Articles Tagged "Rupert Wyndham"
Sorted by: Date Posted
Sunday, July 22nd 2012, 5:53 AM EDT
Dear Archbishop Williams
There was a report this morning on the Today programme, to which I trust you paid due regard. If you didn't, you should have.
The report, concerning the effect of the current American drought on levels of grain harvests, aired a remarkable and arresting statistic - disturbing too, if you have a conscience. It appears that 40% of the grain production of the Western world's primary producer has been diverted to the generation of feed stocks for the so-called 'biofuel' industry. That this will result in hardship to countless within the developed world can be predicted with a high degree of confidence. That the already dispossessed, impoverished and disenfranchised will be the ones mainly to suffer, even unto starvation and death, is an absolutely foregone conclusion.
And the reason for this? Why, to be sure, to pursue policies common on both sides of the Atlantic aimed at sustaining the greatest scientific swindle in history. I refer, of course, to the much hyped issue of climate change, amongst the principal advocates of which has been organised religion in all its gaudy and rich variety. In pursuit of this fraudulent chimera, for the time being so beloved of duplicitous politicians, free loading scientific mountebanks, self-preening churchmen (senior ones especially) and wilfully ignorant pseudo-environmentalists, usually of a leftist persuasion, you yourself being a snappy exemplar:
Saturday, July 14th 2012, 5:23 PM EDT
Dear Mr. Pearce
Yesterday, whilst waiting for my wife to join me in Marks and Spencer, I chanced to glance at the latest edition of New Scientist, in which your contribution appears [Tree rings suggest Roman world was warmer than thought]. I confess that, both for reasons of time and from a sense of disenchantment anyway with the populist rag, I did little more than skim read. However, I think that enough was gleaned legitimately to allow for comment.
The thrust of your piece was that the handle of the hockey stick was, in fact, correct. Somebody's recent study of tree rings had indicated that, whilst they might or might not be wider or narrower, much could be deduced from their density. From this it had been concluded that the past two thousand years had seen a warm temperature continuum of remarkable consistency up to about the middle of the 19th century, say. This, in turn, explained why our forebears had been able to cultivate vines as far North as York. Thence, the conclusion seemed to be drawn that Mann had been right all along in claiming a perilous temperature increase from roughly the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the blade.
Of course, MacIntyre's undermining of Mann's little frolic was not so much upon scientific grounds although, God knows, there was much science to it, as upon his blithe disregard for statistical rigour. You make no mention of this. Why, pray? Neither do you make any mention of Briffa's equally egregious pseudo-science directed at sustaining the original Mann fiction. You also overlook circumstances that are richly supported by multi-stranded evidence. Examples? Well, how about the fact that:
Wednesday, April 4th 2012, 6:09 AM EDT
Mr. John Hamer
BBC Trust Unit
180 Great Portland Street
Dear Mr. Hamer
BBC – Complaints Framework Consultation submission March 2012
Your email dated 8 March 2012 refers. Its receipt is a blessing flowing, I presume, from the stimulating exchanges between us over the course of the last some years.
I have, indeed, had numerous encounters with the current Complaints Procedure of the BBC almost, but not quite, all in connection with coverage of so-termed climate change. All, without exception, have been unsatisfactory and for precisely the same reason, namely the pursuit by the BBC of a partisan agenda not merely without benefit of evidence but, on the contrary, in the face of copious multi-stranded contra-indications. I will focus primarily on the climate change issue, but will touch upon others before completion of this submission, for they too are of importance in connection with the
a. BBC’s respect for its own published Editorial Standards;
b. BBC’s proposed revisions to its Complaints Framework.
Sunday, January 23rd 2011, 12:38 PM EST
source to see FULL report with video links from the BBC Horizon show tomorrow (24/Jan/2011) 21:00
See below open letter to Sir Paul Nurse President The Royal Society from Rupert Wyndham
Friday, October 1st 2010, 12:01 PM EDT
Dear Lord Rees
Let me begin by quoting in part a letter from you to me dated as long ago as 20 April 2007. You wrote:
“We have on our website a detailed response to some of the comments made in the Channel 4 programme last month. The issues are sufficiently important that they deserve wide discussion, but this should be on the basis of the best scientific evidence.”
During the intervening three and a half years, in essentials, “the best scientific evidence” has changed hardly at all. In colloquial terms, a trace gas, amounting to less than 1/400th part of a single percentage point by volume of the atmosphere, continues to be branded as “the Great Satan”. As such tens, nay hundreds, of billions of taxpayers funds in consequence continue to be squandered.
So, there’s the background. Now, though, from the Royal Society, we have this morning the following:
“It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future.
“There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding.”
There is also the acknowledgement that any warming “trend” seemingly represented by the 80s and 90s has ceased during the past decade.
to download PDF file to read letter in FULL from Rupert Wyndham to Lord Rees
Thursday, June 17th 2010, 10:08 AM EDT
I have now skim read the adjudication of the Editorial Standards Committee. A careful reading is not warranted. It is plain that the adjudication is no more than a rehash of the Stage 2 response which, itself, was no more than a tissue of distortion, lies and equivocation. Two substantive points are worth making, however:
• It has been abundantly clear throughout this process that outcomes for me and for other complainants would be pre-ordained and predictable.
• With a constant succession of delays and excuses therefor, it has taken your Committee a year and a half to deliver its demonstrably partial and flawed response. This time lag the Committee has acknowledged, and has offered an apology. The apology is not accepted. In itself, however, what these evasions underscore is the intellectual bankruptcy of the Corporation’s position and its essentially mendacious approach to dealing with complaints of prejudice - not, one might add, simply in relation to the global warming controversy. The bedrock on which the BBC has been relying has rested on the proposition that “the science was settled” by a consensus of scientific opinion, fortified in its case by reference to the fraudulent assertion that a seminar of climate experts convened by it on 26 January 2006, had so declared.
Download PDF file to read FULL letter from Rupert Wyndham to the BBC
Thursday, June 3rd 2010, 7:10 AM EDT
The Royal Society
6-9 Carlton House Terrace
London SW1Y 5AG.
Dear Lord Rees
Science is organized scepticism and the consensus must shift in light of the evidence." Lord Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society (May 28, 2010)
To be sure, what an inspirational message – the more so in the light of another from your manifestly objective predecessor (Oh yes, indeed!) that we should “Respect the facts.” Perhaps you, he or The Royal Society collectively would care to educate and enlighten “crackpots” by defining which facts, or should one perhaps say “Whose facts?”
In the meantime, let us move on. You have been busy of late, and another quotation follows, albeit taken from the verbiage surrounding this letter’s opening statement. You state:
“The Society has always encouraged debate
particularly through our discussion meetings and our journals.” [My emphasis]
That is a lie.
Far from encouraging debate, the RS has proactively done everything within its power to suppress it. For this uncompromising accusation, you are invited to revisit enclosed correspondence from 2007 (below). Let me remind you that, on 31 July 2007, the Society, overnight and without warning, closed down its website forum – not simply the so-called climate change string but in entirety. Why? Because, after a few exchanges, it could not countenance well sourced contra-contributions – as it happens, mostly from me. Specific to this episode, your attention is directed to my letter of 1 August 2007 - for ease of reference enclosed herewith.
Click source to read FULL letter from Rupert Wyndham
Tuesday, January 12th 2010, 7:17 AM EST
Dear Archbishop Nichols
As the New Year breaks, from a vantage point South of the Equator, I look upon temperature maps North of the Tropic of Cancer, and behold a seemingly unbroken ocean of blue. From the Rockies to the Pamirs and on to Fuji-san, the hemisphere is in the grip of ice and snow. Indeed, as I write, in China so abundant is the precipitation that it is seen perhaps as the solution to prevailing widespread drought. Moreover, since your archbishopric is likewise in the thick of it, you will be dismayed to learn that any likelihood of significant respite throughout January and February is slender. And do not be tempted to draw comfort from anything predicted by the Met Office; certainly, my own sources are far more reliable and can be demonstrated to be so. Besides, its luminaries attribute freezing to global warming! Just crooks or stark barking mad?
Of course, contrasts between reality and expectations informed by pronouncements from the Hadley Centre are no longer startling, simply risibly predictable. To those who come to “Climate Change” with open eyes (not to mention open minds), it merely constitutes a trend - as unmistakeable as tracks in the snow, the cupidity and mendacity of politicians, the poltroonery of establishment scientists and their journalistic lapdogs or the catastrophist phantasmagoria of anthropogenic global warming pseudo-environmentalists. Furthermore, the perception is strengthened to the point of absolute confirmation by the predictions of dissenting mavericks. These renegades, unashamed in the face of understandable vexation and vilification from practitioners of orthodox purity, obdurately persist in pursuing rigorous, replicable science. This, naturally, is an outrage, which one would not hesitate to condemn save for one small but inconvenient circumstance. They make a furtive and disreputable virtue of repeatedly being right!
Download PDF file to read Open letter to Archbishop Vincent Nichols by Rupert Wyndham
Tuesday, November 3rd 2009, 4:44 PM EST
Dear Archbishop Nichols
Last Friday the airwaves hummed to the news that you, together with your counterparts from other “faith communities” in the country, had collectively lobbied Ed Miliband MP in connection with the forthcoming conference in Copenhagen dedicated to so-called climate change. The BBC for one reported that you had declared it to be “a moral issue”. I agree. So much so, in fact, that I venture to proffer the suggestion that the ethical underpinning of the cause to which you have now committed the weight of your office warrants the closest possible scrutiny.
But where to begin? Well, as the beauteous and benign white Witch of the North said to Dorothy, “It’s usually best to start at the beginning”. Good advice! So then, what are we being asked to believe by the proselytisers of anthropogenic global warming, curiously morphed to “climate change”- any idea why? No? Just ask and I’ll deliver chapter and verse from none other than the august Tyndall Centre no less (en passant, Working Paper No. 58). But, anyway, in the sort of transcendental terminology favoured by you and others of a theocratic persuasion, we are being asked to accept that, within the atmosphere, a trace carbon compound, but one which happens also to have been ordained by God to be the fundamental building block of life itself, nevertheless contains within it the seeds of Armageddon.
Wednesday, October 21st 2009, 5:22 AM EDT
Dear Mr. Tait
Re: Earth: The Climate Wars
This letter is written further to that sent by Mr. Bruce Vander on 2 October, and signed by Mr. Fadda, which accompanied briefing papers to be submitted to the Trustees on 5 November. In one way or another, the package from Mr. Vander extends to over fifty pages. This response is also likely to be long, for which I make no apology.
Allow me to begin it with some general observations. The BBC’s Complaints Procedure is tortuous and extended. There can be little doubt that this is precisely what it is intended to be. Make it hard for license fee payers to complain, and they probably won’t is the underlying stratagem - opaque and collusive, but probably quite effective at the morally degenerate level of expediency. There is, however, a potentially intractable problem, is there not, with employing deviously protracted tactics? It is that the process may become overtaken by events which are to the cause - well, unhelpful, shall we say? Precisely that has occurred on this occasion in spectacular fashion - twice! But of that, more in due course.
14 articles foundshowing page 1 of 2« previous 1 2 next »