Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Wildcat]

Oh, you are alive!

 

Care to comment on some of my other recent posts? What do you think of the 10:10 terror campaign?

 

The hysterical reaction to it, whilst condemning it also illustrates the ironic point it was making. Maybe it wasn't well judged, but it is a shame the point being made has escaped the most vocal critics, and that the absence of intelligence in interpreting and understanding propoganda does characterise the warming debate/

 

Hal Lewis' comments?

 

Why should anyone care when someone who knows nothing about Climate Change talks rubbish about it? He isn't the first and he won't be the last.

 

Climate Progress comments on it here:

http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/11/hal-lewis-resigns-from-the-american-physical-society/

 

The Wiki warmist editor bans?

 

See what he says himself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Final_decision:_thoughts

 

The case is complex and goes back some time.

 

eg. here from last year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley&oldid=315690726

 

PS Climateprogress again wiki. Yet another biased warmist site, oh and the BBC. Haven't they just been told that they need to be more balanced in their reporting of global climate disruption? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8060211/BBC-told-to-ensure-balance-on-climate-change.html

 

Since the climate is warming and no one with an ounce of intelligence says otherwise, I take warmist to be realist.

 

Also the Telegraph is hardly an unbiassed source... (nor the Delingpole the article praises for that matter - he has afterall been consistently wrong in virtually everything he has said about the climate).

 

The Telegraph censored one of their journalists comments about Mockton earlier on this year. They are far from unbiassed. They have an anti-science agenda.

 

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/06/16/is-the-telegraph-censoring-criticism-of-climate-change-deniers/

 

It does seem a shame that from the article the BBC is to have its hands tied and will be unable to give unbiassed Scientific points of view. Hopefully Delingpole is right and that the hand tieing will be minimal, because unlike him some of us want the BBC to do proper scientific reporting and not for balance have to include a denier with no scientific knowledge or understanding... people like Monckton or Delingpole have shown themselves to have nothing of merit to add to the debate and the less attention their ill informed views are given the better.

 

Ps Do you have any comments actually relevant to the post you quoted from me? I am particularly wondering what your recent posts have to do with the topic? Also how you think a few people saying the gulf stream is being decreased because of the melting arctic is helpful to your argument against the thread title?

Edited October 18, 2010 by Wildcat

[convert]

I draw attention to the 10:10 campaign as it illustrates the lengths that the warmist pressure groups are having to go to.

 

As for Hal Lewis, well I'll let others draw their conclusions, suffice to say 60 years membership of the APS is not something a respected Scientist (albeit one not in receipt of government green funding) would just throw away without good reason.

 

Wiki seems to be finally trying to get it's house in order re MMuGW.

 

The BBC, has not exactly been unbiased (especially Richard Black) in their coverage of AGW, only a blind man would think otherwise.

 

Whether the globe is warming or not, isn't really the question here though is it. The question is if the warming is unprecedented; It isn't.

 

We've had sharper increases and decreases of temperature in the past. We'll have them in the future. Taxing us on CO2 won't change that.

 

I'm all for conserving resources, I just don't like tax and scare schemes dressed up as scientific policy.

[Wildcat]

The BBC, has not exactly been unbiased (especially Richard Black) in their coverage of AGW, only a blind man would think otherwise.

 

I don't know who he is. But when you seem to think someone reporting on a scientific matter that doesn't give equal weight to a wishful thinking ill informed view, then I expect your evidence for bias will be rather different than mine.

 

Whether the globe is warming or not, isn't really the question here though is it. The question is if the warming is unprecedented; It isn't.

 

I thought this was the question?

 

No Evidence for Global Warming?

 

The warming itself isn't unprecedented,. No one has ever said it is, what is unique is the pattern of the warming... CO2 increases leading to warming, rather than the other way around.

 

That argument is weak as well because I don't think we would want to be living through the historic periods when the earth has warmed like it is doing now..... they generally involve mass extinctions...

 

We've had sharper increases and decreases of temperature in the past. We'll have them in the future. Taxing us on CO2 won't change that.

 

I'm all for conserving resources, I just don't like tax and scare schemes dressed up as scientific policy.

 

Taxes depress demand, that is a fundamental and obvious basic economics. It both helps conserve energy for the future by encouraging efficiency and decreases the CO2 released into the atmosphere that is causing the earth to warm. A win for you and a win for everyone.

[spinac]

Wow!

 

The world population is increasing and nobody is actually going to stop all those people in the developing world from wanting and getting what we have.

 

In 2050 there will be 9 billion people aspiring to western lifestyles.

 

So, just for a moment, consider the basics.

 

Can we accurately measure CO2 in the atmosphere?

 

How long have we been doing this?

 

Do we have accurate data from the past?

 

Are CO2 levels increasing?

 

Are they increasing slowly or quickly?

 

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?

 

Will an increase in CO2 cause an increase in global temperatures?

 

Will an increase in global temperatures affect life on this planet?

 

Could it cause wars over water and food supplies or even mass extinction?

 

Where did all this CO2 come from?

 

If the cause is NOT human activity, what IS the current cause?

 

If the cause IS human activity, should we be concerned about population increase and the rate of economic growth in other parts of the world?

 

Check out "Tim Jackson's economic reality check" It's about prosperity, hope and carbon emissions.

 

It's 20 minutes long, but well worth a listen

 

If you're not worried now, what will it take to cause concern?

 

I'm not sure TIm Jackson is the man to save the planet, but he's definitely worth listening to if you have an interest in this subject.

 

Are we depending upon blind faith in our cleverness to save the planet or is some other drastic action required?

 

Can changing your preferred search engine save the planet ... ????

 

http://ecosia.org/ hmmm

 

How can we reclaim hope for the future?

 

Can we redefine prosperity to be more meaningful and less materialistic?

 

Ubuntu - I am because we are ... ???

 

What is a realistic vision for what it means to be human?

 

That TED talk again ... http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_jackson_s_economic_reality_check.html

Edited October 18, 2010 by spinac

[spinac]

PS Ecosia ... some way to go maybe

 

I reckon this produces better results

 

http://www.google.co.uk/#q=sheffield+global+warming+evidence&fp=e9d007dae775f316

 

than this

 

http://ecosia.org/search.php?q=sheffield+global+warming+evidence&meta=normal

 

Surely the search term "evidence" should place this thread top?

[Worjackie]

 

If you're not worried now, what will it take to cause concern?

 

 

I'll start worrying about global warming when air travel and private cars are banned. If it was that serious, we wouldn't be talking about greener cars and environmentally friendly planes, we'd be talking about no cars and planes! As they haven't been banned, then clearly global warming isn't happening on anything like the scale the alarmists are saying (if indeed it's happening at all).

 

I refuse to be lectured about the environment by hypocritical world leaders who fly around on private jets.

[Wildcat]

I'll start worrying about global warming when air travel and private cars are banned. If it was that serious, we wouldn't be talking about greener cars and environmentally friendly planes, we'd be talking about no cars and planes! As they haven't been banned, then clearly global warming isn't happening on anything like the scale the alarmists are saying (if indeed it's happening at all).

 

I refuse to be lectured about the environment by hypocritical world leaders who fly around on private jets.

 

What conclusion do you think people will make from such a post?

 

[spinac]

... politicians don't have the guts to lead? They pander to the immediate needs of the mob, not the long term best interests of anybody.

 

It is so, it always has been, and maybe always will be ...

 

Rome is the mob.

 

Conjure magic for them, and they'll be distracted.

 

Take away their freedom, and still they'll roar.

 

The beating heart of Rome ... is not the marble of the senate.

 

It's the sand of the Colosseum.

 

He'll bring them death ... and they will love him for it. (from Galdiator)

 

Who's going to elect a politician who tries to ban private cars and international air travel?

 

Do you know what? I don't believe global warming will have a disastrous effect on the UK in my lifetime.

 

But will my kids, your kids, our grandchildren thank us for our complacency?

 

The time to worry is before we've reached the tipping point.

 

Maybe weve passed that already?

 

PS maybe I'm a hypocrite. I don't always act upon what I believe in. I don't know many people who do. I'm still hoping that somehow we can bridge the gap between what we know we should do collectively, and what we actually do.

 

The alternative is to deny everything and Party on!

 

Do you, do I want to act responsibly or party on?

 

Of course we all want to party on.

 

But maybe there's no hangover cure for the energy consumption party?

Edited October 19, 2010 by spinac

[convert]

Let's look at a speech given by President Vaclav Klaus, of the Czech Republic:

 

 

Full text here http://www.thegwpf.org/news/1726-president-vaclav-klaus-inaugural-annual-gwpf-lecture.html

 

 

...The current debate is a public policy debate with enormous implications. It is no longer about climate. It is about the government, the politicians, their scribes and the lobbyists who want to get more decision making and power for themselves. It seems to me that the widespread acceptance of the global warming dogma has become one of the main, most costly and most undemocratic public policy mistakes in generations. The previous one was communism...

 

...there are respectable but highly conflicting scientific hypotheses concerning this subject. What also belongs here is our resolute opposition to the attempts to shut down such a crucial public debate concerning us and our way of life on the pretext that the overwhelming scientific consensus is there and that we have to act now. This is not true. Being free to raise questions and oppose fashionable politically and “lobbystically” promoted ideas forms an important and irreplaceable part of our democratic society. Not being allowed to do so would be a proof that we have already moved to the “brave new world” of a postdemocratic order. (I am tempted to say that we are already very close to it)...

 

...Many of us came to the conclusion that the case for the currently promoted anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is very weak. We also know that it is always wrong to pick a simple, attractive, perhaps appealing scientific hypothesis, especially when it is not sufficiently tested and non-contentiously pushed forward, and to base ambitious, radical and far-reaching policies on it – without paying attention to all the arguments and to all the direct and indirect as well as opportunity costs associated with it...

 

...Let’s start with a long-term fact that the global mean climate does change. No one disputes that. It changes now, it was changing in the past and will – undoubtedly – be changing also in the future. In spite of that, we have to add that over the last ten thousand years (the era of Holocene), the climate has been much the same as at present and the average surface temperature did not vary significantly...

 

...Presenting the climate changes we’ve been experiencing in the last decades as a threat to the Planet and letting the global warming alarmists use this bizarre argument as a justification for their attempts to substantially change our way of life, to weaken and restrain our freedom, to control us, to dictate what it is we should and should not be doing is unacceptable...

 

[Phanerothyme]

I'd expect an economist to say something like that.