So MMGW could cause hurricane activity to increase, but then it might decrease. And apparently, in the last ten years, there hasn't been any increase in temperature anyway. In short, this idiot, along with so many others, has no more idea about predicting the future climate than my dog.

And of course the denialist camp is full of wise scientists. Let's sum up the various strands of denialism:

1. Climate change isn't happening
2. Or if it is, it isn't caused by human activity
3. Or if it is it won't be important
4. Or if it is important, nothing can be done about it anyway

Bottom line? The only thing they appear to agree about is that absolutely nothing should be done, but they have a multitude of conflicting reasons why.

Peter,

Even you have to admit that all the information is at best very conflicting.

You will also have to admit that the scientists who originally floated the whole idea have hardly covered themselves with glory, when it comes to their various 'models and theories'. many since proven to be incorrect and incomplete.

As with your remark re 'denialist's', so for their opposition; "Bottom line? The only thing they appear to agree about is that absolutely something should be done, but they have a multitude of conflicting reasons why."

They look increasingly like those 'wise men of yore', who tried to convince Canute that he could turn the tide. Let's hope they don't rhetorically 'drown' the rest of us with their shaky, flaky theories...

Environmentally, of course something has to be done to curb man's worst excesses, - it is plain old-fashioned prudence and good husbandry.

The alarmist drama queen's of this world do no-one any favours by being so bigoted on the matter. That they try to stifle debate, to the point of making it a criminal offence to deny GW, merely compounds the idea that at best they are wrong, and, at worst, it is a con...

Ernest

George Monbiot has an interesting take here here on how the denialists attempt to stifle debate on AGW. Here's one example from several:

"Last year the top climate scientist at NASA, James Hansen, reported that his bosses were trying to censor his lectures, papers and web postings. He was told by public relations officials at the agency that there would be “dire consequences” if he continued to call for rapid reductions in greenhouse gases(12)."

Peter,

So, your argument is based on 'tit-for-tat', I mention that the EU has called for criminalising 'denial', your response is a singular instance - that is, - if it really occurred at all, - you know what exagerrating fibbers these 'pro warming scientists can be, - of it happening to 'a scientist', and via George Monbiot! - you are surely in some humourous mood this morning...

I would have thought that if said scientists really had been as smart as they think they are, - and that's a big 'if', - and they really did have the welfare of the world as their prime concern, they would have long ago realised, that to persuade someone to your point of view, you do not attack them at every turn, either verbaly, financially or in the courts, such tactics are a sure way to anatagonise the very people you need to be 'on-side', as is spinning what are already dubious 'facts'.

Allan,

" And apparently, in the last ten years, there hasn't been any increase in temperature anyway."

Sure there has. Temperature increased in March 2008.

At least it did according to the brain damaged definitions you appear to be using.

Peter -

Your last post lost any credibility two words in.

As for your 9.19am, who denies that the climate changes?

Ernest posted

your response is a singular instance - that is, - if it really occurred at all, - you know what exagerrating fibbers these 'pro warming scientists

Two comments:
1. Obvioulsy you didn't read the linked article, which cites many instance of denialists censoring debate.
2. James Hansen is a widely respected scientist.

Peter Moore posted

who denies that the climate changes?

You guys do. As you well know, the phrase climate change refers to AGW.

You guys do? Climate change is happening because climate change is always happening. It's the increasingly desperate attempts to attribute it to one variable - ppm CO2 - which are bringing the warmists into disrepute, especially when data fail to support the case.

Peter -

Feel free to link to where I deny climate change. In fact I don't recall anyone denying it here. Still, happy hunting.

As you ought to know, 'climate change' was adopted because the 'W' in AGW became an unsustainable assertion. With some places and atmospheric layers cooling, another hook was needed. The beauty of 'climate change' is that it's self-evident, sufficiently vague to allow its proponents to avoid the requirement of backing their claims with empirical evidence, yet a scary enough proposition to keep the alarmists in business, and what a lucrative business it is.

As your memory fails you, let me remind you. Yes, climate change is still with us after all these years. Bloomin' billions of years, in fact. It's highly unlikely that man contributes to it, but even if we do, free markets are already delivering cleaner technologies and are the best mechanism to do so.

Pete Moore,

"As you ought to know, 'climate change' was adopted because the 'W' in AGW became an unsustainable assertion."

The usual denialist nonsense.

a) It is warming as even the meanest intelligence can immediately see when shown a graph of temperature over the last century. This is what is driving climate change (most obviously temperature, but also for example changes in drought patterns).

b) Denialists like to claim that climate change is a change in terminology but in fact the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - perhaps you have heard of it - was formed 20 years ago.

Pete Moore posted:

yet a scary enough proposition to keep the alarmists in business, and what a lucrative business it is..

What, more lucrative than the fossil fuels business?

And this gem:

free markets are already delivering cleaner technologies and are the best mechanism to do so

The usual complacent (free-market is god) denialist nonsense. Over what timescale? It took decades for the inventions of the 19th century (electricity, cars, telephones) to become widely used, and we don't have decades.

Peter

If you don't trust science and technology to come up with cleaner alternatives what exactly are you advocating? A radical and global reduction in living standards? On the basis of speculation? That is an utterly unrealistic proposition. People won't vote for it and if it is imposed on them they will rebel.

The politics of global warming don't add up.

Peter -

What, more lucrative than the fossil fuels business?

Unquestionably. When I filled up the gas guzzler this morning, BP charged me 25p a litre, whatever they are. Then along came the Treasury and took 85p a litre.

Whilst BP makes a profit on me, it doesn't compel me to hand over my money to it. BP is also rewarded for the risks it bears. It carries out research, drilling, shipping, refining and all the rest of it. What damned risk does the Treasury ever bear? None, yet it claims a 400+% 'profit' and enforces it through its monopoly on violence. The mafia would be proud to pull that one off.

When a private company makes a 400% profit, even with risks, the politicians can't scream "excessive profit!" fast enough.

Over what timescale? It took decades for the inventions of the 19th century (electricity, cars, telephones) to become widely used, and we don't have decades.

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 03:43PM | Peter

Oh my God, Peter! What are we going to do? I see the planet dying around me and it's all caused by industry.

In reality, over-population is the biggest problem facing mankind, and that really could damage the planet. But that would require the left to ask Africans and muslims not to have so many children: that's not going to happen.

If we think global warming is a hotly debated topic, can you imagine the degree of heat and venom that will be created when the subject of eugenics rears it's ugly head, as it most assuredly will when the world population reaches bursting point.

I wonder if blatant self-interest will be the order of the day? or perhaps there will be a creed of self-annihilation, - 'to save the world'.

Somehow I cannot see the UN being able to cope with the truly global strife that will ensue...

Allan

Over-population is certainly a problem, the elephant in the room. But over-consumption of natural resources is the real issue. As poor countries approach to rich countries' living standards the planet will be over-exploited unless we mend our ways.

This is already evident with fisheries, many of which will collapse within a decade or so on present rates of depletion. Destruction of rainforest to grow soya, palm oil and bio-fuels is another example. And rapidly growing meat consumption in China and India, which is behind the current grain shortages.

The politics of global warming don't add up.

Henry

You may well be right. The signs are not encouraging. But we already have alternative sources of energy. We just don't choose to use them or to take the necessary steps to reduce wastage (heat loss from buildings, greater engine efficiency), and there is no real sign that a "magic bullet" in the form of a technology breakthrough (such as cold fusion) is around the corner.

ABC and the Washington Post polled Americans about the most important issue to them in the upcoming elections. The economy ranked #1 with 41%, Iraq #2 with 18%, Health Care #3 with 7%, Terrorism/National Security #4 with 5%, Immigration and Ethics followed with 4%, Education and Morals with 2%, Environment and Global Warming continue to receive a 0%.

That's zero! The debate may be over but it seems nobody cares.

Henry,

"The debate may be over but it seems nobody cares."

Nobody thinks it the most important issue in the current election, you mean. But then what would a poll of Americans on terrorism have come back with pre 9/11.

There are other polls which show that most Americans believe global warming is happening and requires action. Regardless, when the world is 2 or 3 degrees warmer Americans will almost certainly care but it will probably be too late then.