I bet those 100 reasons are all cold hard solid facts, and not spurious claims made by people somehow connected tp companies that would be buggered if their means of practice were seen to somehow be killing the planet.
So ignore the scientific consensus and promote the skeptics’ cause.
Here’s the danger: go with the consensus and it’s wrong and we at least get a lot of cleaner technologies.
Go with the skeptics and they’re wrong and millions of people could be displaced or die.
The Express et al will have a field day when all those climate refugees arrive on out shores!
The 100 reasons are issued by the European Foundation, which is a Eurosceptic organisation comprised largely of Tory MPs and MEPs – chairman Bill Cash, patron Margaret Thatcher, advisory board including some of the present shadow cabinet and intellectual luminaries Kenneth Minogue and Frederick Forsyth. Intriguingly its advisory board also includes the supposed Tory Green tsar Zac Goldsmith.
So as you’d expect, it’s just a ridiculous load of rehashed old news by put out there by disgruntled rightwingers.
e.g. “2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.” And human history is less than 0.0001% of the earth’s history.
“5) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.” Yeah, try reading up on global mass extinction events.
Global skeptics are not true skeptics in the traditional sense of the word. The generally have made up their mind about climate change and are just looking for anecdotes from half-understood blogs, satellite TV shows and “quality” tabloid newspapers such as the Express.
If someone was truly skeptical about climate change, they would lie awake most nights in a cold sweat worrying that their conclusions might possibly be wrong.
The scientific consensus is in favour of climate change because a lot of highly qualified, conscientious people have gone out of their way to examine (occasionally conflicting) primary sources of evidence and have presented their conclusions in peer reviewed journals. They have worked very hard to ensure that their hypotheses are valid but would not doubt have other conclusions about climate if the evidence pointed in another direction. This is not the sort of analysis that one gets with the Daily Express.
Just supposing that the headline were true, something I personally doubt, but I could be wrong…
Because it’s natural, does it in any sense suggest that combined with peak oil, global warming isn’t going to royally f*** wester civilisation with a barbed wire d***o? And therefore, if we could do anything about it, is there any reason why we shouldn’t?
The express doesn’t seem to suffer from a lack of major advertisers – I wonder if a prolonged boycott of its major advertisers would help shift the debate a little? It is pretty rich for companies like British Gas to claim to be doing their bit to help tackle global warming if they also help subsidise this dishonesty indirectly through their advertising pounds.
There isn’t much if any science in the global warming debate. It’s like two chidren arguing..
Child #1. OMGWTF! You left that TV on Standby! Don’t you know if you do that WE’LL ALL DIE!!!
Child #2. Loser! You’re just saying that because you’re jealous of my car.
Doesn’t raise much above that… It’s not surprising more people don’t believe in it than do. I’ve stopped caring – the politicians will do what they will, and they aren’t gong to listen to the likes of me anyway.
They’ve been dying to come out with this sort of b*llocks about climate change for yonks but haven’t dared.
Unfortunately that recent email spat has coincided (not coincidentally IMHO) with Copenhagen and so a big push by the denial side to derail the summit.
Hence the likes of the DE finally run this stupid garbage.
Unfortunately for us all the rear-guard action by or on behalf (wittingly or unwittingly) of those trying to maximise the profits on their existing investments before change is forced on everyone is just delaying the inevitable and making it much more expensive for the rest of us when reality eventually intrudes.
The science is, contrary to this predictable ignorant cr@p from the DE, pretty much settled (and by a huge margin).
One can argue about minor and marginal elements of it but the overall point was settled long ago.
The next several generations I’m sure will thank us for headlines such as this. As Phil says near the top if it’s wrong we get cleaner technolgies and a better enviorment, also we are taken off Fossil Fuels which are already at a high cost to purchase, which would benefit us all in the long run, IF IT’S PROVEN RIGHT and we do nothing, then Good Luck folks.
The oil and mining companies just want to keep selling oil and coal so they pay sceptics to write books and come up with spurious “studies” that do as much as they can to throw doubt on data, they consist of creationists and big businesses who’s members won’t be around when sea levels really start rising. Should nothing be done I think that those countries and surviving individuals who spoiled it all should be brought before a Nuremberg style trial.
I of course ought to have said “those relatively few scientists the denial side can scrape up’.
Because the overwhelming majority of science backs the climate change argument.
(but our media which love to put 2 talking heads up likes to give the impression sicence is evenly split. It isn’t. It would be difficult for it to be more settled)
[...] reasons why climate change is natural and not manmade” was covered by the Daily Telegraph, Daily Express, and Conservative Home. In homage, Left Foot Forward sets out 100 reasons why “vote blue, go [...]
I bet those 100 reasons are all cold hard solid facts, and not spurious claims made by people somehow connected tp companies that would be buggered if their means of practice were seen to somehow be killing the planet.
And I no longer think Simon Cowell is an absolutely despicable plague on society now I know that he has some dark moods. Oh, silly me, yes I do.
Is burning copies of the Express one of them?
As the sentence about “no proof” is in quotes, it’s clearly opinion – possibly being presented as fact.
But I’m splitting hairs.
So ignore the scientific consensus and promote the skeptics’ cause.
Here’s the danger: go with the consensus and it’s wrong and we at least get a lot of cleaner technologies.
Go with the skeptics and they’re wrong and millions of people could be displaced or die.
The Express et al will have a field day when all those climate refugees arrive on out shores!
The 100 reasons are issued by the European Foundation, which is a Eurosceptic organisation comprised largely of Tory MPs and MEPs – chairman Bill Cash, patron Margaret Thatcher, advisory board including some of the present shadow cabinet and intellectual luminaries Kenneth Minogue and Frederick Forsyth. Intriguingly its advisory board also includes the supposed Tory Green tsar Zac Goldsmith.
So as you’d expect, it’s just a ridiculous load of rehashed old news by put out there by disgruntled rightwingers.
e.g. “2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.” And human history is less than 0.0001% of the earth’s history.
“5) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.” Yeah, try reading up on global mass extinction events.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/146139/100-reasons-why-global-warming-is-natural
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138
http://www.europeanfoundation.org/personnel.html
Global skeptics are not true skeptics in the traditional sense of the word. The generally have made up their mind about climate change and are just looking for anecdotes from half-understood blogs, satellite TV shows and “quality” tabloid newspapers such as the Express.
If someone was truly skeptical about climate change, they would lie awake most nights in a cold sweat worrying that their conclusions might possibly be wrong.
The scientific consensus is in favour of climate change because a lot of highly qualified, conscientious people have gone out of their way to examine (occasionally conflicting) primary sources of evidence and have presented their conclusions in peer reviewed journals. They have worked very hard to ensure that their hypotheses are valid but would not doubt have other conclusions about climate if the evidence pointed in another direction. This is not the sort of analysis that one gets with the Daily Express.
Just supposing that the headline were true, something I personally doubt, but I could be wrong…
Because it’s natural, does it in any sense suggest that combined with peak oil, global warming isn’t going to royally f*** wester civilisation with a barbed wire d***o? And therefore, if we could do anything about it, is there any reason why we shouldn’t?
Bang on the money there Nick. But since what has DOING something been ever considered by the average Sexpress reader?
The express doesn’t seem to suffer from a lack of major advertisers – I wonder if a prolonged boycott of its major advertisers would help shift the debate a little? It is pretty rich for companies like British Gas to claim to be doing their bit to help tackle global warming if they also help subsidise this dishonesty indirectly through their advertising pounds.
Good debunking of the first 50 points by New Scientist:
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/50-reasons-why-global-warming.html
There isn’t much if any science in the global warming debate. It’s like two chidren arguing..
Child #1. OMGWTF! You left that TV on Standby! Don’t you know if you do that WE’LL ALL DIE!!!
Child #2. Loser! You’re just saying that because you’re jealous of my car.
Doesn’t raise much above that… It’s not surprising more people don’t believe in it than do. I’ve stopped caring – the politicians will do what they will, and they aren’t gong to listen to the likes of me anyway.
If the Express said the sky was blue I’d have to go outside to check. How can they get away with such shit day after day. Anywho, New Scientist has a crack at why the first 50 reasons are such shite: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/50-reasons-why-global-warming.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
They’ve been dying to come out with this sort of b*llocks about climate change for yonks but haven’t dared.
Unfortunately that recent email spat has coincided (not coincidentally IMHO) with Copenhagen and so a big push by the denial side to derail the summit.
Hence the likes of the DE finally run this stupid garbage.
Unfortunately for us all the rear-guard action by or on behalf (wittingly or unwittingly) of those trying to maximise the profits on their existing investments before change is forced on everyone is just delaying the inevitable and making it much more expensive for the rest of us when reality eventually intrudes.
The science is, contrary to this predictable ignorant cr@p from the DE, pretty much settled (and by a huge margin).
One can argue about minor and marginal elements of it but the overall point was settled long ago.
Simon Cowell
Yeah right, like anyone really cares what that self-obsessed dreary little out of control ego thinks about anything.
The next several generations I’m sure will thank us for headlines such as this. As Phil says near the top if it’s wrong we get cleaner technolgies and a better enviorment, also we are taken off Fossil Fuels which are already at a high cost to purchase, which would benefit us all in the long run, IF IT’S PROVEN RIGHT and we do nothing, then Good Luck folks.
The oil and mining companies just want to keep selling oil and coal so they pay sceptics to write books and come up with spurious “studies” that do as much as they can to throw doubt on data, they consist of creationists and big businesses who’s members won’t be around when sea levels really start rising. Should nothing be done I think that those countries and surviving individuals who spoiled it all should be brought before a Nuremberg style trial.
Simon Cowell has dark moods because he’s the spawn of Satan.
Marcs
Also note the relative ‘quality’ of those scientists the denial side can scrape up.
Invariably they are old and almost at the end of their careers.
…… what do you mean topping up the pension?
Apparantly nobody is supposed to notice that.
I of course ought to have said “those relatively few scientists the denial side can scrape up’.
Because the overwhelming majority of science backs the climate change argument.
(but our media which love to put 2 talking heads up likes to give the impression sicence is evenly split. It isn’t. It would be difficult for it to be more settled)
[...] reasons why climate change is natural and not manmade” was covered by the Daily Telegraph, Daily Express, and Conservative Home. In homage, Left Foot Forward sets out 100 reasons why “vote blue, go [...]