'Global warming is hoax': the world according to the BNP

[Ludwig]

Funny how I discovered a new huge hole in the AGW-crowd argumentation. They seem to claim two things at the same time:

1) The theory behind CO2 induced AGW is so simple and straightforward that it is beyond debate and only an idiot would argue against it.

2) The theory behind CO2 induced AGW is so complex so it is best left to the experts and not questioned by mere mortals.

Which way is it?

A huge new hole in the argumentation? All you've done is invoked a false dichotomy.

If you are going to contest the validity of CO2-induced AGW, you need rigorous counter-arguments.

Simply saying, "You think you're cleverer than me because you've done some research" may be a good way of convincing yourself you're right, but it won't convince anyone else.

You may not be aware of this, but research actually counts for rather a lot in science. Whether the layman understands it is neither here nor there. The layman doesn't understand quantum mechanics, but that didn't stop the development of the atom bomb.

I don't know the molecular and physical details of the greenhouse effect, but I do know that no scientist of repute contests it. If I wanted to contest it, the first thing I would do is try to understand what it is I am contesting. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't get the impression that you have done this. In which case your argument, "They might be wrong" is about as interesting as the argument that evolution might be wrong. It's a possibility, but not a possibility worth investigating in the absence of any evidence whatsoever.

[Keepz]

I have to agree with Vortex on this. The BNP are most certainly not stupid.

He is claiming AGW is a hoax simply because the majority of the British public think it's being exaggerated. It's a vote winner.

Indeed it is, and Greens should be asking themselves very carefully and honestly why that is, just as the race relations industry should be asking themselves very carefully and honestly why overt racism is a vote winner.

[Cabrone]

Someone should show Nick Griffin the latest sea ice extent graph from the NSIDC as this years melt has just overtaken 2007's after a slow start.

Could be on for a new record but then again with all that weak ice up there it wouldn't be surprising.

I wonder what the faux excuses will be when the ice cap goes?

[Kieran]

I wonder what the faux excuses will be when the ice cap goes?

Why a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round there in 1421 and found no ice - courtesy of Monkton and Gavin Menzies

*Yawn*

[biffvernon]

the latest sea ice extent graph from the NSIDC as this years melt has just overtaken 2007's after a slow start.

Whoops, that crept up while they were having techie problems with the telemetry a couple of weeks ago.

[Cabrone]

I wonder what the faux excuses will be when the ice cap goes?

Why a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round there in 1421 and found no ice - courtesy of Monkton and Gavin Menzies

*Yawn*

Do you base your 'AGW is crap' theory from the Monkton article in the Telegraph where he claims:

There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ve-it.html

Monkton spun that particular yarn from '1421, The Year China Discovered America' by Gavin Menzies (as you alluded to).

Fascinating claims but it seems like a lot of historians think it's all a bit of a fantasy.

Here's one angry historian's rebuttal:
http://maritimeasia.ws/topic/1421bunkum.html

Seems like these guys aren't too convinced too:
http://www.1421exposed.com/

I'm sure it's an enjoyable yarn but I don't think it carries much weight against the scientific consensus.

[clv101]

It's almost comical how weak the anti-global warming argument is. Films like "Global Warming Swindle" and writers like Monkton are trotted out to make the anti case. If that's the anti case then there basically isn't an anti case at all.

[MacG]

It's almost comical how weak the anti-global warming argument is. Films like "Global Warming Swindle" and writers like Monkton are trotted out to make the anti case. If that's the anti case then there basically isn't an anti case at all.

Well, if that is an argument, it applies equally well to the pro-AGW crowd.

[MacG]

Funny how I discovered a new huge hole in the AGW-crowd argumentation. They seem to claim two things at the same time:

1) The theory behind CO2 induced AGW is so simple and straightforward that it is beyond debate and only an idiot would argue against it.

2) The theory behind CO2 induced AGW is so complex so it is best left to the experts and not questioned by mere mortals.

Which way is it?

A huge new hole in the argumentation? All you've done is invoked a false dichotomy.

If you are going to contest the validity of CO2-induced AGW, you need rigorous counter-arguments.

Simply saying, "You think you're cleverer than me because you've done some research" may be a good way of convincing yourself you're right, but it won't convince anyone else.

You may not be aware of this, but research actually counts for rather a lot in science. Whether the layman understands it is neither here nor there. The layman doesn't understand quantum mechanics, but that didn't stop the development of the atom bomb.

I don't know the molecular and physical details of the greenhouse effect, but I do know that no scientist of repute contests it. If I wanted to contest it, the first thing I would do is try to understand what it is I am contesting. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't get the impression that you have done this. In which case your argument, "They might be wrong" is about as interesting as the argument that evolution might be wrong. It's a possibility, but not a possibility worth investigating in the absence of any evidence whatsoever.

It's a little difficult to understand your reply, but I guess it mean that you support the #2 statement? Or?

[biffvernon]

We need an emoticon that denotes frustration at a thread that repeats arguements that were settled years ago (decades ago in the climate science community), so that the whole palaba does not have to be endlessly repeated. Gavin Schmidt's recent post on RealClimate is relevent to this emotion. He called his article Groundhog Day

[Vortex]

Humans don't deserve the Web - they have turned it into a ultra low signal-to-noise ratio mess.

Only one in a thousand posts are worth reading - but you don't know which ones because a lot of the dross is quite well written and may even have convincing graphs etc attached.

Even more sad is that a large percentage of Web users BELIEVE WHAT THEY READ.

I just hope Gates or Branson sense the frustration and set up a series of well moderated paid-for blogs & fora where visitors can trust the posters to a reasonable degree.

[Ludwig]

It's a little difficult to understand your reply, but I guess it mean that you support the #2 statement? Or?

Yes - ignoring the loaded language of "mere mortals", which implies that the mere fact of publishing their findings makes scientists patronising intellectual snobs.

At any rate I don't hold with both statements, which you imply is a characteristic of believers in AGW.

What for me DOES seem simple is the question of who, provisionally, to believe: the bulk of the world's climatologists over the past half-century, or a single non-specialist statistician with a flair for controversy.

I provisionally accept scientists' claims that there are 24 human chromosomes, that the Earth goes round the Sun, that 3 quarks make a proton, and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I can't see any reason for singling out the last of these for particular scepticism, except maybe that one works in a field that is difficult to reconcile with it ethically.

Anyhow I can see I'm being foolish in even having this debate.

[Ludwig]

Even more sad is that a large percentage of Web users BELIEVE WHAT THEY READ.

No, worse, they believe what they make up in their own heads.

In general, my criteria for believing something are that it is claimed by numerous credible sources, is supported by external data, and is based on internally consistent logic.

[caspian]

I just hope Gates or Branson sense the frustration and set up a series of well moderated paid-for blogs & fora where visitors can trust the posters to a reasonable degree.

I don't think being "well-moderated" or "paid-for" makes the information any more reliable, and I wouldn't trust either Gates or Branson to deliver a bias-free forum (after all, they represent huge corporate interests).

[Vortex]

I just hope Gates or Branson sense the frustration and set up a series of well moderated paid-for blogs & fora where visitors can trust the posters to a reasonable degree.

I don't think being "well-moderated" or "paid-for" makes the information any more reliable, and I wouldn't trust either Gates or Branson to deliver a bias-free forum (after all, they represent huge corporate interests).

You get what you pay for.

If the service provider doesn't provide the promised service then the customer ... and the associated income ... walks away.

The shareholders won't like that, and so the service folds or is fixed.

It's how capitalism works.