September 23rd, 2011

Science is Never “Settled”

The likes of George Monbiot and Al Gore get pretty hysterical about global warming / cooling / dimming or whatever current theory is in vogue. The science is settled / the evidence is overwhelming they scream in an attempt to block any debate. In reality physicists, as a sub-section of the scientific community, are a lot less keen on the whole carbon and climate scare racket. Scientists are not usually unanimous on any subject which is complex.

The world’s leading physicists at CERN reckon they have discovered neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light. If proven correct this will undermine a key part of Einstein’s accepted theory which constitutes the standard model of science. Of course it was once standard settled science that the atom could not be divided and it was the “settled science” until Copernicus that the earth was at the centre of the universe. The next time Monbiot tries to shut down debate by claiming scientific authority for his theories, ask him if the atom can be split or can anything travel faster than light? Climate changes undoubtedly, the significance of humanity’s carbon outputs is debatable. CERN has today shown that science is never entirely settled…


  1. 1
    I meet a socialist once and the cunt nicked my wallet. says:

    Guido, you are a racist if you question thier facts.

    Thats what al Gore said.


    • 6
      Roy says:

      Monbiot is cock


      • 14
        Fiscal Gerrymandering says:

        Perhaps we can get CERN to have a look at public finances to determine whether it is possible for politicians to endlessly fund re-election programmes using borrow and spend.

        I am sure the troughers wouldn’t believe the result anyway.

        Meanwhile – kick that can down the road – the economy will recover in 6 months – everything will be fine – nothing to see here – move along


      • 127
        Some Tory boyz are excellent, e.g. Boris says:

        When were scientific deductions ever accepted, by intelligent people, as final?

        They are merely best guestimates based on the available information until the next best guesstimates when newer information becomes available.


      • 136
        Anonymous says:

        Gore would be a ‘bigger cock’ (if that wasn’t something we always wanted)!

        Not me though, mines OK.


      • 168
        CYNICAL OLD MAN says:

        Totally O/T but I see that shyster Mark Lewis is now pursuing Rupert Murdoch through the U.S. courts “on behalf of hacking victims”.

        Once again Lewis has been all over the news studios pushing the hacking claims, but he seems to have let the cat out of the bag as to his true motivations when he stated he wants the courts to decide if the Murdoch family should be allowed to run News Corp. He’s trying to pressure New Corp. shareholders into dumping the Murdochs.

        This has all the appearance of Lewis pursuing a vendetta against the Murdochs using the hacking saga as the excuse.

        In fact the real vendetta is being pursued by Max Moseley. He’s not satisfied with winning a libel case against the News Of The World, it seems he’ll not be happy until he’s destroyed the Murdochs and their businesses. Moseley is bankrolling Lewis – although Lewis won’t confirm or deny this – and is also using the alleged victims as pawns in this vendetta.

        Isn’t there something about using the legal system to pursue personal vendettas against individuals? I believe it’s called “vexatious litigation”.

        Moseley is obviously trying to have a privacy act introduced and to inhibit press freedom. Whatever you think about Rupert Murdoch and his media empire, Moseley is by far the more insidious influence. A man who is using his wealth, using alleged victims and whipping up a media frenzy employing the proxy, Lewis.

        If we had a media of any journalistic integrity, they would be looking at Lewis’ financing and Moseley’s motivations in all this brouhaha.


        • 345
          Anonymous says:

          Like father like son,


        • 354
          Tony E says:

          The daft thing about the Moseley case was that he only won on a limited basis – that the so-called ‘Nazi’ angle was false. It was not a purely ‘privacy based’ issue.

          In so doing, the court appears to have ruled that if there were nazi overtones, his position dealing with different countries as the head of an international business and sporting organisation might have made his exposure legitimate.

          If anyone still has access to the video, I suggest a re-appraisal. Stripey pajamas, reminiscent of concentration camp uniforms? Check! Involvement by the son of Britiain’s most famous Facist? Check!

          You can see how the ‘misunderstanding’ came about….


        • 375
          Stan Smith says:

          A vendetta you say? Like the one Michael Moore did in the film Roger and Me where he chased Roger Smith all over the US to get an interview which he got though in the film he did not? For artistic reasons of course.


    • 15
      Engineer says:

      How does questioning a scientific theory make you a racist? Even Moonbat and Gore can’t be that daft.

      Can they?


      • 22
        W.W. says:

        Erm, I think it was an attempt ar wit/parody/satire.

        Though yes they can be that daft, it’s the fact they think we are all that daft that annoys me.



        • 357
          Hmm... says:

          Al Gore compares ‘climate deniers’ To Racists


          • Chortle says:

            “…not long ago, to question multiculturalism – the precepts or the policies of successive governments – risked being branded racist and pushed into the loathesome corner with paedophiles and climate change deniers”

            Michael Buerk – Moral Maze, R4


          • Stan Smith says:

            Dude voted for funding which lead to the creation of the Internet. (Which was created in 1969)


      • 27
        Anonymous says:

        Maybe white bloggers produce more Methane then non white bloggers hence its racist innit.


      • 36
        sockpuppet #4 says:

        Copernicus theory went against the teachings of the church. Not science.

        And its far from certain that there was ever a time when a modern theory of atoms existed, and it was well defined that they could not be split.

        If E doesn’t equal MC squared then nuclear bombs don’t work, and we should turn off nuclear power stations. As clearly they are working by magic.


        • 39
          sockpuppet #4 says:

          That wasn’t supposed to go there.


          • Engineer says:

            Don’t worry. It’s a perfectly rational comment. It would stand wherever it appe*red in the thread.


          • Call me Infidel says:

            I seem to recall a similar load of bollocks about “cold fusion” a few years back. I suspect this will turn out the same way.


        • 50
          c = cockpuppet says:

          If these results are correct then ‘c’ will just have to be redefined, nothing magic about that cockpuppet. Newtonian theory was enough to get us into space and explain the mechanical universe, but it didn’t mean it was the last word. Similarly E = mc2 was enough to make a nuclear bomb, but clearly not enough to explain the latest set of scientific data. Get over it FFS.


          • sockpuppet #4 says:

            C will not have to be redefined. Its the same as it always was and even if einstein’s theories are refined or changed, c remains the same.

            Also, do you know what you’ve just said there …. you’re actually saying is that “established science” might be out by an unobservably small factor that makes no real difference. I bet you didn’t really want to say that did you?


          • Albert Freebase E. says:

            Dis vud mean neutrinos viv infinite mass, vot a luda valls. Dhese so called zeintists know phuckall like dat dunkoff hasshole Thomas Edison.


          • c = cockpuppet says:

            cockpuppet, ‘c’ does not remain the same in the light of these findings because it is no longer a constant, which is a prerequisite of the formula, you fucking dolt. If it turns out that light has varying speeds then it’s use a constant goes out of the window, hence the gist of the article that the laws of physics will have to be rewritten. Newtonian physics also only differs from Einsteinian physics by small degrees, but still has far reaching consequences. You’re as bad as the flat earthers FFS.


        • 239
          Nothing better to do. says:

          “If E doesn’t equal MC squared then nuclear bombs don’t work, and we should turn off nuclear power stations. As clearly they are working by magic.”
          #If you define magic as anything we don’t understand then your statement would be true but what if E equals MC squared is not the whole answer? Maybe it’s just more complicated than it has seemed up until now. Surely that’s the whole point of this article?


          • Anonymous says:

            In other words.

            “While it is usually thought that no meaning can be ascribed to a dimensional quantity such as the speed of light varying in time (as opposed to a dimensionless number such as the fine structure constant), in some controversial theories in cosmology, the speed of light also varies by changing the postulates of special relativity. This though would require a rewrite of much of modern physics, to replace the current system which depends on a constant c.[1]”

            It looks like this rewrite is getting closer.


        • 378
          Gal Ore says:

          Which church was founded by Ptolemy?


      • 54
        smoggie says:

        At their foaming height, the global warming nazis even tried to suggest that questioning the ‘settled science’ should be considered a criminal act on a par with denying the holocaust. Start a debate and you were a ‘denier’.

        That the holocaust was a fact of history and global warming was merely a prediction of the future was irrelevant.

        The Earth has been getting cooler in the last decade which is an inconvenient truth so now it becomes climate change.

        What is reassuring is that ordinary folk have got wise to these scam artists. But unfortunately the rip- off continues.


      • 92
        Professor Henry Brubaker, Institute for Studies says:

        Al Gore compared ‘denying’ global warming to racism.

        Al Gores dads always voted against civil rights for black people. Al Gore supported his fathers elections.

        Make of that what you will.


        • 96
          smoggie says:

          An opportunist and a cardboard cutout of a real statesman.


        • 368
          Psychopaths: The Predators Around Us says:

          An inconvenient truth – perhaps!!!
          Perhaps you can see th links and the reality as Troops Burn Down Homes, Kill Children To Evict Ugandans In Name Of Global Warming.
          “‘Armed troops acting on behalf of a British carbon trading company backed by the World Bank burned houses to the ground and killed children to evict Ugandans from their homes in the name of seizing land to protect against “global warming,” a shocking illustration of how the climate change con is a barbarian form of neo-colonialism.

          The evictions were ordered by New Forests Company, an outfit that seizes land in Africa to grow trees then sells the “carbon credits” on to transnational corporations. The company is backed by the World Bank and HSBC. Its Board of Directors includes HSBC Managing Director Sajjad Sabur, as well as other former Goldman Sachs investment bankers.'”

          As for the speed of Light, that has always been a constant and not a limit – confusing ain’t it!


      • 369
        Zweistein says:

        They are obviously anti–semites, trying to disprove Einstein.


      • 383
        low resolution fox says:

        The science is pretty ropey anyway. If you strip out all the pseudo-jargon and restrict it to what the UN top report says. You end up with something like

        “we are about 90% sure that about 50% of a 0.7°C rise over 150 years was due to carbon”.

        It’s hardly 100% conclusive proof of anything.


    • 366

      Is it possible that if a genius like Einstein can be found to be wrong, then sometime in the future the same could be said of Guido?


  2. 2
    I meet a socialist once and the cunt nicked my wallet. says:

    Ps Looney Left tag?


    • 83
      Goystein says:

      Ask a “Physicist” what a magnetic field is made of and you’ll find out how looney Fizzicists are!


      • 133
        Nemo says:

        If you really want to make feathers fly what about the different economic theorist schools, they look at someone who they don’t like, develop a theory which is almost the opposite of theirs, and then call all the names under the sun, and when politicos start biting the bit, picking the theory that suits their particular mode of “thought”, or what about the religious sects (supposedly of the same religion)picking a phrase out of the bible and saying, ” God says that, that is what I believe” and proceed to say everyone is wrong. Scientists tend to do this thing in a more gentlemanly way these days unlike the past.


        • 166
          CRUde conclusion says:

          “Scientists tend to do this thing in a more gentlemanly way”

          Unless you work at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia where the Unconvenient part was quietly excluded from their Truth.


      • 217
        jgm2 says:

        Ask them to show you a bottle of gravity and they get a bit muddled too.
        They can model it. They can predict it’s effects. But they can’t actually isolate any ‘gravity’.


        • 292
          Goystein says:

          Exactly! They also believe that space is a bendy vaccum, which is a contradiction in itself.
          Whenever they don’t know WTF is going on, they use the term “Quantum”.
          Nobody’s ever located a “Black Hole” or “Dark Matter” either.
          Which leads me to assume they are all full of shit, really…


        • 329
          mibranehertz says:

          Same for magnetism, but we all can measure it can’t we?



        • 336
          AC1 says:

          When is an aether not an aether?

          When it’s a Minkowski space!

          I think Einstein understood about 50% of his own (brilliant) theory and everyone else a lot less.


  3. 3
    I meet a socialist once and the cunt nicked my wallet. says:

    “CERN has today cience is never entirely settled…”

    Sack the Intern!!!!!!!


  4. 4
    Moussa Koussa says:

    What are you on about Guido. Lost your political mojo have you

    Seven Down. The stuff Guido doesn’t like to mention

    1. Stocks plummet
    2. Unemployment rising
    3. Inflation rising
    4. Winter of discontent imminent
    5. NHS IT Programme…errr not actually scrapped.
    6. Langsley re-launch falls flat on its face
    7. Has Warsi emigrated ????


    • 18
      Engineer says:

      Western economy plummets as Euro collapses and America ducks debts problem. Nobody remotely surprised.


    • 19
      General Sir Philip Michael Hunt says:

      Seven Down. The stuff Guido doesn’t like to mention

      1. Stocks plummet – Repercussion of Socialist policies of the EU
      2. Unemployment rising – Repercussion of QE and bailout of bankers by the Labourists
      3. Inflation rising – Repercussion of QE
      4. Winter of discontent imminent – Repercussion of QE and bailout of bankers by the Labourists
      5. NHS IT Programme…errr not actually scrapped. – erm, who cares, the whole of the NHS should be privatised. Afer WWII we needed the NHS in the format that it was created, the world has changed beyodn all recognition and so should the NHS.
      6. Langsley re-launch falls flat on its face, – who cares?
      7. Has Warsi emigrated ???? – what’s a Warsi?


    • 93
      vladikavkaz says:

      What made me laugh was that the BBC was reporting that shares were continuing to plummet, when all the indexes are showing green.

      Right now they have the headline that the stock markets have ended ‘flat’, after the FTSE went up by approx $6.5Billion today.


      • 116
        The BBC Flat Earthers of 2008 says:

        The script was written 24 hours ago..they need clearance to deviate from the line of spreading nationwide panic and telling viewers that it’s all the fault of the Tory Cuts !!!!


      • 338
        AC1 says:

        Oh come on now. You don’t expect BBC narrative 24 to report news do you?


    • 114
      But we only have fourteen hours to save the Earth! says:

      I think it’s time for Gordon to come out of retirement to save the Earth once more…………………


    • 221
      What a plonker. says:

      Thank you Labour.


    • 232
      Alexei (fisticuffs) Lebedev - a fit and proper person says:

      The beeboids are really driving themselves into a frenzy on this UN Palestinian state nonsense. Are you behind this Moussa in your Riyadh hidey hole?


  5. 7
    Jimmy says:

    Very true. Scientists claimed quark-gluon plasma was the densest matter in the universe but you certainly showed them.


  6. 8
    Terrible But True says:

    Actually, I believe the guys who most recently trotted that notion out are having a conference soon.

    And one took his then boss’ Macarthyist ranting and ran with it…

    On the plus side, one presumes they and Mr. Huhne are now bonded in glory forever.


  7. 9
    Moussa Koussa says:

    errr all this anti green stuff…Does this mean you want the Tory logo to be changed back from a tree to a torch… or was the tree thing just classic Dave bolloxs.


  8. 10
    General Sir Philip Michael Hunt says:

    The Science IS settled, there is no AGW, more likely to be an Ice Age coming our way…


  9. 12
    Moussa Koussa says:

    Anyone see QT last night.

    Pirti Patel

    WHAT A NUTTER !!!!


  10. 13
    I meet a socialist once and the cunt nicked my wallet. says:

    but in the 80s i remeber scaremongering that we are headed for a ice age and now they say global warming and climate change.

    Did the left bitch about the theory of gravitey like this?


  11. 16
    TJB says:

    Oi, climate change enthusiasts! This is how proper science is done. I’m pretty sure if someone comes along and challenges CERN’s results they won’t be shouting ” Muon/Tau speed limit deniers” (to be fair that’s not exactly the catchiest taunt) and calling the other scientists small minded flat earthers.


    • 33
      Sleepless in Kirkaldy says:

      Yes, this is how science should be done. The issue here is that the Speed of Light doesn’t have political/economic implications in the short to medium term. It has no pessimistic implications, therefore won’t sell lots of books or newspapers. It can therefore be left for rigorous investigation.


  12. 20
    hmmmm says:

    well that settles it then


  13. 23
    Anonymous says:

    Doesn’t this just demonstrate sciences ability to raise questions about even the most settled areas? The ludicrous “it’s all some lefty science conspiracy” theory is undermined by this.

    No serious has suggested the science is “settled” in an absolute manner. But in the real world you have to make decisions based on available information.

    Carbon reduction is equivalent to purchasing insurance. You weigh up the risk of economic loss from climate change to the economic cost of carbon reduction and decide what it’s worth spending on. It’s not settled it’s balance of probabilities


    • 29
      General Sir Philip Michael Hunt says:

      No, its not, its madness! The balance of probablities is that the big yellow shiny thing in the sky drives our weather, the thing which shines on the surface of th Earth more nergy in 3.5 days than the WHOLE of humanity as EVER used throughout our puny history.


    • 31
      worzel gummage says:

      oh god

      that’s it

      i’m off to the pub too


    • 145
      Anonymous says:

      Capital spent “insuring” against an unproven threat is capital wasted.


  14. 25
    keddaw says:

    Science is never ‘proven’, but we have to work with the best that we currently have.

    Shutting down scientific debate is wrong though, especially by ignorant, lawyerly, politicians.


  15. 28
    Anonymous says:

    “The physicists at CERN reckon they have discovered neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light.”

    Blow me, that’s all the proof we need, eh?


  16. 32
    Selohesra says:

    I thought travelling faster than speed of light was allowed but that accelerating through that speed was not ie as long as you have always been whizzing around at that speed then Einstein would be happy


    • 130
      Troy Tempest says:

      What happens if you are travelling at the speed of light, and you switch on a torch?


      • 219
        Physicist says:

        The torch works as you would expect.


      • 224
        jgm2 says:

        All the light waves bunch up in front of you like a great bow wave of light. Probably.


      • 236
        The wizz says:

        Easy, the torch will still show i.e. twice the speed.


        • 269
          jgm2 says:

          Yep. Apparently so. If I remember correctly then it’s like if you’re travelling on a train and jump up in the air the train doesn’t whizz underneath you and slam you into the end of the carriage. Same with the light from the torch. The light, relative to you, whizzes off in front of you at – well – the speed of light.

          HOWEVER an observer at a stationary point sees you whizzing by at the speed of light but NOT the light from the torch fucking off ahead of you at twice the speed of light.

          Does my head in too.


  17. 35
    Travels with my Runt says:

    I don’t wish to be petty or mean spirited about the travellers but the sight of the 5 sisters turning up to court singing and wearing the same top was just irritating and wouldn’t have won them any fans. They apparently told reporters they wore the same top as a sign of solidarity. So the fact they’re sisters isn’t solidarity in itself? You can’t accuse them of being smart.


  18. 37
    Anonymous says:

    There is a big difference in particle physics and other branches such as meteorology. Climate change, man-made or not, is relatively simple to observe, just like evolution. You don’t need huge particle accelerators to prove a point. But, as with the theory of evolution, there will always be the deniers, using bizarre justifications and attacking proponents (see above) to make their case.


  19. 37
    Science Fail says:

    The thing is there is a very broad consensus that climate change is real and happening now. Just because a handfull of people/scientists think there is a debate to be had does not mean there is one.

    In addition, there is a great deal of evidence to support the idea that climate change is happening. It is not enough to say some people disagree and expect that to mean anything. You have to have an alternative, with equivalent or more proof to the contrary. The burden of proof is now on the sceptics to prove it wrong, not the other way around. Until that day (which probably wont come) denying it is a waste of everyone’s time and money. We would all be better off if everyone got on with the scientific fact of the matter.


    • 56
      W.W. says:

      I’m no scientist, but isn’t it obvious the climate is changing, it always has.

      The debate is the extent, the effect and the cause.

      As yet I have not seen any scientific data to prove the planet is warming more significantly than it has in the past, or that it is man made.

      If you know of any, that a layman could read, I would be gratefull


    • 57
      Engineer says:

      1) Climate is changing. Climate has been changing, one way and another, for about 4 billion years or so. We know this from anaysis of the geological record.

      2) Climate is currently warming, at about 0.6C per century, overlaid by a cooling/warming cycle on roughly a 60-year return period (so that’s thirty years cooling, then thirty years warming).

      3)Nobody has predicted how long the current warming period will last, but recent historical and archaelogical evidence suggests a thousand-year cycle of cooling and warming. The last cold period ended about 1800, so the warming may last about another 200/300 years before cooling again.

      4) It is not yet known in sufficient detail how the climate works. No set of mathematical formulae exist to describe or predict climatic effects. Existing models rely heavily on assumptions and data of questionable validity, and have been demonstrated to be imperfect at best, utter rubbish at worst.

      5) A theory was promulgated that atmospheric carbon dioxide was a major factor in determining climate. There is currently more evidence to suggest that theory is flawed than suggests it is sound. Gathering and interpretation of data continues, and will continue for some decades at least.

      That’s my understanding of the current scientific position on climate.


      • 124
        Four-eyed English Genius says:

        There is a reason why Greenland is called Greenland. One thousand years ago, when it was discovered by the Vikings, it WAS green and fertile. Then the climate changed and it got colder. I wonder why? Might be something to do with that big shiny thing up in the sky!!


    • 70
      Snotsicle says:

      There is only a broad consensus among sandal-wearing wierdie-beardies who, unable to attract research funding for anything else, trot out all the “drowning polar bears” clap trap safe in the knowledge that someone will stump up a few thousand dollars per year to have their corporate logo plastered all over the side of a “research vehicle” for a bit of cheap “ooh look, aren’t we green and responsible” advertising. The result of said research is a foregone conclusion, of course.

      Anyone wanting to do real climate science, the old-fashioned way with no pre-conceived ideas of the outcome and based on peer-evaluated experimentation, is immediately dismissed as a flat-earth believer or petrochemicals industry patsy.


  20. 41
    I meet a socialist once and the cunt nicked my wallet. says:

    I aint the brightest person in the world right, but i know for a 100% fact that if i drop my pen it goes down and not up.

    Al Gore has fucking massive house and spends all his time flying around the world lecturing other people not to fly etc

    Therefore i conclude he is talking bollocks.


  21. 42
    Engineer says:

    The problem with the political left is not that they don’t understand science, it’s that they don’t want to understand science; because it’s complicated, messy, uncertain and doesn’t neatly fit a Marxist paradigm.


    • 85
      Moussa Koussa says:

      What the f*ck are you talking about. errrrrr… The political right = creationism and God


      • 97
        Engineer says:

        Now that IS funny. MK berating someone else for not talking sense!


      • 123
        Cynical Old Man says:

        Moussa, I’m not left wing and completely disagree with your leftist dogmatism, having seen the dire results when it’s imposed on the population. Left wing politics has failed in every country where it’s been put into practice. In fact it’s also anti democratic ( look at China, Korea, Zimbabwe, Soviet Union and its satellite countries, Cambodia, Venezuela, Cuba, the list goes on and on). I suppose you could accuse me of being right wing. If that is so, then I will not deny it. Being right wing is nothing to be ashamed of, even though lefties use the term as an insult.

        I am also an atheist, believing religion is the cause of most of the world’s current conflicts.

        I don’t seem to fit your stereotype old chum.

        Then again, you don’t seem to go in for reasoned argument. I only ever see ad hominem attacks, sarcasm, abuse, deliberate misrepresentation of others’ arguments and selective use of facts and statistics that pass for your idea of debate.

        Come back when you mature politically because, at the moment, your posts don’t contribute to any debate.

        I’m off to take my medication, now.


      • 256
        The Piss Soaked Tramp Formally Known As TAT! says:

        The left’s god is the state.

        Wise to both sides tricks.


    • 323
      Osama the Nazarene says:

      …but Marxism claims to be SCIENTIFIC, Scientific Socialism. What a joke.


  22. 44
    Breton says:

    Desperate stuff.


  23. 46

    There was a broad consensus that the atom could not be split.


  24. 47
    Johnno List says:

    Yet again Guido spectacularly misses the point. Perhaps you should just stick to finding out which politicians are doing dirty deeds and you may now come across as quite so thick.


  25. 51
    tomdickandharry says:

    This is one of the weakest argument I’ve ever heard…

    1) The strength of science is that it is constantly being tested and changed accordingly. What you’re suggesting is that we shouldn’t act on scientific knowledge because, as with all things in science, our understanding of it might change in the future. That’s fallacious to say the least.

    2) Just because something can’t be proven as a fact, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t consider and act upon it. Gravity is still a theory, but I’m guessing you have no problems with considering it a fact. By your logic, because gravity hasn’t been proven as a fact, we shouldn’t consider jumping off buildings to be unsafe. You accept the theory of gravity as it doesn’t counteract your pre-conceptions of the world. It’s exactly the same as Christian’s dismissing evolution cause it doesn’t fit in with Genesis. It’s intellectually dishonest.

    3) “the significance of humanity’s carbon outputs is debatable” all science is debatable – that is the nature of science. It’s odd that it took today’s semi-news (nothing’s been proven yet) for you to realise it. It’s a shame that, in a typical teleological manner, you decided to skew your revelation today to fit your ideology. It’s like you just realised the reformation happened, and that no science is beyond question, but you’ve decided to spin it to fit your world-view.

    4) Next time you, or one of your family members, fall sick, I assume you’ll go to the doctors. When you do, and the doctor prescribes you medicine, will you say “I know this is the solution dictated by the scientific knowledge we currently have, but science is never settled, so I’ll just ignore your advice”? Don’t think so.


    • 192
      TJB says:

      I don’t think that any reasonable person argues that all theories and learning should be ignored and your points all make non-arguements that ignore how scientific theories are progressed. They would say however that the tendency of the warmists to shout down those that don’t accept their position is anti-scientific.

      The scientists at CERN are saying “this is what we’ve made of our observations, here’s the data what does everyone else think” It’s how “real science” works.

      Warmists tend to say ” our data is ours you may have a look at the data after we have processed it for you and anyone that dissents from our findings are flat-earthers who are denying scientific certainty.”

      No-one is saying that Einstien’s theory is garbage and should be discarded, they are saying that they may have observed something that may make it necessary to re-evaluate that theory.


      • 222
        Handycock, No1 Trougher in Parliament says:

        Who’s Einstein and what is CERN. Is there an official visit and a shag in it?


  26. 52
    Geoff says:

    Your argument also shows that horses should all have stopped working as soon as Newton’s Laws of Motion were shown to be inaccurate.


    • 132
      Four-eyed English Genius says:

      They are not inaccurate, but approximate. Not the same thing at all. All scientific learning is basically improving the approximations and probabilities of something being correct or false.


    • 261
      Troy Tempest says:

      We apply Newton’s Law at work.

      Do bugger all unless pushed.


  27. 53
    Fluffy Thoughts says:

    Do not concur Guido (or is it Jnr):

    Political-Science is settled! Red – Late-Wed – Ed is absolutely, and with 100% confidence, crap. Who could you question the wisdom of The Herd…?


  28. 59
    I meet a socialist once and the cunt nicked my wallet. says:

    Who gains from promoting Global climate warming change?


  29. 60
    Ewanme says:

    Hmmmm . Science .

    Ain’t that where you attach the Bunsen burner to the water tap an aim the resultant stream at the back of Bugs Bailey’s bonce , darlin ??

    E x .


  30. 61
    Ol' Blue Eyes says:

    Of course science isn’t settled. Science is our understanding of how the universe works. Anyone who thinks they have the final answer on that is an arrogant pillock of the first order.


    • 67
      Ol' Blue Eyes says:

      And the people most convinced they know what the climate is doing can’t even predict correctly what tomorrow’s weather will be.


      • 241
        jgm2 says:

        They can’t even model what the climate has been.

        If you gave the fuckers the last 100 years of data (say) from 1900 – 2000 and asked them to use that to predict the weather in 1850 they’d be predicting a fucking ice age.

        Then you could go back to the measurements in 1850 and see if it matched their prediction. Which it wouldn’t.

        The c*unts have no clue what they’re doing. A world-wide cabal of geographers and social scientists playing at being real scientists. Fuckwits to the core.


    • 110
      Axe The Telly Tax says:

      So you know Chris Huhne and Al Gore personally then ;-)


    • 141
      Paddy Powder says:

      I wouldn’t mind betting that we NEVER get to the bottom of it.


  31. 63
    Giordano Bruno says:

    I thought Catholics didn’t “do” science, only “God”…


  32. 64
    nell says:

    Remind me again how algore has increased his personal wealth from $1.2million to $billions by peddling the snake oil theory of agw!


    • 309
      Captain of the Space Cadets says:

      If Tau or Muon Neutrinos actually travel faster than c, it may be possible to go back in time and strangle Gore, Blair, Brown and Fred Goodwin at birth.


  33. 66
    Sir William Waad says:

    One difference is that the theory of warming caused by anthropomorphic CO2 has never been reasonably established to start with:

    1. Its predictions have not come true; there has been no warming trend since 1998. This would be time to say “Thank you and goodnight” if it were actually a scientific theory.

    2. There has been an intermittent warming trend since about 1850, the first century of which cannot have been caused by our CO2 emissions. The warmist theory is a non-explanation of this 160-year trend in climate change.

    3. The computer models that predict major warming rely on postulated positive feedback effects that are essentially wishful thinking.

    4. Models that rely on linear approximations techniques to cope with complex higher-degree differential equations are in any case worthless unless they can be regularly checked back to observations.

    5. The theory relies on a dodgy and undemonstrable concept of ‘back radiation’, whereby the very cold mesosphere is supposed to warm the much milder troposphere below it.

    6. The sheer amount of shouting involved in promoting the theory means that it is unlikely to be true.


  34. 71
    nell says:

    Oh and whilst we are talking about climate change. Any interested buyers out there looking for land on Greenland’s east coast that the Times now says is free of ice?


  35. 72
    Moussa Koussa says:

    Science !!!!!…. Did you not get the memo Guido. You and your flock of Tea Party Nutcases are “”Creationists””. Science isn’t something I think you should comment on.


  36. 76
    HappyUK says:

    In addition to Global Warming, add Dawinism to the collection of crocks.

    If what the likes of Dawkins say is true, we ought to find a huge number of organisms in a transitional state in our fossil records, for example, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. These are actual Darwinian claims.

    If you are used to getting your news from the BBC, it will come as a surprise to learn that when Darwin first published “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, his most virulent opponents were not Christians, but paleontologists.

    Unlike NUT staff lying to your children about evolution, Darwin was at least aware of what the fossil record should show if his theory were true. He said there should be “interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps.”

    Far from showing gradual change with a species slowly developing new characteristics and eventually morphing into another species, the fossil records showed vast numbers of new species suddenly appearing out of the blue, which then remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, and then disappear.

    Darwin’s response was to say: Get looking! He blamed a fossil record that contradicted his theory on the “extreme imperfection of the geological record.”

    Fast forward 150 years, that record is MUCH more complete. We now have fossils for about a quarter of a million species, making things only worse for Darwin. Thirty years ago (before it was illegal to question Darwinism), Dr. David Raup, a geologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, said that despite the vast expansion of the fossil record: “The situation hasn’t changed much.”

    New fossil discoveries since Darwin have forced paleontologists to backtrack on evolution. Dr. David Raup: “Some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.” The bits and pieces of fossil records in Darwin’s time were simply arranged to show a Darwinian progression, but as more and more fossils got discovered, the true sequence turned out not to be decidedly un-Darwinian.


    • 165
      C. Babbitt says:

      There are plenty of fossils showing evolution of whales. plenty.

      So much as I hate to have fun: you’ll be pissing off the more rational anti-AGWers


      • 294
        HappyUK says:

        Yeah? Where? That’s not a contribution Babbit. That’s a chippy little comment offering nothing by way of evidence.

        The lack of fossil records was realized by whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: “We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales”

        I think I can anticipate the chesnut you’d probably dig up, “Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science”.

        Whales are mammals. For a land mammal to evolve into a sea mammal it would have to get rid of its pelvis. No evidence of this ever happening whatsoever. These hypothetical transitions that Darwinists love would be unsuited to both land and sea, and so never happened. There are no ‘missing links’ either – seals and dugongs are not intermediate anatomically between land mammals and sea mammals (whales and dolphins).


        • 304
          Professor Henry Brubaker, Institute for Studies says:

          Interesting. Are there any alternative theories beside the crackpot bollocks from the bible or creationism?

          I find this quite intruiging.


          • HappyUK says:

            I’m not saying God made it, I’m just refuting the claims made by Darwinists and inveterate egotists like Dawkins. They have yet to come up with a sound argument for the lack of fossil evidence.

            To explain away the explosion of plants and animals during the Cambrian Period more than 500 million years ago, the best they could do, minus any evidence, was to say that there must have been soft-bodied creatures evolving like mad before then, that didn’t leave fossil records because of their microscopic bodies were too squishy.

            But then Chinese paleontologists discovered fossils preceding the Cambrian era. Despite being soft-bodied – the sort of animal Darwinists said wouldn’t fossilize, it turned out fossilization was perfectly possible.

            The only thing paleontologists found from that period were worms. For 3 billion years, nothing but bacteria and worms, and then all of a sudden almost all animal life appears within a thin band of 5-10 million years?

            Even the fully-formed eye just materializes in the pre-Cambrian fossil record. Proper scientists look at the evidence and develop their theories; Darwinists start with a theory and then rearrange the evidence.

            Dawkins isn’t a scientist, he’s a conceited religious fanatic for whom evolution must be true so that he can explain to himself why he is here without God. (‘It’s all an accident caused by random mutations!’)


        • 389
          Kep the Border Collie says:

          Idea of ‘punctuated equilibrium’ gives a plausible explanation, ie if a superior characteristic arises by eg random mutatation then evolution progresses very rapidly along that line so intermediate forms will be scarce in the fossil record. There then follows a long period of comparitively little change leaving plentififul fossils by comparison.
          A analogy could be the transitions from cassette tapes to cd, with digital audio tape as an rare intermediate form.
          Anyway, science is never ‘right’, it’s just the best answer we have at the moment until new evidence makes us think again.


    • 327
  37. 78
    Moussa Koussa says:

    Work out the following Scientific equation

    When Martin McGuinness becomes Irish President , How Tory MP’s will sh1t themselves, and demand the £6 Billion back


    • 80
      Giant Blancmange says:

      Still going to the Fisting Club MK?


      • 88
        Moussa Koussa says:

        Nope, still sipping cocktails in Qatar. Dave’s case iron guarantee to have me prosecuted is looking a bit shakey. I’d like to take the opportunity to thank Billy Boy Vague for giving me safe passage out of the UK. Thanks


    • 247
      jgm2 says:

      Entirely predictable outcome. Still, 6bn quid is just a rounding error after the great Labour Imbecility. You can hardly get yourself a couple of aircraft carrier hulls for that kind of cash. Let alone the aircraft to fly from them.

      You can however buy a huge amount of votes in your local area. Which for George Osborne is apparently in County Cork. Along with Gerry Adams curiously enough.


  38. 84
    Psychologist says:

    This makes me think of the “Settled science of Freudianism”

    Any “non-Freudian” for decades was a “fraud”

    Which has since been completely debunked

    Same Ilk, same arrogance, same smearing AAraonivitches…


    • 90
      Lord David Owen says:

      I am still waiting for a public apology from you

      You smearing and racist defamation, AAronovich


    • 249
      jgm2 says:

      It could be worse. You could have had educationalists rigging their data and coming up with an exciting new way of teaching kids to read. The International Teaching A lphabet or ITA.

      If you have to ask you weren’t there.

      AGW is like ITA. Rigged. Frigged. Fixed. Fucked. C*unts making a packet perpetuating a lie.


  39. 94
    Dr Karl Popper says:

    Did anyone seriously believe that science would end with Einstein ?

    He simply had a plausible imagination…

    PS Fucking Lloyds Bank TSB cut in when I write here and advertise on this blog at the taxpayers expense while their fucking bank is collapsing (again)


    • 101
      Director of CERN says:

      You must admit Karl

      That Einstein had the hair to go with someone who could be easily described as a genius

      In the pre-mass media age of course…

      bBut I must admit that his spinjning and PR was excellent

      It makes me think of all those frauds spinning their way into their 15 minutes of fame today


  40. 99
    Flat Earth Society says:

    Climate Change…..The last preserve of fools and charlatans


  41. 102
    Moussa Koussa says:

    There was a major story in the press today regarding Hyena Boys pet project “The Big Society”. But strangely Guido and his band of Tea Baggers are reluctant to mention the B word these days….Cant wonder why !!!!!


  42. 107
    Albert Gore and his 40 room mansion says:

    Science ended with me

    The Hollywood producer told me so

    And of course I love white powder and tinsel…


    • 251
      jgm2 says:

      It’s okay. He bought a million acres of Argentina to grow tress and offset his LearJet emissions.

      Maybe Polly does the same.


  43. 113
    Stephen P says:

    Someone asked me how significant this is.

    I said it was on a par with the Pope getting clear evidence that Jesus was not of virgin born but the result of premarital sex, and that he had survived the crucifiction and taken up faith in the Roman Gods.


    • 253
      jgm2 says:

      If he got that information he’d shoot the messenger and burn the evidence.

      Like Al Gore.

      And those c*unts in East Anglia.


  44. 119
    • 138
      annette curton says:

      It wasn’t a broom cupboard it was a portal into another dimension, Al was told to save our world, Gordon was told to save our world, a Machiavellian plan to destroy our planet by control of the two biggest idiots detected by their mind probes.


  45. 125
    Anonymous says:

    I feel obliged to point out that even if these neutrinos are going faster than the speed of light (which I doubt they are) this does not necessarily mean a break down of causality (in the effect is followed by a cause sense). This is because the speed of light is a concept from special relativity (Strong Equivalence Principal). Real particles are dressed by virtual particles and as such have a size meaning that the assumption that spacetime is locally flat is not really applicable to them- the cloud breaks this local Lorentz invariance. We may however define stable causality which states closed timelike loops aren’t allowed but does allow for `lightcone tipping’ where the causal speed limit is changed.


  46. 126
    annette curton says:

    Neither Monbiot or Gore have any scientific qualifications or knowledge at even a basic level. Below is the subject of Gores thesis while at college in America:
    “The Impact of Television on the Conduct of the Presidency, 1947-1969″
    Wow, we will have to make you the Captain of the Star Ship Enterprise on the basis of that Al (or should it be vending machine replenisher 3rd class ?).


  47. 128
    antifreezw says:

    Guido think you jumped the gun here.


  48. 131
    Anonymous says:

    True. But were the science has a major impact on life, you don’t stand around and say “Science is never settled, so we won’t do anything”.

    Hell, you’ll presumably even note that most physicists didn’t look at Einstein’s theories and think “Oh, they aren’t settled, so let’s not do any work based on those theories.”

    You work to the best information you have. Which at the moment suggests we need to adjust the impact we have on the environment if we are to continue to have a decent stab at things.


    • 215
      Engineer says:


      Some people have decided that an unproven ‘work in progress’ scientific theory demonstrates that we must do a lot of very drastic things at enormous cost to other people, and have managed to persuade the political establishment, or at least part of it, that it Something Must Be Done. In truth, the climate’s changing, and there’s damn all we can do about it. Man’s impact on climate change is highly debateable, unproven, and as far as we can tell at the moment, probably minimal.

      Many of the people rushing around shouting Something Must Be Done are the same ones that ran around in the ’80s telling us that nuclear power would result in armageddon if a power station blew up. Chernobyl did blow up, and whilst the results were not trivial, armageddon didn’t happen.

      Armageddon won’t happen over climate change, either. It’s just panicking for the sake of it.


  49. 134
    Anonymous says:

    This site isn’t short of buffoons who think they are experts on climate change is it? (nor those who equate it to particle physics cos its that thing called science innitt?)


    • 157
      nell says:

      If you are looking for buffoons pretending to be experts in climate change you’ve really got to go to the uea or the ipcc. They have an abundance of very wealthy buffoons there.


      • 163
        C. Babbitt says:

        I’ve seen plenty of people on about how rich gore is. Hardly surprising for a top us politician, and all that entails.

        I’ve never ever seen any reports of the the guys at the UEA being rich.


        • 178
          nell says:

          Well the chap at the ipcc certainly is – made loadsamoney on the back of this agw scam in his home country, India.

          As for the uea bods – difficult to tell , but they dotheir time drawing top drawer salaries and international speakers circuit fees, whilst travelling the world, first class (never mind the carbon footprint!) and staying in the very best hotels, all paid for by you and me.


        • 181
          nell says:

          Well the chap at the ipcc certainly is – made loadsamoney on the back of this agwcarry on, in his home country, In di a.

          As for the u e a bods – difficult to tell , but they make their money from top drawer salaries and international speakers circuit fees, whilst travelling the world, first class (never mind the carbon footprint!) and staying in the very best hotels, all paid for by you and me.


        • 182
          nell says:

          Well the chap at the ipcc certainly is – made loadsamoney on the back of this agwcarry on, in his home country, In di a.

          As for the u e a bods – difficult to tell , but they make their money from top drawer salaries and international s p e @kers circuit fees, whilst travelling the world, first class (never mind the carbon footprint!) and staying in the very best hotels, all paid for by you and me.


        • 194
          Engineer says:

          For the scientists, reputation counts for more than salary. For the likes of Gore, riches compensate for lack of reputation.


  50. 135
    HandsomeDavid says:

    If this breakthrough at CERN fits in with Tom Weiler and Chui Man Ho’s work then we could be seeing the product of the higgs singlet. That would be Nobel gong time for them.


  51. 137
    labourunionsbbc we are one says:

    I wonder if Al Gore ever got over the shock of seeing gordon’s dark matter in that cupboard.


  52. 142
    HandsomeDavid says:

    Gold down a $100.00 today. Just needs to go down another $1,400.00 then we can buy back in at Gordon’s price.


  53. 143
    lord fauntleroy says:

    Climate change deniers – unite! unite! – you have nothing to lose but your children’s future!


    • 149
      Fat cat union bosses says:

      Piss off Fauntleroy. That ‘UNITE’ schtick is our act.

      Now pay us £53,000 for breach of copyright and bung a few billion in the teacher’s pension pot for good measure.


    • 262
      jgm2 says:

      What about jgm2’s great theory of the Dinosaur emigration? Are you not worried they’ll return, like in Battlestar Gallactica, and kill us all for turning their ancestors into museum exhibits and marble kitchen work-surfaces?

      We must spend gazillions preparing for their return.

      Orbiting nukes. The works.

      The dinosaurs are going to be really angry about the grave-robbing we’ve been up to while they’ve been away.

      Somebody. Do something. Think of the children!!!


      • 391
        Kep the Border Collie says:

        Always liked the Dilbert idea that the dinosaurs didn’t become extinct but just got very good at hiding.


    • 265
      Owlett says:

      Don’t bring that sandwich board in here. Look, here’s 80p for a cup of tea, now piss off.


  54. 146

    Neutrinos may travel faster than the speed of light but they will never borrow money at the speed of Gordon Brown.


  55. 147
    HandsomeDavid says:

    Gold falling faster than my missus knickers.


  56. 159

    With Biology, chemistry and physics now being taught at ‘A’ level as Science, its hard for the younger generation to remember which is which.

    But here’s a tip.

    If its disgusting, its biology.
    If it stinks, its chemistry
    And if it doesn’t work its physics.


  57. 169
    Ewanme says:

    I luvs science , Guido , darlin !!

    BTW – Anyone spotted that satellite-sized bus wot’s sposed to be arrivin ??

    Ewa’s got a tenner on it landin in Buckingham Palace Road .

    E x .


  58. 170
    Old Grumpy says:

    Getting away from the politics (sorreeee!) I can envisage several scenarios, which might be the cause of this neutrino phenomenon……… apart from sloppy measurement……..

    For starters, the speed of light is NOT a constant; except for mathematical analyses………… just think about refraction………

    There is also the fact that electromagnetic radiation (one form of light emmissions) actually ACCELERATES, when transmitted along certain metallic conductors. This is due to the fact that the waves, do not actually travel, they cause successive electrons to vibrate in sympathy. This causes an apparent velocity in excess of the speed of light.

    NOW this is really a transmission of ENERGY!………. So the big question is: is ENERGY subject to the limits of Einstein’s Theory?

    This opens all sorts of scientific debates to come!

    You could try an experiment to demonstrate the likely cause of this acceleration beyond the speed of light by playing around with magnetic balls (NOT those between yer ears, DUMMY!)

    OR you could google up YouTube videos of magnetic guns………

    Bashing several magnetised balls together, in a Newton Inertial system, accelerates the final ball to speeds well beyond the velocity of the initiating ball. This is due to the “Bow” effect, in that the static energy of the magnetic fields, on collision, impoart extra energy into the output of the Newton Transfer.

    This is more or less what happens to electrons in a conductor. This provides a quicker response than one would normally expect…….. and why transmission line design is a bit of a black art……

    So what if neutrinos have a problem passing through air?……. or all sub-nuclear particles have a similar problem?……….. FORGET the time travel! WE COULD BE ON THE THRESHOLD OF NEW POWER TRANSMISSION TECHNOLOGIES!


    • 333
      The Other Bloke says:

      Quite right, the speed of light in an ultracool sodium gas is only 38mph.


    • 373
      mary of the 4th form says:

      Not really. The constant c is the speed of light in a vacuum. Refraction happens at the interface between materials of different densities – the group speed of light is slower because each photon is “stopping” more often although each “hop” is still at the constant speed.

      Nothing wrong with things going faster than light (see tachyons) – its just accelerating a massive particle from subluminal to light-speed would require infinite energy – so would slowing a superluminal particle to light-speed. Photons are massless and always travel at light-speed.


  59. 172
    Cato Street Conspirator says:

    This gravity business is rubbish.


  60. 174
    oops wrong email says:

    Don’t tell the politicians that theres something that goes faster than light, all the money thay have stolen will be used to make equipment that allows them to print money faster than light.


  61. 175
    Anon.E.Mouse says:

    When they find a trivial reason why their measurements are out by a bit, you’ll regret this post, as scientific orthodoxy will have prevailed (for the time being…)

    Not that I disagree with you on the AGW baloney, by the way, but I think that drawing the analogy is tenuous, and at this stage it’s way too early to call.


    • 195
      Ah! Monika says:

      You’re 99.999999 % of the speed of light likely to be correct but sometimes it’s nice to fill the newspapers etc with something other than politics.


  62. 185
    Anonymous says:

    Guido, you (and most of the mainstream media too) have missed the point. The scientists have noticed that their experiment indicates tht the neutrinos travel faster than light in vacuum. They have published to ask the scientific community’s help in finding the mistake in their experiment.

    This is correct humility on the part of scientists.

    The climate analogy would be the AGW mob saying “we predict these measurable temperature increases but we don’t see them. Can you help us with our model?”


  63. 186
    Vince Cable's Rucksack says:

    10,000 bugs found in CERN software. Any chance the faster-than-light neutrinos are just another massive, taxpayer-funded f*cking great cock-up?


  64. 198
    Anonymous says:

    @ Guido – Monbiot claiming that he never said the science is settled on twitter. Well he did as good as :

    I call BS, moonbat!


    • 205
      Jack says:

      Moonbat is already defrocked

      Don’t worry about him

      He only talks to himself

      (like most of the Dead Tree Media who are pontificating, flailing and misleading in their last desperate attempt to survive) survive


  65. 199
    not a machine says:

    neutrinos appear to go faster than the speed of light , is very interesting as it makes the “do neutrinos have mass ” more interesting .

    Oh dear I have to confess at about the time it came out ,I thought Al Gores mega bucks message was erm right on , supplimentary to what else i thought etc etc . I later had to repent when I was faced with the upset of the rather wonk foundation it was based upon . It was quite a bad phase for me , the coffe house chats so much part of this save the earth , snobbey intellectual stance , just couldnt get head around how such big players could make such unscientific predictions on climatic effects . The real villian was perhaps a little more simple , as an awful lot of Indonesian rain forest got chopped down for palm oil , which was alledged to be greener , for Al Gores message , there were other henious acts .
    It isnt so much that many of mans activities have enviromental problems ,its that , this business led to such half baked polices about energy , it did not stop the further deterioration in river pollution , the yangsee bottlenose finally having to be only found in a zoo , no one thought what happens when it starts getting into our food . I hate to say it , but it all now looks more pro corpratist , blaming other corpratists , while foolling the people it would solve any contradictions with the natural biological systems that govern life .

    Larry not too excited yet , I just realised lawyer doing hacking damages case , spoke at lib dem conference . I know clean Labour attempts are pretty offensive , and they is gonna try and tell the techno yoof da new message , wiv some prgressive smart stuff , unfortunately there are some people who will beleive the crap just to feel better about blind socialism . there are someindividual speeches which will be interesting even if the smelling salts are needed after them , so looking forward to Ed Balls dipiction of ecnomic history , will it be all smiles and non answers ?? is there a eurosceptic lib dem ?? is it sisters unite or witches of eastwick ??. money for old rope , and er laughter . bit of cememting them in as credible rather than laughable , interesting closing chapter I hope in the UKs political history and ruin .


  66. 200
    The BBC says:

    Lol…Did you lot notice how we stuffed the QT audience with weird bedwetting lefties this week? We will win.


    • 209
      not a machine says:

      Dougie on any questions tonight ,will the first fluff of winter appear


    • 225
      nell says:

      The problem for the beeb is that this is such a regular occurrence that only weird lefties watch it now.

      I wonder how many more years the beeb can survive with even it’s leftwing viewers in steady decline?

      The day is going to come when a UK government is going to decide that the beeb is of no value to the state and must compete on equal terms with other commercial tv stations and decree that it is sold off in bits.

      That day cannot come soon enough!


      • 243
        annette curton says:

        I agree with that one 100%.


      • 264
        Some twat that keeps coming here says:

        Just heard an interesting snippet of BumbleBore from 1975, commenting on some Labour pillock that was shouted down in Camdem (I think) Town Hall. I’ll use my limited powers of concentration to try and fish it off the interweb. It did make my ears prick up.


  67. 206
    Freedom fighter says:

    Like every freedom lover and libertatiian

    I support a Palestinian State


    • 208
      The Tide of History says:

      You will win freedom fighter

      Freedom is breaking out throughout the world

      Contrary to all the pessimists forecasts


      • 211
        A Pi.Key from Basildon says:

        Ah, begorrah so it is.

        Freedom is orl around us here and the leetle people too so they are so they are!

        An oy got me benfits tadoy so oy did so oy did!


    • 229
      nell says:

      If only the world had chosen a wiser middle east negotiator we might already be looking at the recognition of a Palestiian State.

      Alas the world has been lumbered with tone ‘bank balance first’ bliar to pretend to bring peace to this troubled area.

      Until they get rid of him and appoint someonne genuine there is no hope of decency, honesty or justice for the Palestinian people.


    • 230
      nell says:

      If only the world had chosen a wiser middle east negotiator we might already be looking at the recognition of a Palestinian State.

      Alas the world has been lumbered with tone ‘bank balance first’ bliar who pretends to bring p e @ ce to this troubled area even as he lines his own pockets.

      Until they get rid of him and appoint someone genuine there is no hope of decency, honesty or justice for the Palestinian people.



    • 234
      What a plonker. says:

      Keep taking the pills.


    • 279
      Owlett says:

      Libertarian. Your inability to spell it is the least of your problems with the concept.


  68. 210
    Tossa Spotter says:

    Like – neo-endogenous bollocks? – and people, – including many who should ‘of’ known better – believed it!

    Tossers all!


  69. 214
    Dave Cam and Climate Change Scam says:

    I say!

    Dashed difficult – what?!!

    Orl those dam oiks don’t want wind farms, but they do want to drive their guzzling cars!

    Dashed well serve em right when the wind runs out – watt?!


    • 275
      Energy chief execs - complicit cunts says:

      Thanks for the heads up about not having to provide customers with a breakdown of how much their bills pay for your wind farm scam!

      Phew, trebles all round and keep ‘em in the dark.


  70. 216
    Gordon Brown says:

    Today I will be a neutrino


  71. 231
    Billy Bowden is the worlds greatest umpire ! says:

    Why does mean Google allow Guido Fawkes’ name to be linked to a messy anal sex byproduct? Guido Fawkes wants to know!


  72. 238
    Jess The Dog says:

    Load of pish. Science is based upon the testing of hypotheses and has never been settled. If Einstein is wrong, it won’t be the first time (as with quantum mechanics) and this is unlikely to overturn the theory of relativity. Global warming is probably occurring but not unrestrained positive feedback as the Earth is a closed system, so it’ll sort itself out and flood us all!


  73. 240
    Raving Loon says:

    The global warming alarmists, Keynesianists, globalists et al all have one thing in common: they’re socialists who can’t admit to being what they are. They have to conceal their belief that people are incapable of making their own decisions for themselves and need to be ruled by a small intellectual elite. The only real reason they get away with anything is the envy between rich and poor. If this ilk could not exploit that then there would be no place for them.


  74. 245
    I don't need no doctor says:

    Faster than the speed of light. Still slower than the speed at which the last labour government wasted the taxpayers money.


  75. 248
    I don't need no doctor says:

    I’m sure someone will throw some light on the findings.


  76. 260
    b34 says:

    If these neutrino thingies are actually tracv elling faster than the speed of light how can they measure that?
    Maybe they are just sat still in front of the chronograph


  77. 270
    nell says:

    Talking of ‘settled’ science, ‘global warming’ and ‘international economic meltdown’ – militwit, bullyballs and darling are calling tonight for the G20 to do something before the world plummets into a financial abyss.

    Wait for it! They are paving the way for gordon to come along and say – make me the G20 chief world finance officer and I will save the world! This will be his last stab at getting that highly paid, high profile, international job he’s been hankering after. Then he can lead international socialism and the world onto a path of millions of non jobs and financial ruinn!!

    If only they’d let the euro go ba nk ru pt and countries return to their sovereign currencies and then step aside and let the eu disintegrate little by little until it retreats back to the trading block that we were originally promised.

    gordon meantime needs to embrace retirement and start thinking about growing tomatoes or something.


  78. 273
    Engineer says:

    There are so many dotty theories flying about concerning the climate, atmosphere and CO2, that I’ve decided to add another one. Here goes.

    The world’s human population is increasing.
    They will all need feeding.
    They’ll either eat plants, or bits of dead animals that grew up by eating plants.
    Plants need CO2 to grow.
    We’re going to need lots and lots of plants.
    Therefore, increasing levels of CO2 are a Good Thing.

    There you go. It’s only a theory, but I would humbly contend that it’s as plausible as any of the other CO2/atmosphere theories floating about.


    • 284
      Passing Wind says:

      I’ll drink to that.


    • 342
      Mel Brooks says:

      You’ve definitely got your finger on the pulse.


    • 348
      I'll get the bonfire going at once says:

      Thanks for that, – I’ll get practising for GUY FAWKES BONFIRE NIGHT! – hear that Chiswick or whatever G*dforsaken place wants to ban it!?


    • 382
      Sergei Brin says:

      Guy Fawkes tried to blow up Parliament.
      November 5th fires are burned to remember this.
      Therefore Guy Fawkes is responsible fro global warming.


    • 387
      Anonymous says:

      I think that you will find that David Bellamy is already proposing this. Bit of a lefty is old David, but for some reason his lefty mates don’t talk to him anymore. And strangely enough you never see him on the Beeb either.


  79. 274
    Garstang says:

    Well done chaps for high lighting this. The science is nevet settled. Let’s face facts climate science is actually more about human emotions than pure science.


  80. 277
  81. 281
    lol! says:

    Andy Coulson to sue News Group Newspapers!

    This will get messy for him, NI and Call me Dave.



  82. 282
    Benjamin Netanyahu says:

    I am a mendacious individual.


  83. 283
    Benjamin Netanyahu says:

    Where did my comment go? It once was published but now is gone!


  84. 285
    ffs! says:

    Since when was the stupid cow Christine Hamilton a “broadcaster”? She is a media whore and nothing more.

    (Sky News Press Preview)


  85. 288
    manicbeancounter says:

    Point will made.

    But there are some big differences between the Physicists and the Global Warming Supporters.

    1. Newtonian Physicists could explain >99.9% of the movements of planets, before Einstein filled them in on most of the rest. Some of the best climatologists can’t even get the direction right (search on Upside down Mann, or in September on Dessler. They are very circumspect with how much they explain due to it being 1% or 2%.
    2. Physicists delight in anomalies & novelty. Climatologists have better spin doctors than Tony Blair, more thuggish than Ed Balls.
    3. If these guys at CERN are correct the a Nobel Prize will be on its way. Anyone who doubts the consensus is caused a denier in the pay of the oil companies.


    • 297
      Michael Fishcake says:

      The CERN people will soon realise that someone was jogging the table that the neutrino projector was on.

      Tomorrow will be punctuated with fluffy bits and some sad old wet drops but will definitely be warmer than the 24th September 20187BC.

      Back to you, Huw.


  86. 291
    Andy Coulson - Call me Dave's toxic m8 says:

    Pay my fucking legal fees you bastards!


  87. 299
    wtf says:

    What the fuck is going on here? Heavy moderation or what!


  88. 300
    Some twat that keeps coming here says:

    The same. How did you know I was a ‘madam’?


  89. 301
  90. 302
    The truth says:

    We are all going to die one day anyway.


  91. 303
    'Gypsy' Dave Cooper says:

    Never mind Einstein, what about Huhne?

    Come on Vicky, spill the beans and lets see the fucker banged up.


  92. 305
    • 311
      screw the lot of them says:

      She really is the most deluded individual on the Grauniad.


      • 331
        Ah! Monika says:

        If you could write crap like that, you too could have a job with them.

        She doesn’t believe a word she writes. For £100k or more I would if I could.


    • 358
      Princess Pollytwaddle, leaning out of her Ivory Tower, displaying her silver spoons says:

      You fail to realise that my writing is the product of my Super Left Wing intelligence, – that and my long experience of writing profound pieces barely understandable by little people like you!

      Now go away!


  93. 307
    saffron says:

    The giant collider results are absolutely meaningless.
    Lets get back to reality,does anybody think that we will ever escape from this planet.
    Well if you do I would actually suggest that you should apply for some position in a science fiction film.
    A load of so called scientists sucking on the state teat is not what I would call a best spend of taxpayers cash.


  94. 310
    David r from meth productions says:

    Johan Hari often needs a personal mobility sling to move his 27.5kg penis. It’s that big. And when fully erect, has been known to create its own weather pattern. A massive consensus of top scientologists has confirmed this.


  95. 312
    Andrea c says:

    I can confirm that his penis is truly substantial. And, as a vegan, it’s not producing damaging carbon emissions, either. Stick that in your pipe and blow on it, Richard Littlejohn.


  96. 315
    Ed Balls, Shallow Chancer says:

    Some hilarious polling news coming out about Liebour and Red Ed.

    Bwaaahhhaaahhhhhhhhaaaaa !!!


    • 318
      RED ED - SON OF BROWN says:

      According to a YouGov poll, 1 in 20 think I’m a natural leader….1 in 20. That’s good isn’t it ???


    • 335
      not a machine says:

      Larry will have a celebratory tinkle on his stock of Labour guff (noting the strange dissaperence of any old faces only inserting Darling to sound good on economy)

      Nice reminder of EU Law from Mr Hannan
      Nice letter from Geoffry Lean
      Daily mash closing paragraph on neutrino discovery was hilarious .

      Enjoyed Dougies new rewrite of financial crisis on any questions trips off the tongue so slick like , more pinocchio or is that kinoochio


  97. 317
    Sky News fuckers says:

    Apologies for pronouncing “Fylingdales” as “Flyingdales”.

    We really are shit and employ uneducated tossers.


  98. 324
    FU - Wonks says:

    Millepede attacking energy prices and companies

    Guido get a hold of his performance when energy minister (can’t remember if BBC or Good Gorming) when he tried to be real “hard” in clamping down. Of course nothing happened and this has never been replayed.

    What a wanker


  99. 325
    Ah! Monika says:

    Guido. Here comes The Sun. Watch Out


  100. 326
    Hello Mr Balls says:

    Mr Balls also urged Mr Brown against sacking controversial spin doctor Damien McBride, overruling other senior figures such as Lord Mandelson and Douglas Alexander, it claims.

    Read more:


  101. 328
    1 stein is enuff says:

    What CERN did was to publis their data and let others repeat their experiments.

    Chances are it’s a measurement problem, either intrinsic in the domain, or an error.

    What climate science does not do is publish their data UNLESS the data agrees with their desired outcome. When the data disagrees, you have to issue an FOI and even then they shred it rather than release it. Fucking commies.


  102. 339
    albacore says:

    Forget all this arcane high-science mumbo jumbo.
    Dig that old Atari 400 out of the attic. It had a lovely database with pretty card-file graphics that even your average Prime Minister might be able to suss. You could flog it to the NHS to replace its £12 billion (and counting) abortion.
    Then just retire on the proceeds (with a knighthood at the very least) to your own island before poor old Blighty sinks forever under the waves of Lib/Lab/Con insanity.


    • 353
      Crikey says:

      Labour, when challenged would actually boast about how much more they had spent on different schemes. As if the spending of the money was itself good government? Any confrontation would lead to Blair or Brown reeling of figure about how much more than previous regimes they had spent. It was like someone boasting about have paid £2k for a £400 laptop.


  103. 341
    Anonymous says:

    So I’ve woken up and don’t appear to have a chunk of satellite impaled in my head.


  104. 343
    nell says:

    Temperatures up to 27 today and rising up to 30 by next week.

    Please note, if this forecast happens, this is Not! an Indian Summer – this is yet more evidence of climate change and agw – chrishuhne and algore say so.


  105. 344
    Captain Picard says:

    Whoo Hoo!
    all those negative types who said
    “Star Trek could never happen because nothing can travel faster than light”

    Well … who’s got warp plasma on their faces now!

    Warp 10 engage…


  106. 346
    Pavops says:

    I think the brick you repeatedly dropped on your head trying to prove Newton was a chancer has finally taken its toll.


  107. 350
    Dave Cam – (he’ll con you if he can) – and His Super WindFarm Scam says:

    I say!!

    Don’t you just love those jolly Climate Change doubters?

    It makes all the Green Brigade more determined than ever!!!


    HaHA HA! – laughing all the way to the bank! Watt!!!


  108. 351
    Deregulated Balls says:

    I’m sorry…so sorry



  109. 359
    Billy Bowden is the greatest umpire ever ! says:

    Get ya Stats out!!!!!!!


  110. 361
    Billy Bowden is the greatest umpire ever ! says:

    Good morning Everybody

    I wonder what new schemes of deviousness and misappropriation of public money the government has in store for us today?

    Shit-faced bastards the lot of them


  111. 363
    Forlornehope says:

    OMG – somebody was bound to make this kind of dumb connection!


  112. 370
    V says:

    Agree with most of this. However, unlike global warming, global dimming is entirely proven. It is a fact that since the advent of air travel we have been creating more clouds.


  113. 377
    Cicero says:

    Cui Bono?


  114. 388
    Gloone says:

    Oh dear, Guido making forays into scientific philosophy…

    Science is never settled, but physical theories are essentially refined, not changed. The earth being flat is actually a great local approximation, but over large scales clearly it is wrong. Modelling atom nuclei as indivisible units explained all of chemistry and still does today, but nuclear physics required additional models.

    In the same way, even if these results correspond to reality (and no physicist has accepted them yet contrary to what some of the press would have you think; even the experimenters at CERN are essentially asking the community to explain a suspected systematic error), they DON’T ‘invalidate’ Einstein’s theories of relativity: they just extend it. Every prediction he made has been validated to the appropriate accuracy in the situations that it applies to; Einstein’s work is necessary for keeping satellites in the sky! Without it they fall to the ground. So to say it’s ‘wrong’ is a gross misunderstanding of how science works.

    And before the tin foil hats vent their incredulous rage: I don’t care about global warming. Energy security and scarcity is a far more important issue.


  115. 393
    ta says:

    The whole global warming theory & its leftie mad protagonists are worthy of just one response from the rest of mankind: Sod off & die: make a bit of space for somebody else of sane mind.


  116. 395

    “physicists, as a sub-section of the scientific community, are a lot less keen on the whole carbon and climate scare racket. Scientists are not usually unanimous on any subject which is complex.”

    Speaking as a physicist – it’s a bit more complicated than that. For example Newtonian physics works for many every day applications (all be it not the complete “truth”) because for every day tasks at up to 1/100 of the speed of light the margins of error are so small that “it’ll do”. Similarly Einstein’s theories of relativity worked up to a certain level. To see if they work at the limits of scientific theory you have to build particle accelorators like CERN. And when that shows einstein’s theories to be nonsense someone will have to do a lot of maths to come up with a new theory. Physicists look at what can be observed, measure it and try to fit mathematical theories to it. This is a seemingly never-ending-task which is good because otherwise a lot of theoretical physicists would be on the dole. Mind you there’s always a disconnect between theoretical and experimental physicists anyway as theories often run far ahead of the experimental evidence to support them – particularly when this creates employment … many of Stephen Hawkin’s most outlandish theories could be disproved overnight by CERN but he’s paid to come up with such theories relentlessly so that’s what he does.

    The fact that a theory doesn’t work doesn’t make it useless either. Pretty much most physicists believe the Bohr model of the hydrogen to be bollocks. But it works well enough to be the basis of ALL Chemistry … and it’s a simple view of the physical world that’s easy for children and non-experts to visualise. One problem is that our brains are conditioned by our eyes to expect the physical universe at the subatomic level to be like what we see at the macro atomic level and a lot of maths is used to square the fact that it clearly isn’t – which is how one arrives at the ideas like particle/wave duality.

    Anyway, all this is a bit different from climate change and to be fair most physicists are a bit more cynical about other forms of scientific research and data because most physics research is done under lab conditions (apart from astrophysics) whereas climate change research is the result of long term real world analysis based on data not collected under lab conditions so by definition there are more unknown variables making the whole situation much harder. That doesn’t mean there’s nothing to be proved but in my view Climate Change may be very real, probably measurable or mythical but it’s an accademic argument anyway as the true political motivating factor is that the oil is just running out and we’re clearly going to keep burning it till it has all run out anyway which will take 70-90 years so all the C02 will end up in the atmosphere anyway.

    I think the bottom line is that climate change is an easier political arguement to deploy for cutting emissions than that the oil is simply running out fast.


  117. 396
    Anonymous says:

    Science is never settled, right enough, but it’s not a good idea to spin that into a reason for believing whatever you want to believe irrespective of the evidence.


  118. 397
    Anonymous says:

    “…the true political motivating factor is that the oil is just running out and we’re clearly going to keep burning it till it has all run out anyway which will take 70-90 years so all the CO₂ will end up in the atmosphere anyway.” (Anthony Miller)

    Could well be — and that doesn’t sound like especially bad politics to me. Politics, apparently, isn’t particularly straightforward… :-)

    But the rate of burning oil etc. may also be important, and not just the fact that it will all be burnt in the end. Processes which remove CO₂ from the air may only be able to go so fast.

    And as for following the money — aren’t there huge monied interests on both sides of the argument?


  119. 398
    Strings says:

    Tyhe Earth is flat as we can allsee and always was and will be.


Seen Elsewhere

Rise of Angela Merkel | New Yorker
May SpAd Removed From Candidates List | ConHome
Clodagh’s Law | Press Gazette
Whitehall Bosses Ban Christmas | Sun
Meanwhile, in Russia… | Media Guido
Christmas TV Tips | Laura Perrins
Labour Marginal Fright | Lord Ashcroft
Osborne’ Real Deficit Reduction Record | ConHome
Blameronism | Peter Oborne
Everyone Can Lose | Staggers
Splintering of the Left | Tim Montgomerie

Find out more about PLMR AD-MS

Labour insiders turn on Ed over Powell’s latest gaffe:

“When is he going to stop promoting useless people? He was warned about her.”

Tip off Guido
Web Guido's Archives

Subscribe me to:


AddThis Feed Button

Guido Reads

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,641 other followers