankly this should be a minimum requirement.

@ 26

“Does it matter what she did?”

Generally, no, and I agree a wide range of backgrounds would probably be beneficial in politics. However, I’m a bit concerned about what claiming to be a witch says about one’s credulousness (if indeed she said that and it hasn’t been taken out of context).

“However, I’m a bit concerned about what claiming to be a witch says about one’s credulousness”

Both credulity and credibility I would have said.

Still, combine that with the modelling and we’ve a new meaning to “cold as a witches tit” I suppose.

“I suspect having more people who have done nude modelling or whatever in politics could only improve it”

Take a look at any random sample of backbench MPs.

Nobody needs to see that lot naked.

@Tim

“Both credulity and credibility I would have said.”

Yes, to have credibility she should believe sensible things, such as that a piece of wafer has transformed into a 2000 year old dead Jewish guy. Like that Mr Blair or Ms Widdecombe.

@31

“Yes, to have credibility she should believe sensible things, such as that a piece of wafer has transformed into a 2000 year old dead Jewish guy. Like that Mr Blair or Ms Widdecombe.”

Um, you think anyone who doesn’t believe in witches must be Christian? I know one burned the other back in the day, but still…

Marina Pepper is an English liberal democrat local politician, journalist, children’s book author and former model and actress.

Good dentist too!

Well, all conspiracy theorists do. If you truly believe something, no matter how laughable, it’s going to appear unfair that the world shrugs its shoulders at you. And that’s their problem, of course.

Of course, sometimes theories and theorists are ignored or demeaned. And, sometimes, like Gary Webb who was driven to suicide, they’re right.

Admittedly I don’t either, but then I’m not the one running round saying that people who do have those qualifications are all wrong.

But experts believe things within their fields that you might find absurd. Biochemists who think dogs have parasychological powers. Architects who think the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives. Appeals to authority can bear weight but aren’t conclusive.

@BenSix

I think you’ll find considerably more climatologists believe in man-made climate change than architects believe in explosives bringing down the Twin Towers.

The comparison would only be valid if the Royal Institute of British Architects started holding troofer conventions.

Zarathustra –

So, how many experts need to believe something before it becomes unquestionable?

Nothing becomes unquestionable, but if the vast majority of the experts believe in it, then (a) it’s probably true, and (b) those questioning that view despite having no qualifications in the field ought to have a pretty solid argument and evidence to back up their claims.