Police Abuse in Norfolk 134


I am very worried by the report of a heavy handed police raid on Tallbloke, a blogger in Norfolk. According to this account, he was raided due to a link to leaked documents posted in a comments thread. We have become far too blase about the rapid erosion of civil liberties in this country. Norfolk is not devoid of serious crimes which these six detectives should be better employed in investigating.

I had not heard of Tallbloke and know nothing beyond the report to which I have linked. His blog discusses climate change at scientific levels well above my understanding, but scarcely seems a subject for the police. I do not share Tallboy’s views – in particular, I think man-made climate change is a fact we are not tackling with nearly sufficient seriousness. But whether or not I agree is irrelevant. What is important is the free speech issue. It is astonishing our media are criticising government handling of protest in Russia, when we have police raidng dissident bloggers in Norfolk which goes unnoticed.


134 thoughts on “Police Abuse in Norfolk

1 3 4 5
  • Scouse Billy

    “solubility of gases in water decreases with increasing temperature”
    .
    I thought I’d made that plain in my first reply to you in which I pointed out thar CO2 follows T with a mean latency of ~800 years – explained by outgassing (dissolved CO2) of the oceans.
    .
    I don’t believe I have made a single statement that contravenes known laws of physics.
    .
    Do you deliberately misinterpret what I write or are you suffering cognitive dissonance between what the laws of physical science tell you and what climate science has told you about the effects of increasing GHG’s?

  • markU

    Scouse Billy

    Point 1) OK, so you said “CO2 has been many times greater in the past but the Earth did NOT fry.” But you did NOT also mention that the Sun’s output was markedly lower at that point, either a lie by omission or something that you were not aware of.

    Point 2) If the rise in atmospheric Co2 levels as the oceans warmed after the last ice age is admitted to be a totally predictable consequence of very basic science, then what relevance has it got to the current climate debate and why do the denialists (eg Martin Durkin) try to make something out of it.

  • Qark

    “my questions assume that CO2 emissions are limited because hydrocarbon extraction rate is limited”
    .
    Clark, I doubt that assumption is valid. New technology has made available huge new supplies of oil and gas at current prices. I suspect there will be no supply limitation for the next many decades, perhaps several centuries, and prices could fall. Tar sands oil is viable at $50.00 per barrel and in North America natural gas is selling at a quarter the price of oil on an energy equivalent basis. And if necessary gas can be converted to liquid fuel.
    .
    I am glad you approve of markets. I actually approve also of an enlightened framework of laws within which markets work for the general good. Hence my support for carbon taxes, which provide the most efficient means, according to the economists, of lowering carbon emissions.
    .
    And whether one is skeptical or not of the more alarmist claims about carbon dioxide and climate, one should, i believe, be concerned about radically altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere — and CO2 is a critical component of the atmosphere through its effect on the biosphere, quite apart from any climatological impacts.
    .
    The efficiency of carbon taxes is due to the fact that they leave the market to adapt to lower energy consumption in any way it wants, e.g., through conservation, zero emission power, increased energy use efficiency — whatever pays the best.
    .
    What CM seems not to understand is that most scientifically qualified, so-called, climate skeptics acknowledge the theoretical necessity of an effect of CO2 on the climate, but resist acceptance of much of the questionable modeling that has been built on this premise.

    They also question, with good reason, the integrity of some claims concerning the actual course of global temperature.
    .
    Thus merely because Roger Tattersall, aka TallBloke, is a so-called climate skeptic (if he is, I’m not sure), it does not mean that he does not “think man-made climate change is a fact.” Or if he does, I think CM should provide the evidence. Otherwise, it appears that the post that began this thread is needlessly and unjustly defamatory.

  • Svcouse Billy

    You appear to have misunderstood the implications of both points:
    .
    1. The temperature (T) and CO2 levels have fluctuated over geological time and show a good correlation – albeit that CO2 levels lag T by ~800 years. It is the relationship between these variables that is the point: increasing T -> CO2 NOT the other way round as implied by Al Gore.
    .
    2. The above relationship is easily explained by known physical principles viz. solubility of gas being inversely proportional to T.
    .
    The whole point is that the warmist mantra has it that increasing CO2 levels will lead to higher temperatures when this is not the case – they confuse cause and effect.
    .
    Temperature (climate) change as a result of increasing greenhouse gas, has no empirical evidence only theoretical computer model “simulations”.
    .
    The real world data does not support the theoretical models ergo they are wrong.
    .
    Forster and Gregory’s real world (non-model) data (of climate sensitivity to CO2) were changed to fit the models alarmingly overstated sensitivities.
    .
    Miskolczi offers a theory that fits the observations and has not been refuted by peer-reviewed science. He demonstrates that the climate self-corrects to a fixed optical depth through H2O and no ammount of man-made GHG’s is going to make a jot of difference.
    .
    Pollution and GeoEngineering are other matters and should be of serious concern…
    .
    I trust empirical science not post-normal virtual science that is being shown to be more corrupt and policy based with every release of “climategate” e-mails.

  • tigger1

    The event (the Police seizing Tallbloke’s computers) is commented with many distortions of the facts depending on climate change beliefs. The event was not so one-sided.

    I would be labelled as “denialist”. In fact I am open to any logical and honest argument to become “warmist”.
    Because my logic is exactly as presented by Scouse Billy at 7:46 I am still waiting for someone to convert me.
    Methodology of science accepted for last few centuries (before then the scientific theories were sometimes established by majority vote on bishop’s synod) is to prove causation between phenomena or events in correlation by demonstrating reproducibility.
    Outside the pure science like physics or chemistry, for example in biological sciences the cause-effect sitution is always only highly probable.
    Meteorology is too complicated to predict accurately the weather for next week. The global climate model is thousands times more complicated.
    The proponents of hypothesis of ACC should be open and honest. Hiding the data, using the bullying methods to promote their views, multiple examples of pecuniary or career advancing interest in sticking to this particular model – they are the reason to call it new religion.

    However, if British police decided to pursue the claim of East Anglia University about the breach of computer security, they had the right to try to identify potential hacker – FOIA. That has not come from US this time, I guess. On contrary, probably US DoJ approached WordPress at request of British police.

    It would be interesting to see enquiry into potential fraud conducted by East Anglia CRU – the deliberate “correction” of data can lead to decisions of enormous consequences for UK, EU and whole world.

  • Fedup

    Clark,
    Hydrocarbon markets are a racket. The opaque oil pricing schemes start at the well-head, and end up in the tank. This practice can be all too easily discerned in the so called energy pricing tariffs, and the various schemes offered by “differing” competitors in the UK energy markets. The whole stinking affair revolves around bamboozling the dyscalculic punter and rip him/her off pronto.
    ,
    This is the easy money street next to trading in prohibited drugs markets. However, the profits depend on scarcity of the product, hence the wars of acquisition, that in fact are means of regulating the markets through monopolistic practices, before the war on Iraq in 2002, oil was trading around $16 to $22 per barrel. So much for cheap oil theory of the warmongers and those cheering these.
    ,
    Controlling the flow of oil is the key, hence the bums rush of the imperialists and warmongers to the middle east. The formulae is pretty easy, and can be discussed later. However, the consequences are far from easily predictable categorise, although the general thrust of the events, and their direction can be an acceptable outcome too, so far as the oligarchs are concerned.
    ,
    Before the current wars, and during the soviet era cold war, the wars of choice were not a credible solution, hence the inventions of the political pressures in the guise of climate change scam, and the peak oil scam, all designed to limit consumption through higher taxes, and pricing.
    ,
    This is born by the fact that so far no credible alternative energy scheme has been introduced, also the paucity of funds for research in that direction are telling of the non urgency of the situation.
    ,
    Further, the vehement opposition to nuclear energy production that can easily reduce the current rate of use of hydrocarbons, in addition to the decommissioning of the solid fuel power plants, all are constructs promoting higher priced hydrocarbons, in the way of sequestration of larger portions of the punters earnings.
    ,
    Those banging on about “unlimited resource”, all too often forget about the fact that Sun the big nuclear reactor in the sky is a limited resource, and we are winging it on this little rock flying through space in directions unknown. Hence limited resource Earth is a worry for these, whilst the only key to the problems the human beings are all too prevalent, and population explosion is a dangerous event. Fact that they only agent of change at our disposal is the human being itself somehow is looked upon as a sink and nor a source. How fucking stupid is this line of thinking?
    ,
    Start looking for the answers by investing in human asset, go nuclear, adopt better resource allocation, and refine resource management, and above all stop following fads and fashion, only permit science at its raw, peer reviewed no holds barred research. BTW no more investment in killing technologies, at once stop the negative investments in the killing, and associated technologies that drain our resources.
    (too late need to s/w off, overlook the mistakes)

  • Scouse Billy

    Newly-released emails reveal an intense private debate signalling a sharp shift among scientists away from the discredited greenhouse gas global warming theory.
    .
    The hitherto unseen correspondence between leading climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer and former NASA and DuPont engineer, Dr. Pierre R Latour, one of an increasing number of experts now attacking the crumbling science, exposes a key fallacy in the so-called man-made global warming theory.
    .
    Dr. Spencer’s essay “Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still” (July 23, 2011), written to support the greenhouse gas effect (GHE) the science behind man-made global warming has sparked increased criticism since publication. Dr. Spencer, without question a leading researcher of great integrity, has since gone on record to concede that he may be wrong and being misled by an ‘assumption bias.’
    .
    It was apparent assumptions in Spencer’s “Yes, Virginia” essay that inspired Dr. Latour, who first made a name for himself working on NASA’s Apollo Space program, to publish a counter-argument to Spencer’s essay entitled, “No Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still.” [1.]
    .
    Thereafter, Dr. Latour made his first email contact with Dr. Spencer on November 4, 2011. The good-natured email discussion was marked by Latour’s gracious acknowledgement of Spencer’s achievements in the vanguard of fighting the man-made global warming fraud.
    .
    On one issue both men absolutely agree on is that there is now compelling evidence pointing to misconduct, incompetence and endless unlawful cover-ups by a clique of discredited government climate scientists.
    .
    But Dr. Latour goes further in his criticism. Semi-retired after a stellar career, Latour is one of many eminent experts now becoming increasingly outspoken and declaring the GHE as “junk science.”
    .
    http://climaterealists.com/?id=8865

  • Qark

    “Methodology of science accepted for last few centuries (before then the scientific theories were sometimes established by majority vote on bishop’s synod) is to prove causation between phenomena or events in correlation by demonstrating reproducibility.”
    .
    That’s how it was.
    .
    But we are now living in the fascist global empire. You take your beliefs about science as you take your beliefs about anything else from the elite. That’s the function of people like Craig Murray: to hand it down to the masses what they are to believe.
    .
    No facts to confuse the public, thank you. And none of the foolish business of trying to think things out for yourself.
    .
    Just take it from us, the World is getting hotter, in fact it’s getting hot as Hell and if you don’t agree to 32 million new windmills and making Al Gore a carbon trading billionaire then not only will you be fried alive but brainwashed climate cultists will call you a denier, you know, like anti-
    Semite and a Holocaust denier, a Nazi really, someone who should be fried alive right now. Yeah.

  • Jives

    Well i’ll declare myself a complete idiot when it comes to science.I don’t understand it or the arguments,for and against,the global warming issue.
    .
    Where i stand though i tend not to believe in global warming.My reasons are simple and,as i admit,i know nothing about the science.I just don’t beleive anything the MSM stuffs down my throat.I distrust a concerted narrative if it comes from governments and the MSM.They’ve lied to me/us on so many major issues i just can’t take anything they say seriously,particularly when it’s sold to me as fait-accomplit.
    .
    So i guess i’m a climate-change denier but simply because i’ve feel i’ve been lied to so many times on so many major issues by Govts and the MSM that i can’t take anything they say seriously.
    .
    Do i get shot or extradited now?

  • Craig M

    I’d now call myself a skeptic as I started looking into both sides and have found those who believe in AGW hold the view with religious devotion and any challenge is blasphemous. The fact is we simply do not know enough about our climate or how it interacts – we do not have the balls as a species to admit we don’t really know everything.

    By contrast, there are those on the climate skeptic side who think it is okay to burn and drill and that there are no consequences. If they believe this so much go suck on a tailpipe and tell me the gases are harmeless. Hydrocarbons cost us immense amounts in blood and freedom across the globe. Pumping more crap into the atmosphere is no solution and simple logic would tell you is not good (see tailpipe). The biggest issues for me with CO2 are simply; the cost (human and environmental – think tar sands/oil spills etc); carbon trading (to replace the wonky financial system); that every pier reviewed article on climate includes the caveat ‘global warming’ (it does); that the science is not conclusive – they are finding new drivers, systems and patterns all the time – science should never be static yet climate science wants it to remain so; that the media who push wars our way push CO2 as well (if you read the articles you see the classic signs of erm untruth); politicians/corporations seeking to profit and finally that it is a ‘theory’. I read a lot of science blogs and I was surprised by the amount of skepticism out there from scientists in other fields.

    It’s worth reading the climategate emails they are an eye opener. What I took from it is the science is not settled and there is room for doubt, however they have to silence the doubt as it affects a) funding b) funding and c) the official story. Imagine if we were told CO2 is bull – would we trust science? Sometimes to gain trust you have to admit you were wrong, not come up with more bull. That is a clear sign of psychopathy normally shown by politicians. The refusal to comply with FOI requests by the climate community is worrying. If the science is settled then release the figures. Science should be open and in many fields it is, just not when it comes to climate because so much money rides on CO2 being the cause of climate change – instead of for example natural patterns which we are only beginning to understand (satellite records are only 30 years old, many climate records being broken are only a hundred years old – in climate terms that’s nothing). It really is a world of it’s own.

    Being a skeptic is a healthy position, it means you are skeptical not that you believe one way or the other. We do it with the media and politicians so why is it we should take science at face value? Something is clearly not right and I see signs in climate science that I see happen in other areas where blinkers exist.

    Living in a sustainable way is however quite fundamental to our existence – history has taught us enough what happens when we strip our resources. That is the reason to ‘go green’, not for CO2, especially when CO2 is just one gas we pump into the atmosphere in vast quantities. My main worry about the debate is the people saying since climate science is becoming more doubtful we can continue our wasteful ways to the detriment of the planet and ourselves.

    As for Tallbloke, Orwell comes to mind in how this has been handled. Craig is right to defend him whatever you think of the debate – I may not like what you have to say but I will defend you right to say it.

  • Scouse Billy

    A recent experimental refutation of “back radiation” and the “Greenhouse Effect”.
    .
    “It is very clear, from Thermodynamics, Plank’s distribution of radiation and Stefan-Boltzmann laws, that heat is transferred exclusively from warmer surfaces towards cooler systems, never the opposite, and this experiment demonstrates it is applicable to the climate system.
    .
    The disagreement between surface temperature caused by backradiation (which would be -91.35 °C and the actual temperature of surface (23.7 °C), debunks the myths of a greenhouse effect by backradiation emitted by cooler greenhouse gases warming up a warmer surface.
    .
    http://principia-scientific.org/publications/New_Concise_Experiment_on_Backradiation.pdf
    .
    Further, if you fancy searching, Heinze Thieme has published several essays demonstrating that the greenhouse gas theory is false.
    .
    In “On the Phenomenon of Atmospheric Backradiation” he shows that “An assessment conducted in the light of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the principles of vector algebra of the key greenhouse theory concept of ‘atmospheric backradiation’ suggests that it is simply a mirage. The only ‘Backradiation Phenomenon’ that needs explaining is how this physical nonsense maintains its place in numerous earth sciences textbooks at both school and university level.”
    .
    About time, this nonsense was put in its place – as an applied physicist of my acquaintance intimates, “I suspect some in the scientific hierarchy who have prostituted themselves for political purposes are being offered at this very moment an opportunity to correct their past false assertions.”

  • Qark

    “… i tend not to believe in global warming. … i admit, i know nothing about the science. I just don’t believe anything the MSM stuffs down my throat. … because … i’ve been lied to so many times on so many major issues by Govts and the MSM that i can’t take anything they say seriously.”
    .
    That’s brilliant. Pure scientific reasoning: a sort of plain man’s application of Bayes Theorem to MSM bollocks. Since you understand that, you grasp in it’s entirety the scientific method.

  • Passerby

    “….. i’m looking forward to touch you” said the with along name advertising rings.
    ,
    Piss off you ring obsessed pervert, go touch yourself. See the world, now the bots are getting trained to get familiar and start touching and god knows what else? Is there no laws against robosexaul behaviours?
    ,
    It should be outlawed I say, let us start a petition! Oh, I forgot no oligarch gives a shit who shafts we the people, so best get on with gathering tar and feathers for some cyber justice on the spot.
    ,
    PS no need to wear masks and stuff, they have your IP address!
    ,
    PPS does global warming also mean that these robots will be reaching puberty earlier/sooner?
    ,
    PPPS I know global warming is a hoax, and it is designed to stop me getting that holiday I always dreamt about, and now I know for sure I will never mange it, because of the rising price of energy, and inflationary pressures thereof, knowing that all the while my income shall remain fixed, and my saving will be eroding away.

1 3 4 5

Comments are closed.