The long-awaited White Paper version of the government’s emissions trading scheme is out. I’ve been too disheartened to read anything more than the summary so far. The target of a 5 per cent reduction on 2000 emissions by 2020 seems designed to secure the support of the Opposition, which will probably not be forthcoming anyway. That’s about the only defence that could be made for it.
The government’s main argument in favour of such a weak target is based on Australia’s relatively high rate of population growth. I have no objection to per capita, rather than national, emissions targets in the context of a contract-and-converge agreement leading ultimately to a uniform global allowance per person. But if you wanted to argue that way, the fact that Australia has one of the highest emission levels per person in the world means that our (interim and final) reduction targets must be more stringent than those of other countries.
At this point, the only real hope is that the Obama Administration will take a strong line on the issue. If it does, then the US-EU combination will dragoon recalcitrants like Australia into a sustainable agreement whatever Rudd and Turnbull might say or do about it.
John Quiggin 
@GreekAmongRomans – Which part of the following report do you disagree with re “The geological evidence does not support what has been put forward as the cause of climate change”
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/null/lang/en/page1022.html
I would be very interested in links to quality references.
I don’t think many would claim that climate change is the only problem.
nanks,
thanks for the above reference to the geological society of London, I shall review it.
To ensure that I receive equal balance in this debate, I also review an assortment of sites, some being:
http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://www.geosociety.org
http://www.physicalgeography.net/home.html
http://www.eoearth.org/
I intend reading the book by Ian Plimer titled Heaven and Earth Global Warming: The Missing Science. Ian Plimer is emeritus professor of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne and professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide.
“I don’t think many would claim that climate change is the only problem.”
nanks, climate change is the problem.
I am questioning whether the massive *exponential* growth of the human population over the recent past century and the economic model that the mankind has selected, which relies on a never ending *exponential* growth rate and all the negative consequences to the plant that ensure from the above two have been, all but, completely ignored with a myopic focus on CO2 emissions.
I compare this domineering focus on one select piece of information, and consequently, to the detriment of other information, to that of the financial crisis, where the majority of the main stream economist worked off an economic model that completely ignored one critical piece of information, the exponential growth in debt that had been slowly, but surely, emerging in front of us.
I am apprehensive of the trajectory the world has taken and do not deny that there is climate change. Rather, I believe we may be just repeating the same flawed method of thinking that ensured the inevitable financial crisis.
Dealing with the other points that I have mentioned are so politically unpalatable that I foresee a bleak future for humanity.
I don’t deny that the climate has changed. Only an idiot would deny that. The climate has been changing since the planet assumed the shape of a sphere.
And I don’t deny that human activity can’t cause changes to the environment, even on a global scale.
But I reject the notion of AGW as a religion, where simply having an open mind, becoming aware of and considering alternative explanations, and not blindly accepting dogma, gets one labeled a “denier” (the AGW equivalent of “heretic”).
So, to mindless ideologues like smiths, MH, and Ikonoclast, go ahead and point toward me with a quivering finger and shout, “Denier!” with all your might.
Since you’ve abandoned your willingness to think critically — assuming it was ever a facility you possessed — your opinion isn’t worth a plastic nickel, and I really couldn’t care less.
Don’t count on a Saint Obama being able to kowtow to the UN on anything, let alone making an attempt to destroy an already fragile economy in the name of the latest myth proffered by the anti-Capitalist/Marxist/Socialist lobby. He’s going to have his hands full just trying to maintain a small measure of control over a government that is in the hands of innumerable special interests all clamoring for their own piece of the pie.
The World will soon see how effective an inexperienced political neophyte is when the corrupt ‘Chicago Machine’ that catapulted him into power is proved impotent on a national level.
Go Big Oil!!! Send us down this slide to nowhere. I’ll have to fill my big truck up first.
[…] Tim Blair gives you the chance to sign “a big list to be handed to future generations: these are the people who screwed the planet.” Posted by […]
Put me on the Denial List–I’ll be proud to be on it. Say, if I put my name on the list, will I be automatically entered into the Monster Raving Loony Carbon Credit Lottery?
Ewwww. Denialist infestation.
The denial position is tedious because it does not provide any useful information to further the investigation of climate change but rather uses pseudo-science as a diversionary tactic in the service of corporate interests.
It reminds me of the tobacco industry attacks on science, which became quite sophisticated. A similar and systematic attack has been mounted by the creationists as part of their ‘intelligent design’ campaign.
Well developed propaganda techniques can be used to trap people who may lack the background to assess the science, or may be psychologically motivated toward contrarian viewpoints, but who often have a genuine interest in ‘the public good’. These people can then provide what is effectively a viral marketing campaign for the corporates, who subsequently benefit from the political response to the apparent confusion and public concern.
WMO names 2008 in top 10 warmest years
“Dr Trewin says this year shows what it is like to have a cool year in a warmer climate.
“It’s worth noting that globally we’re talking about the coolest year for seven years, but if this year had happened 15 years ago, I’d be talking about the warmest year on record,” he said.
“So take it as an indication of what sort of trend we’ve seen in the last couple of decades.””
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/17/2448582.htm
NASA says it has satellite data that shows more than 2 trillion tonnes of land ice in Greenland, the Arctic, Antarctica and Alaska has melted in the past five years.
Scientists say the melting land ice has raised global sea levels by about 5 millmetres.
They say sea levels are also rising as water expands from warming.
Scientists say parts of the Arctic were nine to 10 degrees Celsius warmer this spring.
They also say warming in the far north is accelerating faster than anywhere else on the globe.
Experts say the pace of change is starting to outstrip the human ability to keep up.
Scientists also point to large amounts of frozen methane that is being released.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/17/2448553.htm
I’m very disappointed at the 5% target, but I don’t think that you can lay the blame on Kevin’s apparent shift on policy. Since the release of the Green Paper, he’s been slugged with threats of layoffs, closures and transfers overseas by legions of Business Bully Boys. He may have had a remit to doing something about AGW, but he didn’t have a remit to pursue policies that result in increased unemployment.
We should be pointing the finger at the failure of the Business community to step up to the challenge and work out ways to make it work. Historically, Business has consistently balked at exogenous change, overstated the costs associated, and tried to bully the government in to doing what works for them rather than what works for the community.
5% isn’t much of a target, but it is part of a reduction scheme. Think of it as a pilot scheme to iron out implementation issues, providing the basis for a robust workable major implementation a few years later. So, let’s keep our vitriol for the Business threats that go right to the heart of the governments purpose.
Looks like some intelligent design went into this white paper. Dont give up blogging MH. The job aint over yet. Did the Minerals Lobby pay a motza for some fancy anti science submissions?
I don’t know why you’re all fretting, even 5% cuts and the accompanying userous tax regime has the potential to bankrupt many individuals and businesses, thus reducing consumption and emissions, while providing further research funding for tireless and unblinkered advocates.
Sounds like Fat City for the activist demographic.
Smith says: “i think the deniers should put thier names on a big list to be handed to future generations,
these are the people that screwed the planet”
Smith, you fool! There aren’t going to BE any future generations!
By implying there is a future, you reveal yourself as a closest denialist!
I deny ANY human caused global warming. Please add me to the list. Please.
Signed, most, most sincerely,
Christopher Scott Maxwell,
Alexandria, Louisiana. USA
Put my name on your Big List. Glowball Worming means more bananas for me.
# Ikonoclast Says:
“Anthropogenic Global Warming. The facts are in, it is happening.”
So you say, but give me proof!
(no useless links to realc. etc. please, been there, just, that increasing CO2 elevates global temp? after all that’s what we are talking about)
“I wonder if the deniers will be convinced by an ice free Arctic summer? That appears likely quite soon, probably within 5 years or less.”
OK, but will you be convinced, that AGW is a hoax, if it will not happen?
I have an open mind, do you?
Iconoklast: “I wonder if the deniers will be convinced by an ice free Arctic summer? That appears likely quite soon, probably within 5 years or less.”
You mean like the “open northern passage” that the Russian ship got stuck on?
When are you fellas gonna get it through your head? “Global Warming” is just as much of a hoax as “New Ice Age” was in 1977. Hell, the script was written by the same people!
Of course, this is what happens when you take people like Paul Ehrlich seriously.
Please add my name to the skeptics list for posperity. I am yet to be convinced that the climate is changing to any significant extent by what we do.
Stephen D of Glen Waverley, Victoria, Australia
I don’t think future generations (or, more accurately, young people alive now) will be that interested in finding out that “Brian” or “Steve D” helped to wreck the planet. If you’re going to respond to this challenge, please emulate CS Maxwell and provide some identifying details. I assume Sockmonkey is having a joke, anticipating responses like this.
Smithy
Add this 650 to the list as well as me;
Tony G, Bondi Beach, NSW, Australia
(ps in case I am wrong, does anybody know where I can get some cheap sandbags?)
Is the science settled or are the lists of dissenters growing?
Highlights of the Updated 2008 Senate Minority Report featuring over 650 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can
speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that
man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical
chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t
have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on
scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist
Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported
International Year of the Planet.
“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future
warming.” – Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi
University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace
member.
“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a
fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.”
– Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo.
Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based
on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for
example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of
scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government
Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of
NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact,
as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide
scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics
to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs,
who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American
Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor ofMonthly Weather Review.
“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian
geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.
“Nature’s regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less
moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary
balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself
solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate
changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in
man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC
committee
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation
between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports
and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give
some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” – Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present
alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist
knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps
Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda
Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is
something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of
the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology
Department at the University of La Plata.
“Whatever the weather, it’s not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former
Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha,
Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.
“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by
human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly
inadequate to establish any cause at all.” – Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.
“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government
control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the
Society’s activities.” – Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack
Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological
Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.
“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The
global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the
millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” –
Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.
“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone
man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data
refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” – Dr. G
LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO. (The full
quotes of the scientists are later in this report)
This Senate report is not a “list” of scientists, but a report that includes full biographies of each scientist and their quotes, papers and links for further reading. The scientists featured in the report express their views in their own words, complete with their intended subtleties and caveats. This Senate report features the names, biographies, academic/institutional affiliation, and quotes of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears. This report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies, scientific analyses and original source materials as gathered from directly from the scientists or from public statements, news outlets, and websites in 2007 and 2008.
nanks,
in addition to my previous post, GreekAmongRomans @52, I would like to reemphasize on the points that I had originally raised regarding over population and the structure of the economic system that humanity has selected.
Exponential growth in the mathematical and literal sense, is a massive, massive red flag being raised, which is being ignored by most as if, yes, yes, we know about that, but let’s just ignore it’s ramifications on the planets environment.
Furthermore, it appears to me that the negative environmental impacts of world-wide population and economic growth rates that are at unsustainable compounded/exponential rates are surreptitiously being included as evidence put forth by the anthropogenic climate change advocates as proof of the impact on the environment and society by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
#GreekAmongRomans – I think you make good points re growth. I read The Limits to Growth way back when it came out and the basic concepts struck me as sound then (admittedly I was just a kid).
I would much prefer a ‘whole of problem’ approach. Unfortunately the Murray-Darling ‘none of the problem’ seems to be the preferred method.
As far as the economic system goes – I joke to my children that if it(our economic/social organisation) wasn’t true you wouldn’t believe it 🙂 Fancy making shelter an item for speculative investment!
Generally, re resource demand I think a techno-fix via biotech (broadly construed) with distributed and local power generation is the only way to positive future. Can we get that in time? I hope so.
In a way, that Senate Minority Report is doing a favor for people who are concerned about human-induced climate change. The online opposition to the idea of AGW can seem hydra-headed, with nothing uniting it except opposition to the idea. But Marc Morano (apparently the main force behind the minority report) has assembled in one place a long list of names and positions, so one finally has a chance to gauge who is saying what, what their qualifications and their arguments are, and what are the main themes of their opposition. He has not done the work of organizing his document in that way, but other people can. It can both serve as a preliminary basis for a sociology of expert opposition to the AGW hypothesis, and as a comprehensive list of their talking points and arguments. And then once we have that list, we can have the sort of systematic discussion which so many skeptics are saying has not occurred.
I intend to spend a little time on this, and to look for other people who may already have performed some of the analysis of Morano’s list. I can be reached at mporter (at) gmail.com if anyone wants to contribute, or to get a progress report.
“Highlights of the Updated 2008 Senate Minority Report featuring over 650 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:”
Tony, before quoting a paper claiming support from “over 650 scientists” you might want to check whether the authors can actually count to 650.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/
Still after you take out the double and triple-counted names you end up with 604 peopel – soem of whom are actually scientists as opposed to, for example, TV weatherman and other TV presenters such as Patrick Moore – who has no scientific qualifications.
That’s pretty impressive – until you realise than scientists who’ve “disputed the consensus on climate change” includes scientists who’ve criticised the consensus as being too moderate and others who say their work has just flat-out been misrepresented.
[…] 17, 2008 · Pas de commentaire Alors puisqu’ils le reclament, parce que c’est vrai que c’est sympa d’avoir des listes moi c’est pour ca […]
[…] Australian government’s proposed emissions trading scheme, a commenter signing himself “smiths” wrote […]
[…] at 5%, when expert opinion suggests that target would not meet yearly increase in carbon emissions. John Quiggin observed: The long-awaited White Paper version of the government’s emissions trading scheme is out. I’ve […]
The “man made climate change” push is a collectivist political campaign to roll out a “carbon tax” and is NOT a scientific movement.
The Carbon Tax is an existence tax. It would mean that no matter where you go, what you do, where you live, what you earn, what national boundaries exist or change, you would be chained to an inescapable tax by dint of your existing at all.
It is a tax scheme that hearkens back to the Dark Ages (the good old days when serfs knew their place). The carbon tax is high tech feudalism. It is being rolled under the hysteria of a false crisis (which works, go ask the Neocons).
Ian,
The list above contains a Nobel prize winner, Atmospheric Scientist with a PhD in meteorology, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author,a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO. etc etc.
These are reputable ‘scientists’ telling us “the science ain’t settled”. There is prima facie evidence to suggest they are correct.
I challenge you to to prove AGW isn’t a fraud. There is growing dissenting consensus in the scientific community that AGW harm will not ensue, so according to the ‘Precautionary principle’ the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.
Hmm. Despite the widely publicised invitation listed above, the number of people willing to state, with name and location that they accept delusional claims on climate science stands (by my count) at 1.
Of course, as IG notes that’s not surprising when, after scouring the world, including a wide range of unqualified crackpots, TV weathercasters and so on, as well as a significant number of genuine scientists who have protested against their inclusion on the list, Morano and Inhofe can’t even deliver on their claim of 650 names.
“I challenge you to to prove AGW isn’t a fraud.”
I challenge you to prove evolution isn’t a fraud.
The Discovery Institute got a whole 800 people on their meaningless petition.
“It is a tax scheme that hearkens back to the Dark Ages (the good old days when serfs knew their place). ‘
Much like the GST, your political hero Howard introduced.
Not liking the consequences of a scientific theory or the policy proposals based on it, is not a valid basis for dismissing the science.
Agent Smiths,
Neo is back.
The Matrix is all but dead.
Oh dear, I appeared to have muddled Tony G.’s silliness with BenFranklin’s silliness.
I think the habit of adopting the names of long-dead geniuses for one’s internet postings is an excellent one since it alerts the reader with about 99% accuracy that the post that follows will be prime nonsense.
“Not liking the consequences of a scientific theory or the policy proposals based on it, is not a valid basis for dismissing the science.”
Your patronizing tone aside, if it were a scientific theory I’d be thrilled, but it is not. I would never dismiss science or the truth, but man made global warming theory is not science nor is it based on the truth. It is a “convenient lie” by elitists who want a global tax scheme.
Even that picture of the polar bear with the vast ocean horizon, looking like it was drowning, was a lie. On the other side of the boat where the photographer snapped the shot, was LAND.
Tony G – why not follow the advice of Dr Joanne Simpson given in the missing bits of the quote you used above
“What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. ” full quote available at http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/
Science is seldom settled. Your challenge to prove AGW isn’t a fraud is unfair. (Do you have any evidence fraud has been committed? If so, have you presented it to the relevant authorities? ) All sorts of interesting science can’t be proven yet remains valuable as the best and most productive explanation available. (Can you prove Darwinian theory? If not does that mean you don’t believe in evolution)
Dr Simpson is fairly clear about the need for action based on our current scientific knowledge of climate change. As for the science itself – she obviously thinks it needs development. Who doesn’t?
I think the Gore AGW people took a good look at how effective the Neocons were at stampeding the masses with hysteria and then posing as saviors that they just followed in suit. Instead of forcing people to change, why not make them clamor for the change by scaring them half to death. And that is how a massive global tax scheme gets rolled out.
Number 81 says:
“I challenge you to to prove AGW isn’t a fraud.”
Number 83 adds:
I challenge you to prove evolution isn’t a fraud.
Both of these statements represent an appeal to ignorance, based on the self-contradicting precautionary “principle”.
If someone (e.g. an AGW Alarmist) is offering something as fact, the onus of proof is on he who asserts the positive. That is, one must state their case and prove it, not make an assertion, and demand someone prove them wrong.
“I think the Gore AGW people took a good look at how effective the Neocons were at stampeding the masses with hysteria and then posing as saviors that they just followed in suit.”
Yes but then the REALLY clever bit was using their time machine to go back in time and recruit fellow Marxists Ronald Reagan, George H W Bush, Margaret Thatcher, john Major and Helmut Kohl and convince them to sign the 1988 Rio Earth Summit agreement and start the process that led to the 1992 Framework Agreement on climate Change.
I agree with you Capitalist – the deniers are making the strong claim that human activity is not influencing climate. As you say – they should prove it.
@capitalist, yes similarly so long as there’s a single dissenter from the germ theory of disease the pro-germ-theory fascists shouldn’t be allowed to infringe my freedom by stopping me shitting in the streets.
Ian Said;
“I challenge you to prove evolution isn’t a fraud”
That shouldn’t be hard, considering there are still a lot of Homo neanderthalensis’ about.
JQ SAID
“Despite the widely publicised invitation listed above, the number of people willing to state, with name and location that they accept delusional claims on climate science stands (by my count) at 1.”
For someone with a degree in mathematics, you do not seem to be able to count up to 25 very well, the number mentioned above in post 72.
Nanks @ 87,
In the very next sentence she qualifies that statement with “But as a scientist I remain skeptical.
She also categorical states there is no ‘evidence’ between anthropological activities and global warming. So why are we being taxed for it?
“However, the main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts.”
She then goes on;
“virtually all of the claims are derived from either flawed data sets or imperfect models or both. The term “global warming” itself is very vague. Where and what scales of response are measurable?”
If it is not a hoax then AGW is starting to look like a fraud.
And how about a list of the climate fantasists and carpetbaggers, to give to the relatives of all those they’ve already murdered by taking resources from hospital and health services to waste on their doomsday fantasies, as well as those billions more who will die if the terminally depressed get their way.
Paul, first let’s make a iist of the people who by your reasoning killed millions by supporting the hugely expensive war in Iraq.
TG, you should read more carefully. I’m referring to people who’ve signed their name to a delusionist position following the invitation on this thread, not whatever bogus number was cited in your repost of Morano’s lies.
Sorry for the PA, flame and ignorance.
“Morano’s lies.”
It is a list of 25 independent scientists, some esteemed with expertise in the field. They doubt the science and are sceptical. That doesn’t ring any alarm bells at all with you?
As has already been pointed out to you, Tony, you only have to go a couple of items down the list to find a totally dishonest misquotation of Joanne Simpson. You can find many more examples by Googling Inhofe+ 650 or similar – even the number 650 is a lie. Obviously, if you want to be fooled by people like Morano and Inhofe, you will be, but you might want to consider how strong your beliefs are when they depend on stuff like this.
Finally a good reason to stop being a denier of AGW, just in case,
“BEER will be short supply, more expensive and may taste different as climate change affects barley production, a scientist says.”
“It will mean either there will be pubs without beer or the cost of beer will go up,” he said.”
“Most areas in Australia where malting barley is cropped are likely to experience producing declines,” he said.”
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23505712-23109,00.html
This calls for drastic change, a 50% carbon emmsions reduction globally by 2020.
Secondly I retract all comments that debunked AGW. This is an emergency of mammoth proportions.
To 91: the actual proposition is that man is responsible for climate change. Skeptics disagree with the alarmists, and are asking the alarmists for proof. The AGW theory raised by alarmists, is what must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Asking people to disprove AGW is just an appeal to ignorance.