Global Warming

[Churchill]

Phew! It's alright, pj's here to fight his corner

(I know it's wrong but I'm starting to warm to him )

Because he wears a wetsuit? God you're bloody fickle, you are!

[EternalOptimist]

he's got more links than a ton of sausages on a golf course in Lincolnshire

[BlasterBates]

He's going to have to fight hard:

[DodgyAgent]

You mean the likes of Barclays, HSBC, Nike, Munich RE, Dell, Google, JP Morgan, Swiss Re, Bloomberg, Coke? .... The Climate Group

Amongst the scientific community the debate has long ago moved on from whether AGW is real to its magnitude and how best to mitigate.

But I agree - there is a strong strand of idealogically-driven denialism amongst the Right, particularly in America amongst the Tea Party tendency, these tend to overlap with those who disbelieve in evolution, and you're right, denialism has nothing to do with science.

The climate is changing without doubt, but it is the useless and "entitled" who are using this to extort money for themsleves. There is no compelling evidence whatsoever that climate change is caused by man.

[DimPrawn]

The climate is changing without doubt, but it is the useless and "entitled" who are using this to extort money for themsleves. There is no compelling evidence whatsoever that climate change is caused by man.

I think the latest wooly "thinking" by these people is:


The climate is naturally now getting colder, but if it wasn't naturally getting colder it would be artificially be getting warmer, so we must tax everyone and anyone trying to live, keep warm or move about to reduce the artificial warming so the natural cooling can freeze everyone to death.

[DodgyAgent]

You mean the likes of Barclays, HSBC, Nike, Munich RE, Dell, Google, JP Morgan, Swiss Re, Bloomberg, Coke? .... The Climate Group

Amongst the scientific community the debate has long ago moved on from whether AGW is real to its magnitude and how best to mitigate.

But I agree - there is a strong strand of idealogically-driven denialism amongst the Right, particularly in America amongst the Tea Party tendency, these tend to overlap with those who disbelieve in evolution, and you're right, denialism has nothing to do with science.

You can polarise the people and where they stand on global warming even more with this thread. Clearly PJC and his lot are driven by a sense of "entitlement" that these large companies who create so much wealth and fund pensions, governments etc are somehow to be bled for even more money by the "entitled". Climate change is nothing more than an excuse to support the culture of entitlement.

[DodgyAgent]

There's perhaps an argument to be had about the degree of certainty and conclusiveness, but to boldly assert that there is no evidence is plain wrong, in fact there's oodles of the stuff: start here: Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change - AR4 WGI

So anecdotal rather than compelling is it not? .Most of the arguments are based on scientific studies over a very short time. Compelling or not very few of the fanatics on either side of the argument are driven by "compelling evidence"

[BlasterBates]

So anecdotal rather than compelling is it not? .Most of the arguments are based on scientific studies over a very short time. Compelling or not very few of the fanatics on either side of the argument are driven by "compelling evidence"

and of course the there is ice core data from Greenland which paints a picture of varying climate over the millenium:

Don J. Easterbrook, Research: Global climate change | Recent global cooling news articles and interviews

I have now no doubt that pjclarke will now use an "Ad homium" attack, because he doesn't have a scientific rebuttal.

I always find it interesting how warmers bang on about science, but when their arguments are torn apart, (eg the Hockey Stick), seem to throw scientific debate out the window.

[DodgyAgent]

Well, in one corner is our good friend the Dodgy Agent who says there is no compelling evidence for manmade climate change.

And on the other side there is THE NATIONAL SCIENCE ACADEMIES OF THE DEVELOPED WORLD, who assert that

http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

A fair fight?

That statement dates from 2005, btw, since then there have been more: Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who am I to question? but let us ask who pays the wages of these "national acadamies? and if there was no climate change what would they do for a living? And really what they are asking for is more money to be pumped in their direction. so as long as this is happening I am sure they will keep finding "further evidence" that will keep them in business.

[BlasterBates]

Well, in one corner is our good friend the Dodgy Agent who says there is no compelling evidence for manmade climate change.

And on the other side there is THE NATIONAL SCIENCE ACADEMIES OF THE DEVELOPED WORLD, who assert that

http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

A fair fight?

That statement dates from 2005, btw, since then there have been more: Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.N. Scientist Rejects Nobel Prize Share, Denounces Climate Alarmism | NewsBusters.org

I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.

Hardly a consensus.