Am I still allowed to question climate change?

 

Mr Bliar seems to believe that we should carry on with carbon trading schemes, even if the science isn't robust. those same carbon trading schemes that will see a very sizeable payyment go to Tata steel, when they modernise their steel manufacturing operations in India, up to EU CO2 output levels; whilst at the same time closing down their operation in Redcar, costing a lot more than the 1700 jobs already slated to go.

Did you see this article about Dr.Pachauri ?

He and Al Gore should do very well out of AGW

Did you see this article about Dr.Pachauri ?

 

He and Al Gore should do very well out of AGW

Cui Bono? always a question worth asking !

Just wondering what Green taxes have you paid in relation to global warming?

Just off the top of my head without looking' I have paid...

Extra VED on my car,more company car tax,air passenger duty,fuel duty,

I've been totally confused by all this stuff in the media, I haven't known what to think for a while now really. Fortunately the other day I saw

I've been totally confused by all this stuff in the media, I haven't known what to think for a while now really. Fortunately the other day I saw

and I stopped worrying.

It would appear that the hackers have completely misrepresented the e-mails - or just misunderstood them.

Did you see this article about Dr.Pachauri ?

 

He and Al Gore should do very well out of AGW

Since Al Gore puts his Climate change profits in to the non-profit Alliance for Climate Protection, he won't be making any profits.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6496196/Al-Gore-profiting-from-climate-change-agenda.html

As for Pachauri. Two links from the Telegraph blog and you find a rather different story:

Dr. Pachauri, an economist and engineer, will replace Dr. Robert Watson, an atmospheric chemist, as chair of the IPCC. This outcome was actively sought by the Bush Administration at the behest of the most conservative elements of the fossil fuel industry.

This development threatens to undermine the scientific credibility and integrity of the IPCC and may weaken the job this extraordinary body has done to bring the world's attention to one of the most pressing environmental problems.

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=270&filename=.txt

So Delingpole misses the point by a county mile yet again, despite referencing the article he obviously failed to read.

Still at least he isn't insulting war veterans this week:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/nov/19/climate-sceptic-james-delingpole

what an idiot.

It would appear that the hackers have completely misrepresented the e-mails - or just misunderstood them.

Not just them, darling of the denialists, McIntyre has been caught out deliberately misquoting the emails:

http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mcintyre-provides-fodder-for-skeptics/

Absoultely. I question the integrity of any and all data sources. Something you would be well to do, as you seem to take anything on the pro AGW and IPCC websites as 'gospel'.

Strange then you should consistently quote from sceptical websites without even doing a modicum of research on the subject.

I'm yet to be convinced by either side of the argument, but I believe that the politicians have 'spun' the science and used that to create policy. A policy that has an easily quantifiable human output that can be taxed. CO2 is not the major greenhouse gas, however it is the easiest to tax. Something that the morally and financially bankrupt government can easily exploit.

Excuse my laziness but C02 is the major greenhouse gas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gases#Natural_and_anthropogenic

Note the details of C02 are given in parts per million whilst the others are parts per billion. Also note the forcing impact is highest.

Which rather undermines the rest of what you say.

I also blame the mainstream media for pushing the 'hype'; much as they did with bird flu, swine flu, etc.

The media hype is of the sceptics that can't even get a scientific paper together to make their case!

Mr Bliar seems to believe that we should carry on with carbon trading schemes, even if the science isn't robust. those same carbon trading schemes that will see a very sizeable payyment go to Tata steel, when they modernise their steel manufacturing operations in India, up to EU CO2 output levels; whilst at the same time closing down their operation in Redcar, costing a lot more than the 1700 jobs already slated to go.

Blame the sceptics in Bush's Govt and the fossil fuel industry for imposing Pachauri on the IPCC. And blame the same right wingers for the neo-liberal climate that makes it difficult for the Govt. to support our industries.

Some more on Delingpole.... who is what the article says he is....

I've been totally confused by all this stuff in the media, I haven't known what to think for a while now really. Fortunately the other day I saw

and I stopped worrying.

A very good video.... but perhaps one that whilst helping to understand the climategate hype also causes concern that the sceptics get so much undeserving attention.

I have a lot more trust in the IPCC than in any sceptic website or youtube video. Only a small number of people fully understand the science behind this topic and so arguing technical points is pointless on a forum like this.

In my simple world this is how it works:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas - check

CO2 levels are massively higher now than ever before - check

Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide - check

We burn a lot of fossil fuel - check

The average temperature of the world is increasing and if this continues, climate change will eventually become catastrophic - check

Even if human activity doesn't cause this (which I strongly believe it does), limiting the use of fossil fuels and finding alternative, cleaner and more sustainable energy is a good thing anyway.

The oil and gas industries have most to lose from limiting carbon emissions - check

They will do whatever they can to counter any such move - check

Any conspiracy is a million times more likely to come from the sceptics lobby than the climate change lobby - check (probably)

Thanks for listening.