Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[convert]

Looks like even St Obama is back pedalling a little on Hopenfakem.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8429310.stm

 

"I think that people are justified in being disappointed about the outcome in Copenhagen," Mr Obama said.

 

"Rather than see a complete collapse in Copenhagen, in which nothing at all got done and would have been a huge backward step, at least we kind of held ground and there wasn't too much backsliding from where we were."

 

Quite right too, you can't backslide too much when all you've got to back you up is bullplop and junkscience.

[Wildcat]

A bit like warming then...

 

If there isn't a consensus on Anthropomorphic Climate Change then your standards requiring one are so high it would be impossible to argue there is any Consensus in Science.

 

Is there really “consensus” in the scientific community on the reality of anthropogenic climate change? As N. Oreskes points out in a recent article in Science, that is itself a question that can be addressed scientificially. Oreskes took a sampling of 928 articles on climate change, selected objectively (using the key phrase “global climate change”) from the published peer-reviewed scientific literature. Oreskes concluded that of those articles (about 75% of them) that deal with the question at all, 100% (all of them) support the consensus view that a significant fraction of recent climate change is due to human activities. Of course, there are undoubtedly some articles that have been published in the peer-reviewed literature that disagree with this position and that Oreskes’s survey missed, but the fact that her sample didn’t find them indicates that the number of them is very very small. One could debate whether overwhelming consensus is adequate grounds for action on climate change, but there are no grounds for debating whether such consensus actually exists.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/a-statistical-analysis-of-the-consensus/

Edited December 24, 2009 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

Looks like even St Obama is back pedalling a little on Hopenfakem.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8429310.stm

 

Quite right too, you can't backslide too much when all you've got to back you up is bullplop and junkscience.

 

Yeah right

 

bullplop and junkscience that these organisations are signed up to:

 

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)

* Royal Society of Canada

* Chinese Academy of Sciences

* Academié des Sciences (France)

* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)

* Indian National Science Academy

* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)

* Science Council of Japan

* Russian Academy of Sciences

* Royal Society (United Kingdom)

* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

* Australian Academy of Sciences

* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

* Caribbean Academy of Sciences

* Indonesian Academy of Sciences

* Royal Irish Academy

* Academy of Sciences Malaysia

* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)

* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)

* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)

* American Geophysical Union (AGU)

* American Institute of Physics (AIP)

* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

* American Meteorological Society (AMS)

* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

 

Can you name any similar organisation that denies Anthropomorphic Climate Change?

 

The only junk science, as has been exposed time and time again, is that put forward by the deniers.

 

Perhaps you can explain why, if global warming is not to do with greenhouse gases the stratosphere is cooling at the same time as the troposphere is warming? The only theory that explains that process involves the greenhouse effect.

Edited December 24, 2009 by Wildcat

[eastbank]

Yeah right

 

bullplop and junkscience that these organisations are signed up to:

 

 

 

Can you name any similar organisation that denies Anthropomorphic Climate Change?

 

The only junk science, as has been exposed time and time again, is that put forward by the deniers.

 

 

the lets get bevvied on christmas eve down town organisation have noted the climate change aint happening....because everyone too busy having a good time too be bothered.....

[splodgeyAl]

the lets get bevvied on christmas eve down town organisation have noted the climate change aint happening....because everyone too busy having a good time too be bothered.....

 

Enjoy the party while it lasts

[ChrisS6]

"I haven't even got a GCSE in Physics or Geography, and I've never heard of tha Atlantic conveyor, but because it's snowing can I just take this opportunity to say it's obvious to any one with just enough brains to manage to log in to an online forum that 99% of scientists who have studied this issue must either be fools or have been bribed by the great global bogey-man conspiracy because if there was global warming it couldn't snow could it ?."

 

It's common sense, innit? Just like it's obvious that I've got a 50/50 chance of winning the lottery, 'cos I'm either going to win or not.

[eastbank]

Enjoy the party while it lasts

 

 

 

aslong has it lasts another year i'll be fine.....live for today cos your too long in the ground...my nan used to say....global warming its bloody freezing...

[dropout]

There is a slight snag. Temperatures in the northern hemisphere high enough to make the British Isles a tropical paradise would probably dump enough fresh water from the Greenland icecap into the north Atlantic to halt the conveyor and so turn the UK into an ice-bound wilderness.

 

Catch 22

Just when I thought the UK already WAS an icebound wilderness!

Looks like I am going to have to pay yet EVEN more for my gas and leccy bills....UNLESS some kind of sanity returns to the world.

Unlikely I know.

[top4718]

If the pro-global warming rent-a-mob and the government are in fact correct then why not take the following actions immediatly:

 

Ban the sale of cars above 1000cc.

 

Greatly reduce flights from UK airports.

 

Make public transport green, affordable and reliable.

 

Get freight off the roads and onto the railways.

 

Stop immigration and control population growth.

 

Fit all homes with solar or other renewable energy.

 

None of the above should be a problem as we are talking about saving the planet.

 

All of the above ARE a problem as they do not make any money for anyone and would actually cost money.

 

Taxing "gas guzzling" cars does not stop them polluting.

 

Taxing flights does not stop planes flying.

 

Public transport is appalling and excessivly expensive.

 

Only time will tell if man made global warming is fact (I believe it is total fiction) but some (mostly politicians) will be lining their pockets while they can.

[Wildcat]

If the pro-global warming rent-a-mob and the government are in fact correct then why not take the following actions immediatly:

 

Ban the sale of cars above 1000cc.

 

...........

 

Only time will tell if man made global warming is fact (I believe it is total fiction) but some (mostly politicians) will be lining their pockets while they can.

 

A) What has immigration got to do with it?

 

B) Why ban cars over 1000cc?

 

Policies like those described here, should be more than adequate and are not as drastic as the measures you describe:

http://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/EU_Manifesto_2009.pdf