Martin2005

This is all fine and there is some evidence to suggest that some of this has merit as an argument. Trouble is you have extrapolated this into an logially position where, you are still saying (or at least implying) that all climate science and scientist are corrupt liars.

Like I said if this was all about funding, I'm pretty sure there is far more money available from 'big oil'.

jonc

You could say the same for those pro AGW.

And how credible would that look, if their finding showed that there was no global warming?

warrenm2

Soon you will all be made jobless and homeless if this fascist greenie dictatorship gains any ground... How 1950s Stalin.....

Greens calls for clear-out of 'climate change deniers' - The Green Party of England and Wales has called for a purge of government advisors and ministers who do not share its views on climate change.

Any senior advisor refusing to accept "the scientific consensus on climate change" should be sacked, it said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26187711

RA Dunk

Sounds a little like the **** party.

******* greenies and DooGooders should be locked up.

JTaylor

Martin2005

Nice piece of irony

RA Dunk

Martin your nothing more than a balloon, you are cheap, full of hot air, pointless and not funny.

Now **** off to a dark corner someplace and deflate you tw@t.

Martin2005

You're such a delightful chap

Suresh

Martin, i would frame it slightly differently:

- What is the extent of human impact i.e. What is the climate sensitivity which I believe is the temperature effect from doubling CO2. Let's stop here a second i believe The science is settled that the impact from CO2 aims is no reason to be alarmed. The uncertainty lies in supplementary effects or feedbacks and will these be positive or negative and then catastrophic or benign. I'm afraid there are only models for this and until
now the models have not shown any skill when compared to hard cold reality. In fact since warming has stopped now, the models are being tweaked to add as mechanism whereby the missing heat is now hiding in the deep ocean (really!!) along with climate science's integrity some will say.

- so now we come to the question about whether or not something needs to be done? Well as far as I can see we haven't even identified if there is a problem yet, so my answer would be NO

- the final question of what to do doesn't need to be considered because we are actually stuck at question 1. But unfortunately in real life Chicken Licken did make it to see the king and we are already at this stage.
There are a plethora of responses available from being more efficient with our natural resources (always a good thing) to shutting down western economies and distributing wealth to developing economies, which is crazy, stupid and unnecessary given the lack of need to do so.

RA Dunk

You're such a ****, I can do this all day TBH.

Osimabu

iTrader: (2)

Suresh for PM. A chap with a brain in Number 10 would be a refreshing change.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Suresh: I agree........as I said in an earlier post, the pro climate change people are now saying, "well, we don't know for SURE, but didn't we ought to do something just in case...?

And what if what we do has a negative effect?

Suresh

The 'Precautionary Principle is a '6th form socialist' construct that in effect justifies what Chicken Licken was trying to do- taking action even though the evidence is shaky at best. Forget that the action to be undertaken of all rushing to tell the king is uncertain to have the desired result of stopping the sky from falling and in the interim will lead to dramatical fall in economic production as the population go travelling instead of working.

It would be his own damn fault if he only did himself in, but unfortunately he also took down Turkey Lurkey, Goosy Loosey and Cockie Lockie leaving their families to claim benefits instead. So this is a prime example of the precautionary principle leading to bad things - in this case GENOCIDE at the hands of the hungry (but not necessarily evil) Foxy Loxy and family and also an increase in dependency on the welfare state.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle Principle #15 of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Declaration notes: "In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."

Turbohot

Good post.

SJ_Skyline

The watermelons really are ******* crazy, grooming people into their way of thinking and getting rid of those that don't fit their paradigm. How vey progressively totalitarian of them!


Oh, and this made me laugh a bit
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139797.stm

Suresh

+1

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

For me, the MOST sinister thing is the insertion of man-made climate change as FACT into the schools curriculum

No other points of view are put, or allowed, so the pupils MUST toe the CC/GW line to gain the marks in an exam.

And in 10-20 years we will have a younger generation who have been taught that CC and GW is FACT, and nothing anyone can say, or do, will change their minds.

What the government** have done there SHOULD be illegal...but it's not.

** "Government" in this case refers to the Lying Labour government who wrote this into the curriculum.

RA Dunk

EFA.

SJ_Skyline

I would have gone with "groomed" as it's far more emotive and suggestive

RA Dunk

But brainwashed is probably more closer to the truth considering they are forcefully being taught to believe in something that might or might not even exist.

Martin2005

I think there are many fundamentalist Christian schools who'd make the same argument as you for creationism being dismissed as a legitimate subject to be taught

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Get ready for the tax hikes, the politicians are limbering up with lots of conjecture about climate change being responsible for the floods dressed up as facts as usual:

Politicians urging action on climate change

RA Dunk

Yea, heard Millipead on about Climate Change being the reason for the floods this morning on the News, and saying Camoron wasn't doing enough to combat CC.

Considering there was a wetter winter 250 years ago, before the whole Carbon Footprint and human factor came into it how can they actually blame Climate Change now?

W@nkers, the lot of them.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Ah, but it IS taught, as an addition to the accepted religions. Schools are forced to put EVERY point of view by law. No discrimination.

EXCEPT for GW/CC of course.

Even the original thoughts on science are touched on, stuff we proved wrong years ago. The "Phlogisten theory" for example.

But no-one is allowed to touch the GW/CC cash cow.

Osimabu

iTrader: (2)

Politicians have no idea what is causing the current weather but want to be seen to be both interested in it and doing something about it. That's why they all spout on about 'climate change' (note that it's no longer 'global warming').

As soon as China and India announce that they think the natural climate variations we're experiencing are caused by industrial activity, and they intend to reduce theirs to help stop it, I'll perhaps begin to think that there's something in it.

scunnered

iTrader: (1)

I believe the politicians know exactly what's causing this weather.
Its because the UK sits in the middle between two weather systems. Whichever system is dominant at the time will dictate what our weather is.
However the politicians choose to ignore this, and put it down to this fictitious "man made" climate change thingy, just so they can raise taxes to fund their extravagant expenses.