fifthcolumn wrote:It's interesting that all the paper does is say the medieval warming period and the little ice age are real.
They are.
Really? In which parts of the world?
Fool.
This is why the deniers are gaining ground.
Pompous condescending and WRONG AGW cheerleaders like yourself ignore inconvienent data in order to justify your agenda.
You'd be better off admitting that the models are crap and that we should cut emissions simply because we're running out of easy oil.
RenewableCandy wrote:What is a slam dunk? I'm usually more careful with my biscuits or I spill my tea...
Well, imagine that your cup of tea is a basketball hoop, and your biscuit is a basketball. Normally you score in basketball by throwing the biscuit into the tea, but you can also dunk your biscuit in the tea to score (if you can jump very high). If you don't just dunk your biscuit in the tea, but ram it in as hard as you can, then you've done a slam dunk,
Peter.
Thanks, that sounds like an entertaining passtime.
I'm sure this commentary is probably bollocks, but here it is anyway for our interest. It would be interesting to see if there's any rebuttal anywhere:
This attitude at the very beginning sounds rather Alex Jones like....
In less than three weeks, the world’s governing class – its classe politique – would meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, to discuss a treaty to inflict an unelected and tyrannical global government on us, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all once-free world markets and to tax and regulate the world’s wealthier nations for its own enrichment: in short, to bring freedom, democracy, and prosperity to an instant end worldwide, at the stroke of a pen,
I really don't see how anyone can "win" in this debate. The harder the deniers push, the more money will be wasted on climate research that could be far better spent at getting on with adaptation.
Last edited by Bandidoz on 03 Dec 2009, 11:35, edited 1 time in total.
Monckton's Report wrote:They had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine years.
Is there any truth in this? That seems very difficult to believe....
Global temperature according to NASA GISS data since 1980. The red line shows annual data, the larger red square a preliminary value for 2009, based on January-August. The green line shows the 25-year linear trend (0.19 ºC per decade). The blue lines show the two most recent ten-year trends (0.18 ºC per decade for 1998-2007, 0.19 ºC per decade for 1999-2008) and illustrate that these recent decadal trends are entirely consistent with the long-term trend and IPCC predictions. Even the highly “cherry-picked” 11-year period starting with the warm 1998 and ending with the cold 2008 still shows a warming trend of 0.11 ºC per decade (which may surprise some lay people who tend to connect the end points, rather than include all ten data points into a proper trend calculation).
I wonder what juicy bits of information and gossip would come to light if the climate change denier's computers were hacked into.
Surely climate change is bad news for everyone with power, money or influence. Continuing growth and BAU is in their interests. So why is AGW some sort of conspiracy by them? Isn't it a big inconvenience to them, and they could make far more money from making and selling non green products than green ones? The fact that the problem has been uncovered and after much hard work, has actually become accepted enough for even this level of action, must show a reluctant acceptance that it really is a problem, and not a conspiracy to invent a non existent problem.
JohnB wrote:I wonder what juicy bits of information and gossip would come to light if the climate change denier's computers were hacked into.
Surely climate change is bad news for everyone with power, money or influence. Continuing growth and BAU is in their interests. So why is AGW some sort of conspiracy by them? Isn't it a big inconvenience to them, and they could make far more money from making and selling non green products than green ones? The fact that the problem has been uncovered and after much hard work, has actually become accepted enough for even this level of action, must show a reluctant acceptance that it really is a problem, and not a conspiracy to invent a non existent problem.
On one hand climate change is bad. If any government to click its fingers, change the laws of physics and have climate change vanish they would, surely?
On the other hand don't governments need a bogeyman? The Soviets? Terrorism? Maybe there is mileage in cultivating a new bogeyman? See Adam Curtis’ Power of Nightmares, The Rise of the Politics of Fear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares
It was the Saudis who insisted on 90% instead of 95% confidence in some of the AR4 statements. They also insist women can't drive. And they wear tea cloths. [/anti-Saudi-rant]
Did you read the comments? I don't think Daily Mail readers have entirely got the idea that there's a bit of a problem with their lifestyle. Out of 34 comments, only two weren't flat earth believing climate change deniers, and those two comments got rated down. Maybe a campaign to close down the Daily Mail would do more good than anything that comes out of Copenhagen!
Thanks, that sounds like an entertaining passtime.
