Climate Change Scepticism is Free Speech
December 27th, 2006 at 2:51 pm by David FarrarOne of the more noticeable trends of recent times has been the attempt to close down any debate on climate change, with those expressing scepticism towards the more extreme scenarios being painted climate change deniers, as if this is on a par with holocaust deniers.
One can accept that human activity is leading to an increase in temperatures, without accepting the that the rate of increase is likely to be a problem in the next hundred years. There is considerable debate about whether the $1+ trillion or so cost of trying to fight global warming would not produce far better results if directed to AIDs or poverty.
Recently there has been a co-ordinated effort to cut off funding of any lobby groups which are sceptical of the holy writ of climate change. The do gooders claim this is such a vital issue we can’t afford to have people confused by messages from evil corporates. Well corporate speech is free speech and we should be worried about this growing intolerance.
Some voices on the political left have called for the arrest and prosecution of skeptical scientists. The British Foreign Secretary has said skeptics should be treated like advocates of Islamic terror and must be denied access to the media.
If climate change skeptics are wrong, then prove they are wrong. Don’t try and reintroduce heresy as a crime!
Related posts:
- Climate Change Scepticism
- O’Sullivan on climate change
- Free speech – but only for some
- Frog on Aid and Climate Change
December 27th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Yes I agree David,esp the way how the AGW proponents use the term denier in a pejorative manner.You have to admit it is clever linking AGW scepticism with Holocaust denial but it is a intellectually dishonest tactic.
With the Holocaust being one of the most documented historical events of the 20th century.And then comparing this historical fact with the uncertainty of a scientific theory just beggars belief!
Vote:December 27th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
Climate change is the new religion of those that seek to dominate the masses. Sadly once again the more we progress forward as a race the more we retreat into the pass.
Like the inguistions of the pass climate change has become the big stick that either corrupt governments or simply incompetent governments hide behind to rein in their populations. Not only is the issue used to tax the people it also gives rise to many new rules and regulations.
Yes climate change is real it’s been real for the last four billion years, the headlines in Time magazine 15 years ago ( Prepare for the new Ice age ). I beleive we as a country should have a serious debate about the issue but I suspect the left would be scared shitless the people may realise they are been screwed up the arse big time.
Vote:December 27th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Why is it that all attempts to shut down debate on any issue come from the left of politics. They develop a mindset about some issue and then proceed to close down any discussion with a mixture of threats, and denying access to the media and anything else. You can imagine how a typical trade union meeting is conducted. They then apply the same tactics to a wider stage.
Vote:December 27th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
It’s a religion that brooks no heretics Dave.
It’s a way the dumb get to control the productive simply by uttering the magical phrases.
Fear not, it will pass.
Vote:December 27th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
Strange that a matter of scientific observation becomes a part of right-wing gospel, and indeed that you try to fit it into the tired and failed ‘left-right’ spectrum that so dominates our political discourse.
The problem I, and perhaps others, have with the “corporate free speech” is that those speaking are all enormously wealthy (and therefore able to buy media coverage) companies with a vested interest in pollution, waste and high energy consumption.
I also disagree with the proposition that incorporated companies should have the same rights as private individuals. The rights of individual people that are alive and speaking for themselves are much more important than the rights of any corporate flack and their employers.
I would suggest that the $1-trillion so far spent in Iraq on killing people and breaking things, all to lead to the hanging of one nasty despot, would not have been much better spent on “AIDS and poverty”, the issues you raise in your original post.
Or even just spent in America to improve the lives of non-corporate Americans.
But then, how much of the poverty is directly caused by the same corporations that want to speak so freely against the idea that their activities are changing the climate?
Philip
Vote:December 27th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
It just shows how low the eco-left are willing to sink to impose their agenda on the rest of us.If AGW was really so overwhelming in fact then this patten of attack on sceptics would be unnecessary.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 12:01 am
Um, how exactly can it be “proved” that climate change sceptics are wrong? By doing nothing, trying the “wait and see” approach? The overwhelming evidence (see documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”) that climate change is likely to cause problems in the near future should leave climate change sceptics with the burden of proof, not the other way around. And since when has a party that has stood to gain from taking a particular stand on an issue – as the corporations do with their scepticism about climate change – had a right to be taken seriously? Yeah, they have their right to free speech, but it is only fair that the fact they are not exactly impartial should be pointed out so as not to “confuse” people.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 1:11 am
I absolutely agree. the climate uncertainty debate could not be worse for true environmentalism if it had been planned! And also for science, such as the Royal Societies closed minded attitude on the subject. (Although I would have to say that the RSNZ has been so far up the NZ governments arse since the late 70s that its position on climate uncertainty is hardly surprising. However, I am currently putting together a submission for them in the climate uncertainty tow the line attitude).
The climate uncertainty debate has entered the realms of the debate between scientists and orthodox Christianity during the Renaissance. The problem is that no one realises to what extent orthodoxy is prepared to go in order to disguise itself, and this is one of the great marketing ploys of the 20th century.
It cannot be described fully here but much of it harks back to the instability of the early 1930s depression era. Political orthodoxy and social science learned a great deal from those days and determined that “never again” would this happen. Orthodoxy decided that it would always appear to be on the side to the “common man”. Consequently Hollywood films are almost without exception devoted to the “common man” fighting the “establishment” and winning without any training in how to fight the battle or who the enemy really is (come on you guys you know this to be true – think of a film, Die Hard, Erin Brokovisch, ….).
What has this to do with a discussion of climate uncertainty? Well yet again orthodoxy, via Hollywood is leading the charge. We are being told what to think again. Why? Because it is “for our own good” and it keeps orthodoxy in power. That orthodoxy is not averse to change. They have morphed from conservative businesses to the neoliberal/government/quango axis, but the song remains the same.
And what song is that? That we don’t care how many brains you people have – we can buy a hundred of you any time we like, if it suits our purposes.
We are yet again fighting the same battle that da Vince, Copernicus, Newton and others fought. Are we destined to always have to fight this battle? We have fought pseudoscience’s relentlessly since the renaissance, only to have a resurgence in our faces because the pseudoscience orthodoxy managed to resurface in a big way because of the events of 6th August 1945.
This sounds like I have changed the subject from climate uncertainty. But it is not true. It is the on-going fight between the relativist view of the universe and the scientific view. The relativist view states that anyone’s (and especially any culture’s) view is a valid as anyone else’s, despite data to the contrary. This excuses politician’s for putting their own interpretation on the science. The science says there is a problem but don’t panic. The political subversion of climate uncertainty is alarming because I have not seen anything so complete in my lifetime before. There are major environmental problems facing this planet (overpopulation and its inherent need for resources and love of wars) that will get us long before climate uncertainty does.
The only hope I can offer is that humans have very good inbuilt bullshit receptors. They will sense the bullshit here and react against it. Also as long as we live in a “democracy” if any of the measures that are introduced impinge even marginally on our standard of living we will vote the incumbent government out. So in the short term there is little to fear from the climate uncertainty legislation and debate. In the longer term there is a lot to fear – that of retreat form a rationally based society and the climate debate acting to camouflage the real environmental issues that do exist on this planet for mankind – population and the arrogance that we thing we know enough to try to control the environment.
Sudedenly after 30 years of ignoring the envrionwemnt it is important to governments! If governments were serious about the whole environment, including climate uncertainty, they would never have some up with emissions trading scheme’s and “carbon sequestration” schemes. The focus would be firmly in reducing emissions. However, the reverse is true – the international effort is focused on increasing emissions and dealing with the consequences. And this bare faced falsehood is what gets “denialists” and real environmentalists angry.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 4:15 am
Oh Oh! What a joke realclimate has turned into. Not content with “let us scientists stick to science and otherwise shut up and not show our bias” they have now opened their mouths and removed any doubt.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/12/2006-year-in-review/
And look at their pick for best (scientific?) climate change book and documentary!
Oh have mercy guys please! when the UN tax man cometh!
I might post the joke from our own precious RSNZ if I can find it.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 6:58 am
“One can accept that human activity is leading to an increase in temperatures, without accepting the that the rate of increase is likely to be a problem in the next hundred years.”
Oh can one? And from which imperical study are you reading from, or is this opinion fuelled more by observances and ‘gut feelings’?
While we’re chatting royally out our arse, can One accept that One may not be best positioned to comment on matters for which One has no formal training?
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 7:51 am
My major issue with climate change is that if it is indeed fact unless China, USA, India and Russia do anything to significantly reduce their emmissions there seems very little reason for us to bother as we will have no impact.
I read or heard somewhere that a new coal fired power station opens in China every 10 minutes. May be an urban legend but if this is the case it doesn’t seem that NZ having no emissions at all is going to achieve a damn thing.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 8:01 am
BRING ON GLOBAL WARMING, right now,this minute ,in Wellington,its fressing , plus it might raise the temperature above 10c for painting, Im a global(WELLINGTON)warming denier, PS she who must be obayed(HELEN whatshername)could have got sking in the capital, Why add to global fressing by flying to NORWAY,,where ever on her wage increase
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 8:02 am
BRING ON GLOBAL WARMING, right now,this minute ,in Wellington,its fressing , plus it might raise the temperature above 10c for painting, Im a global(WELLINGTON)warming denier, PS she who must be obayed(HELEN whatshername)could have got sking in the capital, Why add to global fressing by flying to NORWAY,,where ever on her wage increase
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 9:22 am
DPF, the British Foreign Secretary’s speech in question doesn’t actually say what is alleged –
http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029391647&a=KArticle&aid=1161596135654
the only time she mentions climate change is here –
“But let us deny the terrorists the historical importance they claim to themselves. They have no right to speak for the great and noble faith of Islam. This is a not a battle between civilisations but a stand-off between the whole of society on the one hand and a fairly small and particularly nasty bunch of murderers and criminals on the others.
“In practical terms that means avoiding the temptation to artifically polarise debate.
“I’ve seen it so often in the long-running debate on climate change: wheel out the resident sceptic, however unrepresentative or discredited, to generate tension and voice provocative views in the name of editorial balance.”
she is ddenitely not saying global warming skeptics should be treated like terrorists. She’s making a comparison, maybe not the best, but clearly her point is about terrorists not deniers.
I think you’d find most of what she has to say pretty good.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 9:42 am
Of course I have the right to say anything I want; as long as the consequences of my speech are not outweighed by the benefit.
If you want to peddle a “flat-earth” mythology, then go ahead, in this modern world such a claim is likely to have little consequence….but please don’t come back to me whining that people are laughing at you. But if you attempt to enforce such a belief on everyone in order to serve some whacked out political agenda, then you cannot defend yourself with the simple appeal to your “right to freedom of speech”. At some point reality and its consequences takes precedence over the individual’s right to fantasise.
If you want to peddle a “creationist” mythology in your Sunday school, you have a right to do so, and children are for the most part remarkably resilient in the face of the nonsense adults tell them. But if you try and teach it as an “official science” in a public school in order to pursue some religio-political agenda, you will have a different fight on your hands.
If you want to peddle the idea that the “Holocaust never happened”, then I guess that is not allowed either because the consequence is that people might begin to doubt the case for the state of Israel existing.
Not all science based “alarms” are wrong. John Steinbeck’s friend Ed Ricketts (on whom the character “Doc” in his story “Cannery Row” was tightly based) was a pioneering marine biologist in his own right. For years he warned that the West Coast sardine fishery was being over fished. When finally the fishery did dramatically collapse in the 40′s and he was asked “where did all the sardines go?”, he replied sardonically, “into cans”. Yet even when faced with the concrete evidence of what they had done, these fishing industry people still refused to believe what that their actions were the cause, preferring to believe that some “natural” phenomenon had been to blame.
Fortunately for us the loss of the West Coast sardine fishery was a mostly local disaster at that time. In the case of AGW however we do not get a second chance. The planet has only one atmosphere, and one climate. We dare not wait until after the “evidence is in” as towaka fatuously opines above. The potential consequences to all life on this planet makes this one of the most fraught issues we have ever faced as a species.
If we hypothesis that the consequences of “Holocaust denial” might be the possible destruction of the state of Israel, and maybe, just maybe, the loss of some millions of Jewish lives (there are no more than about 16m Jews in the whole world), how then am I to compare this to the consequences of “AGW denial”?
Even the most moderate IPCC middle of the road projections involve massive disruption to whole nations and populations. If I want to indulge in alarmism I can note that so far the IPCC style consensus has consistently underestimated the actual data as it is coming in. If I allow for the worst case alarmist projections, the average temperature rises in the next century will be around 8degC, a consequence resulting in the death of billions, not to mention the devastation of the planet’s eco-system.
What was your objection to the “denier” label again?
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 10:13 am
Just like Tobacco companies have a right to free speech to pay scientists to say that smoking isn’t bad for you.
When a company has a financial motive for their position, you have to take the ‘truthiness’ of their arguement with a pinch of salt.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 10:37 am
David you managed to squeeze ’holocaust deniers, AIDs and poverty, evil corporates, prosecution of skeptical scientists and Islamic terror’ all into one post! It sounds more like the plot of a new Dan Brown book rather than a discussion on climate change.
I agree with Rob Davies, stick to topics you know something about, the environment is clearly not one of them.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 10:53 am
To all these people who consistently trot-out that evil corporates want to be able to continue emitting greenhouse gasses, because otherwise its expensive to clean up:
Corporates pass these costs on to consumers. The only way corporates WOULDN’T do this is if there was an imbalance in the market, which meant that some had to clean up their act, and others didn’t. And the only way to get an imbalance like this is if there was some kind of world-wide legislation where some countries agreed to clean-up and others didn’t. You know – like if New Zealand decided to clean-up and China didn’t.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 11:00 am
Here Red Rag shows the insane voice of the left. He compares scepticism over the degree of climate change caused by mankind to belieiving in a flat earth. Absolutely bonkers.
Menawhile Rob Davies is so up himself he thinks you need a licence to be able to have a view. Hey let’s ban anyone without a political science degree from commenting on politics.
Oh and Rob it is the IPCC reports I am referring to.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 11:13 am
The establishment ostracizing anyone who refutes a fear frenzy is standard and predictable state behaviour. Anyone interested in the systematic nature of such persecution would be interested in reading Mises. http://www.mises.org/humanaction.asp is a good place to start.
It’s a very simple dynamic at work. The more fear that the establishment can solicit from the masses, the less severe the consequences for the establishment are for persecuting a minority (usually political dissenters but in this case Scientists).
There’s no greater disaster possible than most of the world becoming uninhabitable. It’s an even better tool than the “War On Terror”, though the city destroying nuclear/germ suitcases have proved quite effective. Raising support for war and big government environmentalism is exactly the same dynamic. Make the masses terrified and they don’t mind so much the extreme measures you take. Like the lost opportunity of misallocating $1 trillion in private money, or the death toll from invading countries etc.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 11:50 am
I am getting so sick of the AGW debate, and the debate about whether there IS a debate, and the debate about whether one side should be allowed to debate because if they are wrong then all life on the planet will die.
I have yet to be convinced that AGW, if it does exist (for you sticklers), would be a bad thing. What I do see is paralels with the global panics of the past. It seems there is ALWAYS something which is going to kill us all, whether it be global warming, global freezing, lack of food, slavery to the capitalist class etc. And they have always turned out to be hysteric ravings, no matter how prettily they are dressed up in ‘science’.
Some people like to draw a paralel between the ravings of the AGW sect and those of the Islamist Resistence Front. They want to believe that inducing panic about the whether is akin to the panic the neo-cons want to instill over a threat to our way of life. The problem with this argument of course is that civilisations HAVE been brought down, whereas global devestation is exceedingly rare and most unlikley to have any intra-terrestial cause.
Redrag, it should be obvious to the most simple observer (are you here phule?) that the term denial regarding the Holocaust is used to describe people who disbelieve something because they dislike the people to whom it applies. The implication of using it for AGW SKEPTICS, is that they hate the environment and the planet.
Also, the problem people have, and the subject of this post by DPF, was that the most moderate projections of the IPCC paint such a dire picture of the future simply because projections which would balance things out are excluded.
And you are mistaken in your “worst case alarmist projections”. 8degC? No, 15degC, and even that might not be the worst. But if anyone steps up to point out the absurdity of these figures they get painted “deniers” by people like you, and their arguments are ignored. So what you have is the argument for AGW being hijacked by the most extreme views. How is that going to help anyone?
By denying one side of the argument the light of day, you are making the other side of the debate meaningless.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
“When a company has a financial motive for their position, you have to take the ‘truthiness’ of their argument with a pinch of salt.”
In that case the profit earning multinationals like Greenpeace,WWF,Body shop etc etc must be ignored too….;-)
And they above also receive donations from big oil too! horror!
The global warming lobby have the biggest financial interest of all to protect….the continuation of funding by Governments with billions of stolen taxpayer dollars.
I bet that if this funding wasn’t available the global warming hysteria would fade to nothing as the gravy train derails…
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Gems,
“The problem I, and perhaps others, have with the “corporate free speech” is that those speaking are all enormously wealthy (and therefore able to buy media coverage)”
Like Al Gore, and his carbon trading company?
Fact: Hollywood and the movie stars are one of the enormously wealthy power blocks in the world who seek to dominate world opinion at every opportunity. And they are the biggest users and polluters on the planet. Not the classic example of “corporate fat cats” eh?
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Don’t panic Red…they’re onto this over at Blair’s…have a read.
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/burn_the_heretic/
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
Rob Davies says, “While we’re chatting royally out our arse, can One accept that One may not be best positioned to comment on matters for which One has no formal training?”
Speak for yourself Rob but the answer is no. We have Ministers of the Crown doing it all the time. What formal training have any of the MPs got that relates to climate change?
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
I see the right wings desire to be seen as persecuted continues apace.
“Some voices on the political left have called for the arrest and prosecution of skeptical scientists2
Any chance of an example?
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
The Climate Science Coalition currently has a bank account of just over 1200 dollars which we are saving to put towards a seminar next year.
Vote:We do find it difficult to compete with major international corporates such as Greenpeace who have money to burn.
And then there is Al Gore whose movie is obviously designed to promote his special $750 million dollar investment fund.
I find it extraordinary that he was given special access to the Directors of our Super fund. I hope they have enough sense to see through the outrageous claims and errors in this promotional film.
If I made a film promoting an investment fund with this number of errors and false claims the Commerce Commission would be all over me in an instant.
So yes the rich are privileged and we should bring them to heal.
December 28th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
DPF: If climate change skeptics are wrong, then prove they are wrong. Don’t try and reintroduce heresy as a crime!
This is naive. The notion that if something is true that you can then convince doubters simply by ‘proving’ it is false. Look at the creationists, anti-vaccine, anti-vivsection or anti-GE people. Some people will happily ignore evidence and argument no matter how strong it is.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
Found it. An alert from the Royal Society of NZ.
Here everyone is what the body that represents thousands of NZ scientists think of your right to an opinion and express it. Instead of replying rationally their reply is this, with no reference to the equally numerous fallacies propagated by the other side of the debate.
This is an example of total intellectual arrogance that will bring science and scientists into disrepute.
I am a scientist and certainly do not think the lay public (including scientists outside the field) should be treated like this. In the defence of scientists I doubt that this diatribe, published in their official email newsletter, is representative of how the majority of scientist would act.
Royal Society Alert – Issue 451
1. CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTICISM MEMES
Comment by Royal Society Policy Analyst. Scepticism is an intrinsic requirement for science to progress. It helps us ask the right questions to test our theories. However, many questions continually arise in scepticism about climate change. To some extent, these arguments qualify as memes, in that they propagate and proliferate and as memes, they resist disposal by answers. So what are some examples?
“The effect of human-produced greenhouse gases is tiny in comparison to the warming effect of water vapour”. This is true, but irrelevant. The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere changes on a daily basis and is not within our ability to influence. Water vapour multiplies the effects of our own changes to the climate.
Another meme is the uncertainty of our predictions. Uncertainty is inherent when studying a complex system like climate. The scale of response to increases in greenhouse gases is governed by a host of feedback mechanisms, some of which interact with each other. Hence the IPCC’s 2001 warming predictions of somewhere between 1.4 and 5.8 C. This uncertainty makes it difficult to work out the optimum response to minimise climate change, but it is not an excuse to pretend it isn’t happening.
Other memes lie outside the bounds of scientific debate. The oft-repeated claim that “global warming stopped in 1998″ is an example of cherry-picking of the data. 1998 was the warmest year on record. By definition, temperatures have been cooler since the record-setting year. The global temperature record has fluctuations because the climate has fluctuations but the long term trend is upwards and it is long term trends that matter.
The meme that “climate change prediction depends upon obscure computer modelling” is just plain wrong. I advise everyone to read Svante Arrhenius’ 1896 paper “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground”. Made with a pencil and paper, his predictions are within a factor of two of the IPCC predictions, on a global scale. What computers are needed for are the detailed calculations of impacts on a local scale.
A final meme runs “scientific truth is not determined by consensus so the fact that most scientists agree on climate change doesn’t mean that climate change is happening”. It is true to say that science does not depend upon consensus. I’d go beyond that to say that scientists hate consensus. It is boring. We scientists are trained to argue with each other, over every tiny
Vote:little point. We love a good bust up. When we start agreeing it’s because we understand what’s going on.
December 28th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
“If I made a film promoting an investment fund with this number of errors and false claims the Commerce Commission…”
A bit rich Owen considering the rubbish on the NZ CSC site.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
“major international corporates such as Greenpeace”
these guys do not know the difference between a corporation and a charity and we are expected to trust them on the future of the planet?
One simply has to laugh.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
Owen is right on the money. Many charities are just massive global politically active corporations that are being criticised for exercising their right to free speech. Their records of failure to acheive their stated aims often speak for themselves, but people go on giving because they sell a “feel good” product.
Often, in the long run, they do more harm than good, especially because many are left wing aligned and fail to get broad based support for their cause.
Thanks for reminding us about more of the real wealthy “corporate” players on the global scene.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Looks like a corporate, walks like a corporate, quacks like a corporate…
The confusion is understandable.
GP operates a lot like British Tobacco….
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
>While we’re chatting royally out our arse, can One accept that One may not be best positioned to comment on matters for which One has no formal training?
You’re an economist, are you? What’s the cost-benefit of spending on, say, HIV/Aids compared with the cost-benefit of expenditure on reducing gobal warming?
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
>While we’re chatting royally out our arse, can One accept that One may not be best positioned to comment on matters for which One has no formal training?
You’re an economist, are you? What’s the cost-benefit of spending on, say, HIV/Aids compared with the cost-benefit of expenditure on reducing gobal warming?
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Porcupine, I’m at a lose, is there some inaccuracy in the RSNZ statement that makes it untrue? Or is your complaint simply that they didn’t also criticise alarmist arguments at the same time?
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
Very rich considering the real corporations and businesses Owen McShane fronts for with his RMA abolition agenda.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
Once again RedRag makes the most sane comment on this blog by a long shot. This subject make my blood boil, because the failure of rains, flooding, and rising sea levels are life and death matters for many millions. These things will make suffering in third world countries so much worse, particularly Africa, which is set to have very significant decreases in rainful in already precarious areas.
It’s no joke.
Vote:December 29th, 2006 at 7:38 am
Andrew
The Climate Science page is a forum and is neither promoting and investment fund nor raising money for such a fund.
Do you not know the difference between a newsheet and a Prospectus?
Sonic, if you cannot detect irony then like Marx, I have to acknowledge that in the face of stupidity even the gods protest in vain.
Anyhow, Greenpeace stretches the bounds of charity. It sells fear and people pay to enjoy their fear.
Vote:Markets take many forms.
December 29th, 2006 at 10:04 am
What’s the cost-benefit of addressing climate change compared with the cost-benefit of addressing other serious issues of the Third World?
Vote:December 29th, 2006 at 11:16 am
Greenpeace is a profit earning multinational Sonic….simply fact.
Unlike others though they have the blood of millions on their hands from the DDT fraud and there opposition to GE for hungry nations etc…
Vote:December 29th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Laff away sonic, Greenpeace a charity? I’ll join you. Greenpeace are an issue oriented group that must stay in the headlines to survive. No issues…no money..no meaning to life..have to get a productive job…bummer. I got sick of the paranoid bludging bastards coming to my vessel soliciting donations and giving me screeds of glossy shit about the plight of the worlds oceans whales penguins turtles gays whatever.
Like flies buzzing round in a bottle..irrelevant to the course of life.
‘Global warming, climate change’.. a real godsend for this type, once again they are on the frontlines of something ‘important’
Heres some free speech..stop trying to play God and run the planet…you’re not up to the job.
Vote:December 29th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
a) Greenpeace is a money making profitable entity (regardless of its non profit status)..
Vote:b) The inconvenient truth is a joke. The idiot claims that man made climate change is threatening wooly mammoths with extinction in one of his slides (I’ll try and get the time stamp of where) and that NZ is recieving thousands of “climate refugees” from flooding nations (well its more due to coups and economic basket cases rather than any climate threat). Anyone see the southpark “ManBearPig” season 10 episode ridiculing the Inconvenient truth?
c) has anyone looked into the potential positives from any man made climate change (i.e. warmer winters, ability to grow food further south etc) I find it hard to believe that a few degrees worldwide only has the potential to be negative.
January 1st, 2007 at 5:19 am
Exxon & Co have every right to finance the propaganda of climate change denialism. But their decision to finance the propaganda rather than the scientific research can be viewed as an acknowledgement that the latter isn’t going to help their case.
Vote:January 1st, 2007 at 8:49 am
From the Collins Dictionary:
Deny 1. to declare (a statement) untrue 2. to refuse to accept as true or right 3. to refuse to acknowledge as one’s own 4. to refuse to give 5. to refuse the request of.
Alarmist one who habitually spreads alarming rumours, etc.
Which term is more pejorative?
Vote:January 1st, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Owen, sorry you’re right, the NZ CSC site can have as many errors and false claims on it as you like since it’s not a prosectus.
Vote:January 2nd, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Andrew W it is the total condescending nature of the text and the lack of balance in not responding to alarmists such as “Katrina”, “the worm hole around the White house” and “two weeks bad whether in Queenstown”.
Many of the statements are very superficial and open to further discussion. And the last crap about scientist is just puke-making from a society that has kissed government arse for 30 years, and now we reap the benefits of their yes-man attitude in low funding for science education, labour intensive but capital poor research, corrupt affirmative action policies,…
Vote:January 3rd, 2007 at 12:07 am
Redrag, yes this is a good post. But the important part of David’s post was
“expressing scepticism towards the more EXTREME scenarios”
The problem is that whenever someone questions any part of the science or the political or economic solutions they are labelled a “denier”.
This is simply an extension of the vicious politics that has raged for decades where anyone questioning “collective wisdom” is labelled “racist” “sexist” or yes I admit “PC”. And I for one have simply had a guts full of it to the point it is now just water off a ducks back.
Yes it’s a great story about the Sardine fishery. Unbelievably, hey still debate whether climate changes destroyed the West coast sardine industry even though it is patently obvious that it was human activity. Now an enormous amount of fisheries research goes into trying to understand the loss of our own Hoki fishery or the South Island fisheries now operating at 15% of their biomass, despite the fact that it is again obviously human activity (much iwi so too hot to handle). But who is speaking on these issues? Short term greed predominates because it is in the too hard to do bin. The money would be better spent on researching the policing of the fishery or increasing biomass. The point is we have very pressing environmental issues being swept under the carpet.
As for climate change there is a very good debate to be had whether it is better for humans to adapt to it than to try to keep things the way they are. You were the one who said we should not be scared of change.
And the alarmism is over the top – over the next 100 years it is certain that any one of cancer, heart disease, malaria, starvation and possibly AIDS will kill more people than the effects of climate change.
Even if some of the worse scenarios of increased flooding and more violent storms come to pass you can only blame a small proportion of the deaths on climate change – the rest, in fairness, you have to blame on uncontrolled population growth, humans putting themselves in harms way, poor building codes, corruption, etc.
So climate change and its effects are a symptom of an underlying cause – human population growth. You in the centre-left love to point out we should fight the causes of poverty, crime etc. So where are the voices saying fight the causes of potential misery in the future – poverty, crime, corruption, overpopulation, etc. Gone. Replaced by punitive taxes and feeble minded thin air trading, lining Al Gores pockets.
Finally, you go on about flat earthers and creationists. As a scientist I am heartily sick of pseudoscience, of which these two fit into. There has been a concerted effort post war to marginalise science and rationalism from decision making. To have another door open up to extremists again gets the alarm bells ringing. So if your squeeling about climate change scepticism, in many ways you are only reaping what 50 years of luddites and left wing extremist have sown.
We cannot solve these problems by retreat from science and technology – or else you really will see the massive starvation etc George talks about. But the luddite environmentalists are closely bound up in the climate change alarmism. They want to plant tress and listen to bellbirds. Even exotic Pinus ratiata is now OK for gods sake. This is what irks your so-called “denialists”. If you have ideas on how to control or marginalise the luddite extremists please lets hear them.
So I can only repeat my solution to this problem is to forget Kyoto, carbon credits, wasting energy burying carbon dioxide underground and building mini-spacecraft to shield the earth from the sun. And concentrate on developing a high tech sustainable research based economy that can adapt to climate change and help others adapt – either by paying for it as Indian and Chinese economies grow, or by charity to the countries that cant keep up – especially in our area of responsibility the pacific.
This is all we can do. We can support the big powers in implementing more grandiose rationally thought out plans but we cannot do them ourselves
If anyone has better suggestions I’m dying to hear them.
Vote:January 3rd, 2007 at 8:16 am
>I find it hard to believe that a few degrees worldwide only has the potential to be negative.
I tend to agree. Interestingly, even experts admit that some countries may become colder as others get warmer. So the term ‘global warming’ is something of a misnomer.
Vote:New Zealand, it appears, is one country that may expect cooler temperatures. If warming is bad, does that mean that NZ will be in an advantageous position if we experience cooling? If so, why?
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Porcupine, I’m sure you and I agree on the fact that way too often the media and “alarmists” point to this or that weather event as evidence of GW, but the fact that Royal Society article doesn’t go into this does not mean that there are faults with the statements that it does make.
You say “Many of the statements are very superficial and open to further discussion.”
So tell us why you believe this to be so, are you suggesting the claims are somehow wrong? If so how?
Vote:April 6th, 2007 at 3:14 am
Hello! Nice design on this site, great info.
http://spartan.cis.temple.edu/synergy/_knobas/0000031e.htm
Vote:April 6th, 2007 at 3:14 am
Hello! Nice design on this site, great info.
http://spartan.cis.temple.edu/synergy/_knobas/0000031e.htm
Vote:April 6th, 2007 at 3:15 am
Wow! You guys are way cool. I’d love to visit someday too. Keep up the great work!
[URL=http://spartan.cis.temple.edu/synergy/_knobas/0000031e.htm]buy viagra[/URL]
Vote:April 6th, 2007 at 3:15 am
What about this site?
buy viagra
Vote: