Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Frumius]

People like you and me have plenty to lose. Our futures depend upon the decisions we make now.

 

And yes I do abhor the way vested interests try to suppress debate with name calling and deceptions. That is precisely why the anti-global warming, right wing echo chambers are such a danger to us and our democracy.

 

I don't think this debate can or should be categorized as right versus left. That will have the effect of polarizing it even more than it already is.

You are right that the decisions that are taken now will affect us. Only today we are told that the new generation of low carbon power stations will drive up fuel hills by several hundred pounds per household per year. This will plunge thousands more families into fuel poverty. I'm not happy about that against the background of the Chinese building huge coal fired powerstations on a monthly basis. If we eliminate carbon emissions entirely from the uk it will have no effect on global warming (unequivocally) but many poor people will be impoverished by our very laudable efforts. Poor people in poor housing are suffering the cold Right now cos they can't afford to heat their homes. Never mind some possible scenario 50 years down the line.

[Wildcat]

I don't think this debate can or should be categorized as right versus left. That will have the effect of polarizing it even more than it already is.

You are right that the decisions that are taken now will affect us. Only today we are told that the new generation of low carbon power stations will drive up fuel hills by several hundred pounds per household per year. This will plunge thousands more families into fuel poverty. I'm not happy about that against the background of the Chinese building huge coal fired powerstations on a monthly basis. If we eliminate carbon emissions entirely from the uk it will have no effect on global warming (unequivocally) but many poor people will be impoverished by our very laudable efforts. Poor people in poor housing are suffering the cold Right now cos they can't afford to heat their homes. Never mind some possible scenario 50 years down the line.

 

There are of course very sane right wingers with sensible views on global warming and no doubt some left wingers with wrong headed views.

 

But the primary internet sources for climate denialism are backed and funded by the right wing of the Republican party.

 

Your concerns about how we deal with global warming are well made, which is precisely why the solution needs to be a global one, through global treaties and why unilateral actions pointless.

[Frumius]

There are of course very sane right wingers with sensible views on global warming and no doubt some left wingers with wrong headed views.

 

But the primary internet sources for climate denialism are backed and funded by the right wing of the Republican party.

 

Your concerns about how we deal with global warming are well made, which is precisely why the solution needs to be a global one, through global treaties and why unilateral actions pointless.

 

"wrong headed","climate denialism" These are defamatory and inflammatory terms which do not help the cause of informed debate. And frankly they do you no credit. You are an accomplished debater on here and ,in my experience, I have not seen you decend to this level before. Do you regard those who are open to debate the issue as heretics too.?

My concerns about how we deal with climate change are not just well made, they are the reality of wot is happening now and will happen in the foreseeable future. Those who are inflicting these hardships on poor people now justify it on the basis of the "accepted wisdom" of having to combat climate change, not on any proven science. And those who would debate the issue honestly are regarded as a nuisance. It is the ConDem coalition which is threatening people with these fuel cost increases. The rightwing leftwing aspect of this is irrelevant to those who increasingly face the heat or eat choice for themselves and their children NOW.

[Wildcat]

"wrong headed","climate denialism" These are defamatory and inflammatory terms which do not help the cause of informed debate. And frankly they do you no credit. You are an accomplished debater on here and ,in my experience, I have not seen you decend to this level before. Do you regard those who are open to debate the issue as heretics too.?

My concerns about how we deal with climate change are not just well made, they are the reality of wot is happening now and will happen in the foreseeable future. Those who are inflicting these hardships on poor people now justify it on the basis of the "accepted wisdom" of having to combat climate change, not on any proven science. And those who would debate the issue honestly are regarded as a nuisance. It is the ConDem coalition which is threatening people with these fuel cost increases. The rightwing leftwing aspect of this is irrelevant to those who increasingly face the heat or eat choice for themselves and their children NOW.

 

Not sure what fuel cost increases have to do with the science.

 

As for 'climate denialism' I use the term because it is appropriate, those people who are open to debate do so based on an acceptance of the science and on a condemnation of falsehoods wherever they find them. Something denialists do not do, in fact their global conspiracy theory against the consensus opinion is the clearest and biggest example of a conspiracy theory in all its worst forms. There is room for healthy scepticism in certain areas, but frankly 'climate denialists' like Monckton and Watts are "flat earthers". They have been rebutted time and time again in forensic detail and in the politest of terms. They ignore the criticisms and fabricate their evidence. They are denialists because they use the same techniques as Zundel and Irving do with the holocaust. There comes a point where debate is pointless, and labels more useful.

[Frumius]

Not sure what fuel cost increases have to do with the science.

 

As for 'climate denialism' I use the term because it is appropriate, those people who are open to debate do so based on an acceptance of the science and on a condemnation of falsehoods wherever they find them. Something denialists do not do, in fact their global conspiracy theory against the consensus opinion is the clearest and biggest example of a conspiracy theory in all its worst forms. There is room for healthy scepticism in certain areas, but frankly 'climate denialists' like Monckton and Watts are "flat earthers". They have been rebutted time and time again in forensic detail and in the politest of terms. They ignore the criticisms and fabricate their evidence. They are denialists because they use the same techniques as Zundel and Irving do with the holocaust. There comes a point where debate is pointless, and labels more useful.

 

 

 

Prospective fuel cost increases announced today are due to the financing of new "low carbon" power stations. This will put up to an average of £500 of extra cost per household per yearning the uk.

Disappointed to see you try to justify the use of defamatory "labels" in a serious debate when you have already accepted that the science related to the cause of climate change is equivocal and therefore open to debate. You now seem to be saying that debate is pointless:huh:

I repeat ; those of us who have to pay the higher taxes and increased fuel bills which will fund the uks gestures on climate change, will become ever more confused frustrated and angry while we watch china quickly wipeout any material difference we might make. The climate change lobby are talking about possible scenarios sometime in the future while we are struggling here and now.

Even if you are right that man can make a difference to global warming.(and call me what ever name you want but I remain unconvinced) it is criminal to force fuel poverty on poor British families while those who could make a difference (USA & china) do not take serious action. Your notions and scientific quotations are impressive to some but they won't pay the electricity bill of a single mother at Darnall this winter. And she won't be any less scared by the threat of higher bills to fund low carbon power generation.

[Wildcat]

Prospective fuel cost increases announced today are due to the financing of new "low carbon" power stations. This will put up to an average of £500 of extra cost per household per yearning the uk.

Disappointed to see you try to justify the use of defamatory "labels" in a serious debate when you have already accepted that the science related to the cause of climate change is equivocal and therefore open to debate. You now seem to be saying that debate is pointless:huh:

I repeat ; those of us who have to pay the higher taxes and increased fuel bills which will fund the uks gestures on climate change, will become ever more confused frustrated and angry while we watch china quickly wipeout any material difference we might make. The climate change lobby are talking about possible scenarios sometime in the future while we are struggling here and now.

Even if you are right that man can make a difference to global warming.(and call me what ever name you want but I remain unconvinced) it is criminal to force fuel poverty on poor British families while those who could make a difference (USA & china) do not take serious action. Your notions and scientific quotations are impressive to some but they won't pay the electricity bill of a single mother at Darnall this winter. And she won't be any less scared by the threat of higher bills to fund low carbon power generation.

 

My use of denialist isn't directed at you, it is directed at the anti-global warming lobby who's arguments are based on lies, proven myths and fabrications. Just like with holocaust denial debate is important to a point, but once it is established they are untrustworthy sources of information There is little if any point considering them further. At that point they can be dismissed with labels. Monckton has been shown to be a charlatan, flat earther there is no point attempting to refute everything he says any more than there is any point engaging David Icke in debate about his lizardmen.

 

Debate however is far from pointless, it is essential, which is precisely why those not engaged in debating need to be labelled so they don't distract from the issues.

 

As for the fuel tax, I am generally opposed to direct taxation because it isn't progressive, however there are strong arguments for direct taxation where they are used to offset costs and environmental damage. Tobacco for example can defensibly be taxed to pay for the costs consumption causes the NHS.

 

I am not sure about your figures, the Telegraph is quoting them as coming from a source I have not heard of before. But assuming the figures are accurate then it highlights further the injustice of our wage system and of the failure of direct taxation to compensate for the inequality intrinsic in the economic system.

[spinac]

Since 2010 isn't over yet I don't have any figures; unlike you and the rest of the pro AGW camp who have already made up theirs

 

The report was that 2010 figures were "more likely than not" going to be the warmest on record since 1860. That's not a definitive statement. But we'll see the truth soon enough.

 

But the question is ... who's figures will YOU trust when we tick into 2011? Do you want to back your horse now, or will you cherry pick later?

 

Do you trust the MET Office, or will you accuse them of twisting the figures for financial gain if they don't fit your argument?

[retep]

Can anyone point to the records that began in 1860.

[JIbbo]

My use of denialist isn't directed at you, it is directed at the anti-global warming lobby who's arguments are based on lies, proven myths and fabrications. Just like with holocaust denial debate is important to a point, but once it is established they are untrustworthy sources of information There is little if any point considering them further. At that point they can be dismissed with labels. Monckton has been shown to be a charlatan, flat earther there is no point attempting to refute everything he says any more than there is any point engaging David Icke in debate about his lizardmen.

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/full/443141a.html

 

That might very well come back to hunt people when the CERN cosmic ray and cloud experiment starts to prove successful.

 

Which leads to the following hypothesis

 

The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.

 

Some actual science going on a CERN to prove a DIRECT link between solar cosmic rays and the recent global warming.

 

Unless wikicat thinks CERN and physics experiments are the equivalent of holocaust deniers etc.

[JIbbo]

Nature has the first results of this experiment....

 

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/12/sunny_days_for_cloud_experimen.html

 

Basically the experiment is WORKING

 

The results haven't yet been published, so Curtius declined to discuss the details. But the important thing is that the project is working - they have seen sulphuric acid and water combine to make particles when blasted by the CERN beam, for example, in a way that matches predictions of the most recent models. The data should help the team to quantify how much of an impact the Sun is having on climate within 2-3 years, Curtius says - though there are a lot more pieces of the puzzle to fill in.

 

2-3 years is just long enough for the entire global warming debacle to be quietly wound down. ?