The Corbyn Gene

Piers and Jeremy Corbyn
Piers and Jeremy Corbyn

Not many people know this, but Jeremy Corbyn has a brother called Piers who is a well-known global warming sceptic. Seeing as Jeremy is a socialist, and Piers is a climate change sceptic, there’s no surprise that the two cannot be reconciled amongst those on either side of the political divide; those on the left tend to accept that anthropological global warming is a fact, whilst those on the right view socialism as an unworkable ideology, therefore both sides sit at odds with at least one of the Corbyn siblings.

Perhaps that’s why few people know of this relationship. Fearful of exposing a weakness in their arguments, those who debate politics or climate change never talk about the Corbyn brothers. They will talk about Jeremy or Piers, but never both at the same time.

It would be so easy to undermine someone advocating Jeremy Corbyn as having a good head for economics by drawing attention to his brother Piers who refuses to accept the scientific consensus on global warming. Likewise, anyone arguing against global warming scepticism could cite Piers Corbyn and highlight his relationship to Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party leader who mistakenly believes that increasing taxes and raising the living wage actually makes people better off.

Of course, just because they are brothers doesn’t mean they have to agree with each other, and it doesn’t mean that one cannot be right whilst the other is wrong, whichever way around that may be.

Politically speaking – for the majority of the British public – Jeremy and Piers are mutually exclusive; they cannot both be correct in their views according to popular opinion. Demographically, Piers swings to the right and Jeremy to the left in the eyes of their audience.

Could it be that this mutual exclusivity dictates that not even the media talk about this relationship?

The Hitchens brothers, Peter and [the late] Christopher are a well known duo who also fit the mutually exclusive siblings label. But their disagreements were generally about religion as opposed to politics. With the Corbyn brothers it’s politics all the way. Even though science is apolitical, Piers’ conscientious will to ignore the scientific consensus and broadcast his own minority view to the world makes his approach a political one.

This isn’t to say that Piers and Jeremy disagree when it comes to politics, but it is what they symbolise that puts them at odds with each other.

So, who is wrong and who is right? It could be that they are both correct in their beliefs, but there would be very few people who would agree that socialism is a workable ideology and anthropogenic global warming is a myth.

The only logical conclusion, based on evidence and statistics, is that Piers and Jeremy Corbyn are both wrong in their views. They have inherited the Corbyn Gene that renders them numerically challenged; an inability to make sense of the data put before them.

Unfortunately, far too many non-Corbyns seem to have inherited the Corbyn Gene too.

That’s why we don’t talk about the Corbyn brothers.

Climate Change Deniers Show Their True Idiocy!

This is a reply to Old Bloke on the BiasedBBC website.

 

For your benefit, Old Bloke (and to keep in with the spirit of the humour) here’s what actually happened…

When the Met Office realised they were near to a record breaking temperature at Heathrow Airport, they phoned up loads of London businesses and asked them to crank up their air-conditioning units.

The Met Office waited, but realised that – although the extra air-conditioning output had warmed things up a bit – it wasn’t enough, so they asked Heathrow air traffic control to order a taxiing aeroplane to stop next to a weather station and rev up its engines.

Now, that is the only logical way it could be done under conspiracy conditions.

Why? Because any errors in the readings would be consistent with past and future readings. In the sceptics’ world, either the equipment is accurate and the Met Office are falsifying the figures, or the equipment/science/interpretation is inaccurate or just plain wrong!

Heathrow is the busiest airport in the world; there are planes taking off and landing every 45 seconds! And London is one of the biggest cities in the world with many tens of thousands of air-conditioning units. (Old Bloke (bless him) thinks there are “hundreds” which wouldn’t make a jot of difference to air temperature anyway!)

So, thinking logically – which isn’t easy for some regulars here – if the readings are influenced by planes at an airport, and air-conditioning units at a nearby city, surely the readings would have been equally influenced in the days before and after that record-breaking day?

The problem with the sceptics’ view is that they cannot come to any kind of conclusion as to what exactly is the universal flaw in “climate science” – is it a conspiracy or a naïve failure of science?

If it is a conspiracy then the science must be correct but in a fraudulent way; if the science is wrong then there is no conspiracy!

Another reply to Alan at BiasedBBC.org (Climate Change)

“…it is fairly obvious that the ‘science’ of climate change may in fact be more about big, big money, politics, ego and corruption.”

It may be.

But then, if there is no evidence to refute the claim that the climate is changing and, furthermore, that it is anthropological climate change, then we cannot expect the BBC to put into question a claim without conflicting evidence.

“Second, it is the job of the interviewer to assemble evidence from authoritative sources which best challenge the position of the interviewee.”

This is where we come to Andrew Neil and the quote that Alan posts directly from the BBC website – except that it has been edited by Alan without any notification whatsoever.

Here’s the bit I’m referring to [the deleted text in bold]:
“Many of the criticisms of the Davey interview seem to misunderstand the purpose of a Sunday Politics interview.

This was neatly summed up in a Guardian blog by Dana Nuccitelli, who works for a multi-billion dollar US environmental business (Tetra Tech) and writes prodigiously about global warming and related matters from a very distinct perspective.

He finished by saying: “[Andrew] Neil focussed only on the bits of evidence that seemed to support his position”.

This is partly right. We did come at Mr Davey with a particular set of evidence, which was well-sourced from mainstream climate science. But it was nothing to do with advocating a “position”.

So, here we have a journalist (Andrew Neil) and a politician (Ed Davey) talking about scientific stats. Great! We might as well get Hacker the dog on to talk about climate change.

I’m surprised Alan hasn’t brought up the BBC’s pro-evolutionary theory bias – David Attenborough is a FRAUDSTER! There is some very ‘compelling’ evidence against that Darwinian theory! And there’s LOADS of evidence to suggest the science of paleontology is totally flawed! There is NO WAY the Earth is 4.5BN years old. At best, it is only 10,000 years of age.

Don’t believe me? Look at the facts:
http://www.icr.org/article/evidence-for-young-world/
http://www.gotquestions.org/fossil-record.html