• Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • Environmentalist and proud of it


    by Sunny
    15th July, 2008 at 6:54 pm    

    Brendan O’Neill is possibly the most vacuous robotic writer today. Though, Rod Liddle and Jon Gaunt come close. O’ Neill is the editor of Spiked-online, an online magazine that grew out of the ashes of Living Marxism - which died after being sued to bankruptcy by ITN for libel.

    In their amusingly bad attempts to be contrarian for its own sake, they’ve now decided that ‘environmentalism’ is the greatest threat to humanity. Of course it is Brendan - are there bogeymen underneath your bed too? Oh, and look the BNP care for the environment so environmentalists must be nazis too. The guy isn’t beyond parody, he’s just an insult to everyone’s intelligence. Say loud and proud - I’m an environmentalist. That article is so bad he gives libertarians a bad name.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Environmentalism,Media






    77 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs


    1. JuggyD — on 15th July, 2008 at 7:12 pm  

      Don’t you see the irony that you attacking someone for not believing in the enviromental dangers ? Yes you may be an enviromentalist, and believe all this Co2 emissions malakary, but that doesn’t make you rite, or any other opinion as wrong. You are attacking him, for the exact same reasons he is attacking you.

      I know ALOT of scientists, alot of people also don’t believe in todays hoophla of Co2 emissions, the earth warming up, the rain forests etc. Others don’t care. Others hate the idea of the goverment abusing the situation and fear to increase taxes with a legitimate excuse. And while i agree the majority might believe all this enviromental talk and alot of evidence points to the fact they maybe rite, there is still not 100% conclusive proof or a such a 100% opinion that everyone believes the theories put out there…. and such talk doesn’t mean you have a rite to attack these people who do not believe it - can’t you see the hypocrisy?

    2. BenSix — on 15th July, 2008 at 7:20 pm  

      “That article is so bad he gives libertarians a bad name.”

      I think he intended to argue that environmentalists are irrational and dogmatic in their beliefs, but then got sidetracked. A better article would have explored the dangers of state intrusion in such scenarios.

      “Don’t you see the irony that you attacking someone for not believing in the enviromental dangers?”

      That’s not an irony, that’s - whatever the merit or substance of the argument - taking disagreement with a contrary view. It would be ironic if Sunny had written, “He’s wrong, don’t read him!”

      “And while i agree the majority might believe all this enviromental talk of CO2 emissions destroyign our planet, and such talk doesn’t mean you have a rite to attack these people who do not believe it - can’t you see the hypocrisy??”

      Sunny does have the right to attack Brendan O’Neill. He doesn’t have the right to stop him. The distinction is thus:

      a) “Oi, Brendan, you’re wrong.”
      b) “Oi, Brendan..” *punch*

      Ben

    3. soru — on 15th July, 2008 at 7:21 pm  

      JuggyD: Can you explain what you mean by ‘rite’ (sic), ‘believe’, ‘irony’ and ‘hypocrisy’?

      Also, is there a reason you spelt CO2 a different way each of the three times you used it?

    4. Sunny — on 15th July, 2008 at 7:25 pm  

      And while i agree the majority might believe all this enviromental talk and alot of evidence points to the fact they maybe rite, there is still not 100% conclusive proof or a such a 100% opinion that everyone believes the theories put out there

      Do you have 100% conclusive proof you have a brain? I’m not joking - its a serious question. You don’t, as most of us don’t. We go along with the dominant scientific view and through empirical data.

    5. Don — on 15th July, 2008 at 7:50 pm  

      100% conclusive proof would be just after we become extinct.

      ‘I know ALOT of scientists…’ Sure you do. I know a couple of dentists, you want me to do your root canal?

    6. JuggyD — on 15th July, 2008 at 7:54 pm  

      The irony, which appears lost on you, was that Sunny is attacking someone, who is attacking his beliefs as an enviromentalist. So Sunny himself is attacking someone who doesn’t hold his beliefs.

      Just to address this scientific talk you throw in people’s face whenever someone goes against your ideology of enviromental issues … you claim all scientific evidence is on the side of the enviromentalist, especially when it comes to the Co2 issues? Agreed, there is plenty of evidence that supports such theory. But to be a complete Nazi yourself, and dismiss thousands of other scientists who hold different opinion, or to NEGATE THEIR OPINIONS AS THEY ARE IN THE MINORITY is also very Nazi-esq of yourself.

      As someone who reads through most spin, i’m suprised you haven’t tackled the real griefs people have with this whole ‘save the world’ package … ie YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS! As per usual it’s the poor who are going to get hit even more. The excuse for politicans to tax everything, tax our petrol, tax flights, tax anything they can use as an excuse to save the enviroment. That’s what peoples griefs are, and why more aren’t getting behind the argument.

      And if i may indulge in a personal attack for a moment, whenever i read your posts you usually love to tell us your FLYING HERE, FLYING THERE … very enviromentally friendly mate.

    7. JuggyD — on 15th July, 2008 at 7:58 pm  

      Ah, you know you’ve won an argument when posters have to disect spelling mistakes. Forgive, for not putting spelling checker through posts on a message board. Or hey forgive me, for spelling makes me, as you so nicely put it ‘less intelligent’. I shall retreat now, and not let this get too personal.

    8. BenSix — on 15th July, 2008 at 7:58 pm  

      “100% conclusive proof would be just after we become extinct.”

      Not necessarily.

      Epistemology is a funny thing…

      “The irony, which appears lost on you, was that Sunny is attacking someone, who is attacking his beliefs as an enviromentalist. So Sunny himself is attacking someone who doesn’t hold his beliefs.”

      ‘Fraid not.

      Sunny’s ‘BNP’ reference was a clear criticism, in that it accused O’Neill of using smear by association. Therefore, it was not merely a resort to the ad hominem, let alone an attempt to stifle O’Neill’s opinion.

      A link to the article would be helpful for posters, though.

      “The excuse for politicans to tax everything, tax our petrol”

      I’m afraid that petrol is a dwindling resource, not merely an ‘environmentalist’ concern. Even Jeremy Clarkson concedes that.

      Ben

    9. BenSix — on 15th July, 2008 at 8:04 pm  

      “A link to the article would be helpful for posters, though.”

      There was one hiding away after all, apologies.

      Ben

    10. JuggyD — on 15th July, 2008 at 8:12 pm  

      TO SUPPORT AN ENVIROMENTALIST IS AKIN TO SUPPORTING MORE TAXES.

      ‘I’m afraid that petrol is a dwindling resource, not merely an ‘environmentalist’ concern. Even Jeremy Clarkson concedes that.’

      I suppose the cheeky little tax increase on older model cars that give of more emissions, thus generating more than nintey million the Chancellors coffers, wasn’t at all being opportunistic, and using the enviromental case for revenue? Especially when you concider ten ‘average carbon emitting factories’ in China operating for seven days, would give the same emissions off.

      These are the real issues.

      It’s the old spin argument … why not ban private planes, etc? I could continue … you see, at this moment in our lifetime the goverment are doing absolutley nothing to help the enviroment other than raising taxes, thus hurting the poor mainly.

      So instead of attacking ‘nazis’ who disagree with the enviromental movement, more emphasis should be places on attacking the goverment for taking advantage.

    11. JuggyD — on 15th July, 2008 at 8:16 pm  

      ‘I know ALOT of scientists…’ Sure you do. I know a couple of dentists, you want me to do your root canal?

      Jus to correct you, i’ve spoken to a few scientists at my University on the subject. Have you spoke to anyone, or is your basis the Al Gore documentary? The few scientists i have spoken to, while they go along with the theory of the earth heating up because of man made causes, they are also very scepitcal by certain theories that these are days are given concesus as FACT. The fact the earth heats up naturally, and cools down naturally can’t be ignored, as it has shown to have down this through the earths life.

      The fact they agree with theory allows them to get EU funding to study the causes more :-) God bless them all.

    12. BenSix — on 15th July, 2008 at 8:18 pm  

      “I suppose the cheeky little tax increase on older model cars that give of more emissions, thus generating more than nintey million the Chancellors coffers, wasn’t at all being opportunistic, and using the enviromental case for revenue? *words*”

      That doesn’t appear to have any connection with what I wrote. I was making the point that petrol taxes aren’t necessarily motivated by environmental concerns. It’s getting a bit thin on the ground (or a bit thin under the ground - guffaw, chortle, titter etc).

      “So instead of attacking ‘nazis’ who disagree with the enviromental movement, more emphasis should be places on attacking the goverment for taking advantage.”

      And it’s cheeky to put words into me mouth. I didn’ mention no nazis.

      Ben

    13. JuggyD — on 15th July, 2008 at 8:24 pm  

      ^ and to think you attacked my spelling.

      So what evidence have you seen, or can show me supporting your enviromental issue? Or is it, god forbid, just the Al Gore documentary?

    14. BenSix — on 15th July, 2008 at 8:26 pm  

      “^ and to think you attacked my spelling.”

      Are you asking me or Soru?

      If it’s me then I can assure you that I was merely enjoying a little linguistic diversity. I didn’t attack your spelling, either.

      Ben

    15. Rumbold — on 15th July, 2008 at 8:31 pm  

      Sunny:

      “We go along with the dominant scientific view.”

      What a scary sentence. Decades ago people thought that we were heading for a period of global cooling. Then it was global warming. Now it is climate change. Every time the scientists have said something different. Imagine if skeptics just accpeted the wisdom of the day and never challenged it? Where would we be? We use to have substantial vineyards in this country, until the 12th century.

    16. Rumbold — on 15th July, 2008 at 8:38 pm  

      Climate change is happening (though whether it is happening more then normal is debatable). And humankind probably has something to do with it. But we don’t even know the extent to which we affect our environment. Increasingly environmentalists are trying to shut down debate on the topic. Their argument goes:

      - Most of us agree, so the rest of you should fall into line.

      - The climate has negative impacts in countries like Bangladesh, so any disagreement means that you are happy for people to die in floods and the like.

      - What will happen if we don’t do something?

      - You lot who disagree are deniers. You know, like Holocaust deniers.

      - You still disagree eh? How much money have the oil companies given you this week?

      - What do you mean that countries experienced significant shifts in climate before the Industrial Revolution? So what?

    17. BenSix — on 15th July, 2008 at 8:38 pm  

      “Imagine if skeptics just accpeted the wisdom of the day and never challenged it?”

      A very fair observation.

      Many - if not most - of the ‘truths’ that we take for granted remain entirely unconsidered (though that’s not an excuse for belief in homeopathy, children).

      Ben

    18. Rumbold — on 15th July, 2008 at 8:42 pm  

      BenSix:

      “Many - if not most - of the ‘truths’ that we take for granted remain entirely unconsidered (though that’s not an excuse for belief in homeopathy, children).”

      I believe in children. Heh.

    19. BenSix — on 15th July, 2008 at 8:46 pm  

      “I believe in children.”

      Heh.

      Thanks to our friend Rene, I’m learning to believe in belief.

      Ben

    20. Bishop Hill — on 15th July, 2008 at 8:47 pm  

      Do environmentalists want people to be able to trade with who they want, when they want and where they want? Do environmentalists want people to be free to say that the world is not getting warmer?

      If we are going to answer the question of whether the greens are a threat to liberty, we need to answer these kinds of question, rather than shout names.

    21. Dan — on 15th July, 2008 at 8:56 pm  

      I think “denier” is a preferable term to “sceptic”, in all honesty, though it obviously comes with its own problems. The way that “sceptic” has been co-opted by those who oppose the mainstream view has, for the most part, been pretty much scandalous.

      The default position of science is scepticism. Scepticism has already occurred in coming to conclusions regarding climate change. Doubt exists in scientific papers. Science is about doubt: it’s about error bars, it’s about how uncertain we are about something. I am not saying that climate change absolutely *is* happening (not least because I do not have the requisite qualifications to do so), and no scientist, staying true to the values of science, would either, but the point is that the best available evidence says that it is.

      That is why, I think, it’s fair for Sunny to say that “[w]e go along with the dominant scientific view”. It’s not a “scary” sentence, it’s simply reflecting the state of our own personal knowledge (AFAIK, no-one here has specific experience in climate science) relative to that of the research. That’s, of course, not to say that those researching it should “go along with the dominant scientific view” and, again, that’s not what science is about.

    22. soru — on 15th July, 2008 at 8:59 pm  

      Decades ago people thought that we were heading for a period of global cooling.

      That’s not actually true, at least as far as scientists are concerned: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm

      The ’70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.

      But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

      The myth that there was some big concensus that there was a real risk of short-term cooling is pretty common in denialist circles: it’s the kind of plausible lie that plays well to anyone not familiar with how science works. There is a big difference between an actual tested scientific concensus, like gravity, evolution or climate change, based on literally thousands of different experiments, papers and studies, and a few individual speculative papers.

    23. Dan — on 15th July, 2008 at 9:20 pm  

      Yes, the “oh but the scientists said/did x” line of reasoning is a familiar fallacious trope anyway.

    24. Rumbold — on 15th July, 2008 at 9:30 pm  

      I stand corrected Soru. But you must have noticed the morphing from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’?

    25. Sunny — on 15th July, 2008 at 9:45 pm  

      The few scientists i have spoken to,

      That’s great that is - you’re our resident science expert then.

      I’ve made this point so many times now so I’ll make it clear again.

      I’m an environmentalist. That means I care about the degradation about the environement. I care for cleaner air, cleaner water, not killing animals through pollution, ensuring that marine life in other parts of the world is not wrecked by our naked hunt for resources etc.

      I don’t want to get into the stupid debate about whether climate change is happening through manmade activity. I believe it. JuggyD and his ‘scientist mates’ don’t. Fine, doesn’t bother me.

      But Brendan ONeill is still a tosser. And I’m still proud to call myself an environmentalist. End of story.

    26. muhamad (pbum) — on 15th July, 2008 at 9:51 pm  

      [from a corner of a scriptorium]
      [loudly]
      I’m an environ-mentalist!

    27. Roger — on 15th July, 2008 at 9:58 pm  

      “Jus to correct you, i’ve spoken to a few scientists at my University on the subject.”
      Which kind of scientists have you spoken to though, JuggyD? Molecular physicists or brain surgeons would not be well-qualified to discuss the many possible environmental problems- of which global warming is only one- that we seem likely to face in the immediate future.
      There is the further point of the possible consequences of the various scenarios: if the worst fears of the environmentalists are justified we face the extinction of the human species. If Brendan O’Neill and friends are correct we won’t be travelling as far, as often or as cheaply as we do now and make pretty drastic changes to the way we live. For reasons of safety it’s worth assuming the first is true unless there is very strong evidence against it. “We put a pretty high value on our theories if we roast people alive for them” said Montaigne about witch-burnings. We put an even higher value if we would roast the entire human race- and many other species.

    28. douglas clark — on 15th July, 2008 at 10:22 pm  

      Are we attempting to invoke Beelzebubs’ Culinary Establishment?

      I hang out on quite a few sites where climate scientists try to explain to folk like JuggyD, Rumbold and Bishop Hill how wrong they are.

      And you know what? They - the climate scientists, reasonable folk in the main - are completely wasting their time.

      They are up against the moronic religious cult of the me.

      Libertarian nutters, in other words.

      These are children that, if knowledge contradicts belief, will argue for belief over knowledge. And they will deliberately avoid gaining knowledge lest it contradicts their misheld beliefs.

      “I’ll cry and cry till I scream” Elizabeth Bott, I believe. Compared to libertarians, she was a genius.

      Here is what the Royal Society has to say:

      http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

      Now wipe your stupid noses, stop playing with your dicks and grow up! You at the back there! Farting is a cause of global warming too! See me after school.

      Rumbold! Absent from reasonable sense recently.

      JuggyD! Money, money, aargh, cough, choke.

      Bishop Hill! I’d be better dead than green. You may well be.

    29. Ms_Xtreme — on 15th July, 2008 at 11:26 pm  

      So what evidence have you seen, or can show me supporting your enviromental issue? Or is it, god forbid, just the Al Gore documentary?

      Sorry if anyone else has already responded to this - but its not only Al Gore saying it. The IPCC launched a full investigation on it!! There’s a friggin’ over 200 page report!

      http://www.ipcc.ch/

      Knock ya’self out.

    30. JuggyD — on 16th July, 2008 at 12:35 am  

      Douglas are you middle class perhaps?

      A ME society as you put it, is not what it’s about. There is very little PEOPLE can actually do. It’s the goverments who can change things. If they want people of the road, give them the affordable public transport. If they want less people flying, don’t tax the poor out of flying, tax the rich for using private jets, etc! If they want emissions cut around the world, how about putting pressure on China and India, and the still to come African Industrial revolution.

      Basically to the average joe, there is very little you can do. The goverment is using the enviromental excuse today as a way of raising revenue, it’s just simple fact.

      May i ask if you still fly? What steps have you actually taken? Oh you changed a few light bulbs? Get real mate. None of it matters, as China and India are going to emmit so much Co2 in these coming years, that we will barely even register a percentage of effect even if we reach the govements target.

      So perhaps instead of attacking the ‘ME ME ME’ people as you put it, perhaps you should relax your rhetorical. It really doesn’t matter to the average people. There is nothing we can do.

    31. soru — on 16th July, 2008 at 12:38 am  

      But you must have noticed the morphing from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’?

      What a quick google shows me is that 23 different people posting on various blog comment threads have used the word ‘morphed’ to connect those two phrases. I bet every one was convinced they were a unique and individual snowflake:-)

      On one of those blogs, I find details of the Luntz memo:

      The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has “lost the environmental communications battle” and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.

      The phrase “global warming” should be abandoned in favour of “climate change”, Mr Luntz says

      Quite a devious trick - force the Dems/europeans to concede a change of language, then attack them for being deceptive for making a concession to you.

      Some other relevant links:

      http://www.luntz.com/

      http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/11/how-do-we-really-know-humans-are-causing-global-warming/

      http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

    32. JuggyD — on 16th July, 2008 at 1:01 am  

      omg miss xtreme the IPPP LAUNCHED A 200 PAGE REPORT ON IT :o

      THEN IT MUST BE TRUE !!!!!!!!!!

      Jus because their are a minority of scientists out there who are scepitical that the earth is heating up from man made issues does not mean they are insignificant.

      I could point out many factors why there seems to be an overall consensus about the the way scientists are going. First of all it’s pretty harmless to be wrong, because being energy efficiant is a good thing really. Secondly, it’s EU Funding to scientists, ecologists, who are studying such theories is increased. If you aren’t investigating the man made theory, your funding is less.

      I could point to the fact, that even if there is a 90% majority of scientists claiming the man made theory is true, there are some powerfull scientists in the 10%, who just because they are a minority should not be ignored.

    33. QuestionThat — on 16th July, 2008 at 1:04 am  

      @Sunny: Do you agree that were environmentalists like James Hansen and Mark Lynas to have it all their own way, there would be a considerable degree of repression of liberties we currently enjoy, including freedom of expression?

      @douglas clark: Nice to see that you feel you have to resort to ad hominems. Incidentally, if that link you posted was written by scientists then they are a disgrace. ‘Argument 8′ is laughable - I’ve seldom seen such a high density of weasel words.

    34. Leon — on 16th July, 2008 at 1:13 am  

      LOL! This thread is almost as heated as ones on Islam or abortions! Heh.

      Oh yeah nice rant Doug, Bill Hicks would be proud.;)

    35. soru — on 16th July, 2008 at 1:25 am  

      It’s the goverments who can change things.

      Governments can’t change things unless people consent to not throw them out of office when they try.

      Even the Chinese government couldn’t tankify its people into zero carbon growth without the West doing its share first.

    36. BenSix — on 16th July, 2008 at 2:03 am  

      “Do you agree that were environmentalists like James Hansen and Mark Lynas to have it all their own way, there would be a considerable degree of repression of liberties we currently enjoy, including freedom of expression?”

      Even if this were true - and without wishing to run away with the goalposts - would it be particularly important? It’s surely reasonable to hold their political opinions in contempt, while dispassionately evaluating their studies.

      Ben

    37. Roger — on 16th July, 2008 at 2:04 am  

      Questionthat: precisely how would there be “a considerable degree of repression of liberties we currently enjoy, including freedom of expression” were people “like James Hansen and Mark Lynas to have it all their own way”? If the theories of environmentalists are correct, then not restricting environmentally damaging practises would lead to a considerable degree of repression of liberties we currently enjoy, including life.
      JuggyD “I could point to the fact, that even if there is a 90% majority of scientists claiming the man made theory is true, there are some powerfull scientists in the 10%, who just because they are a minority should not be ignored.”
      The important questions are not whether they are powerful but whether they are right and the consequences if they are right. If environmentalists are right the consequences of not taking their advice would be the collapse of civilsation, thousands of millions of deaths and quite possibly the extinction of the human species. If your 10% of scientists- even if it were 10% of scientists with relevant knowledge- are right the consequences of taking their advice would be…?

    38. JuggyD — on 16th July, 2008 at 2:34 am  

      Roger i suppose it depends on what price a person is willing to pay to on what is so far still a theory, and not proven fact? Would you be willing to say pay more taxes, have less money in your wallet for a hypothesis? It’s very easy to come online and say ‘Yeah i’m an enviromentalist’, and maybe perhaps as your middle class you’re life won’t be affected much.

      As for this not being a goverment problem …. if nothing is done about the chinese and Indian industrial revolutions, and then the predicted African industrial revolution … then we can sit here and be as pompous as we want, while we change our light bulbs, but the reality is we are making LITTLE DIFFERENCE, untill those factors are addressed.

    39. Roger — on 16th July, 2008 at 3:03 am  

      JuggyD, you obviously haven’t listened very carefully to the scientists you said you spoke to, or you would know that every scientific claim is a theory and not a proven fact. You appear to be perfectly willing to risk the price of your- and everyone else’s- life on one theory which is not a proven fact as against another theory which has a great deal of confirmatory evidence to support it. If- as it seems is the case- you think that given the choice of cheap airline flights and a high probability of death or no cheap airline flights you’d prefer the cheap airline flights at least have the honesty to say so.

      The effects of the activities of China and India on the environment are going to be enormous, but unless the already-developed world shows that they think the risks considerable by reacting to them then they will see little point in considering the future consequences of their present actions. You are right to say that government actions are the most important ones here, but such actions are more likely to come about as a result of public pressure. Even a bunch of self-perpetuating thugs like the Chinese government responds to public presssure if it is strong enough.

    40. Sunny — on 16th July, 2008 at 3:14 am  

      Its not very controversial. So far we have our mate JuggyD who’s mates and assorted scientists from school convinced that THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO AND WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE SO STOP RAISING MY TAXES YOU BASTARDS and the conversation has somewhat stuck around him repeating that endlessly. In fact, he could be Brendan O Neill with bad spelling and a fixation with Bhangra music.

    41. douglas clark — on 16th July, 2008 at 3:45 am  

      Roger,

      The important questions are not whether they are powerful but whether they are right and the consequences if they are right. If environmentalists are right the consequences of not taking their advice would be the collapse of civilsation, thousands of millions of deaths and quite possibly the extinction of the human species.

      Yeah! That is the fucking point the moronic Libertarians seem unable to understand.

      Perhaps this:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_iSIv26S_o

      It is old, it is right.

      Moronic Libertarians, eat our dead. Why don’t you? What’s that you say, Beelzebub of the Culinary Table is a complete moron, incapable of any adjustment to reality.

      “Rumbold, you deserve six of the belt, for your stupidity in agreeing with the bully boy. Get out of here before you offend me!”

      “Juggy D,

      Don’t you see the irony that you attacking someone for not believing in the enviromental dangers ? Yes you may be an enviromentalist, and believe all this Co2 emissions malakary, but that doesn’t make you rite, or any other opinion as wrong. You are attacking him, for the exact same reasons he is attacking you.

      I know ALOT of scientists, alot of people also don’t believe in todays hoophla of Co2 emissions, the earth warming up, the rain forests etc. Others don’t care. Others hate the idea of the goverment abusing the situation and fear to increase taxes with a legitimate excuse. And while i agree the majority might believe all this enviromental talk and alot of evidence points to the fact they maybe rite, there is still not 100% conclusive proof or a such a 100% opinion that everyone believes the theories put out there…. and such talk doesn’t mean you have a rite to attack these people who do not believe it - can’t you see the hypocrisy?

      Still willing to stand up for that bullshit? For bullshit it undoubtedly is.

      I referenced this:

      http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

      Not convinced, try, 0h I can’t be bothered, we have caught an idiot, that’s for sure…

      I could point out many factors why there seems to be an overall consensus about the the way scientists are going. First of all it’s pretty harmless to be wrong, because being energy efficiant is a good thing really. Secondly, it’s EU Funding to scientists, ecologists, who are studying such theories is increased. If you aren’t investigating the man made theory, your funding is less.

      Look, you daft tit, it is not harmless to be wrong. I have no real understanding of where you are coming from, except out of a lower orifice.

      ______________________

      Rumbold, said this:

      What a scary sentence. Decades ago people thought that we were heading for a period of global cooling. Then it was global warming. Now it is climate change. Every time the scientists have said something different. Imagine if skeptics just accpeted the wisdom of the day and never challenged it? Where would we be? We use to have substantial vineyards in this country, until the 12th century.

      Which is just daft. There is a time for scepticism, which I’d agree with, there is a time for seeing it as just stupid.

      Now would be the time for Rumbold to come out of the closet.

      He doesn’t, for the simple reason that he sees Libertarianism as more important than human life. He damn’s himself to a Beelzebub’s Kitchen.

    42. Eklavya — on 16th July, 2008 at 3:35 pm  

      Sunny,
      I think you miss his point slightly. It is not as irrational as you term it to be.

      By the way here’s an interesting article on a similar subject.

      http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/peter_foster/blog/2008/07/15/the_natural_consequence_of_human_greed

    43. QuestionThat — on 16th July, 2008 at 3:57 pm  

      @douglas: It amuses me, the way that you can’t bring yourself to name the other blog that you are talking about.

    44. justforfun — on 16th July, 2008 at 4:04 pm  

      Join the conspiracy - it will run on any pc.

      http://climateprediction.net/

      Does it matter if it gets colder or hotter - ‘stuff’ will run out anyway well before the sea has risen by 25m.

      Just a short note on posible areas of enquiry for those who like to do their own research.

      We all are think of climate changing gradually. However recent research from ice cores in Greenland show that the climate in the past has been very erratic and that wind patterns can switch 180deg in a year and can stay switched for decades. This discovery that climate can abruptly change and is not always a gradual change is the ‘new’ discovery. Current climate models cannot predict these abrupt changes, they only show trends and the average changes. Whithin these trends are the new ‘abrupt Climate Changes’. So - imagine if the prevaling wind in the UK switched from being SW to NE or Easterly for 40 years. It would be curtains for the UK as we know it.

      My bunker is now down to 4m - hitting bedrock. Anyone got any dynamite?

      justforfun

    45. Sunny — on 16th July, 2008 at 4:13 pm  

      “By the way here’s an interesting article on a similar subject.”

      I may come back to addressing that. I think that’s also a very poor case being made…

    46. douglas clark — on 16th July, 2008 at 4:34 pm  

      QuestionThat,

      I am taking the piss out of Devils’ Kitchen. Hadn’t you realised that? The wee hero of the Libertarian Party is a complete utter tit when it comes to climate change.

    47. Rumbold — on 16th July, 2008 at 4:40 pm  

      I was submitting this comment in the morning just as the site froze.

      Douglas:

      I don’t like Devil’s Kitchen.

      http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2008/07/wasted-brown.html

      (Read the comments)

      “These are children that, if knowledge contradicts belief, will argue for belief over knowledge. And they will deliberately avoid gaining knowledge lest it contradicts their misheld beliefs.”

      My belief is that scientists should be able to put forward alternative views without being attacked. I am not a climate scientists, but nobody as yet has proven the effect that humans are having on the planet. Is it causing 5% of climate change, or 50%?

      As I have said before, I do think that the climate is changing, and that humans are having an impact on it. What worries me is the attempt to shut down debate on a very important subject. Every generation has an idea or ideas that they are convinced are right. In every generation you would have heard people say:

      “There is a time for scepticism, which I’d agree with, there is a time for seeing it as just stupid.”

      Scientists must have the freedom to challenge conventional wisdom, without the fear of being abused by the environmentalists (which they are).

      Soru:

      Morphing is a good term.

    48. douglas clark — on 16th July, 2008 at 5:02 pm  

      Rumbold,

      If you want to wriggle out of the obviously aggressive stance I have taken on this subject, you’ll have to at least read this:

      http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

      Your chum, Devils’ Kitchen, is obviously incapable of doing reading. Or only selectively so. What you are looking at, (did you bother?), is what scientists think. Not morons like Devils Kitchen, nor failed economists like Lawson. Nor folk that used to be scientists that have sold the shilling.

      I do not know how to put this more succinctly to you.

      You are on the wrong side of this debate.

      There are no serious climate scientists that think as you seem to do. Read this:

      http://www.realclimate.org/

      for a week or two, and weep.

      You sir are wrong on this subject, along with your hero Devils’ Kitchen.

    49. douglas clark — on 16th July, 2008 at 5:12 pm  

      Sorry Rumbold,

      Having briefly looked into the cess pit that is the Devils’ Kitchen back yard, I take back any comments about you liking the tit.

    50. justforfun — on 16th July, 2008 at 5:16 pm  

      Rumbold - have you had any science or engineering education?

      I ask because when you say things like —-Is it causing 5% of climate change, or 50%?
      — it betrays a misunderstanding of how systems work.

      In simple terms - for certain dynamic systems (imagine hundreds of weights and springs all vibrating in a resonance - its a stable system) that appears stable. Now a small intervention can make the system unstable. So while human activity might not be creating the actual warming itself, it is upsetting an ‘apparently’ stable system and causeing the huge natural forces to become out phase , so cause considerable change. I suggest you google ‘abrupt climate change’ and take it from there at your own pace.

      Chaos theory is also useful to get a grip on to understand how small changes in a start position can lead to diametrically opposite effects later on. The maths is actually very simple and elagant
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory.

      So what do you mean by
      —-Is it causing 5% of climate change, or 50%?

      This is not the way to see the problem as it is not a linear link. You are only deluding yourself because if I said it was 4% - would you be comforted? In that 4% could be the seeds of destruction.

      Another anaolgy is perhaps the Eurofighter - it is supposidly inherantly unstable in flight. But when it flies by - it appears stable. But underneath the bonnet it has computers fighting away to keep the thing in the air. A small ‘glich’ in the computers and the inherant instability will become mainfest.

      So while we have an apparent stable climate - there have been glichs in the past - volcanoes going off - asteroids - etc and these are not weather related - but they do effect the weather for awhile before the apparent stability returns. However in the case of CO2 emmisions the ‘glich’ is actually a large scale changing of the contents of the atmosphere itself. So the dynamics of the climate are irreversably altered - for better or worse. We have already leap into the unknown.

      justforfun

    51. Devil's Kitchen — on 16th July, 2008 at 7:00 pm  

      douglas clark,

      Had a swift look at your Royal Society link. The first rebuttal contains this line: “for example, eleven of the last twelve years have been the hottest since records started in 1850.”

      That’s not true. We know that’s not true. In fact, the hottest decade was the 1940s.

      Given that the Royal Society cannot get this simple fact correct I seriously doubt the validity of the rest of the rebuttals (which, in any case, misrepresent the arguments of most sceptics).

      I shall go through all of their rebuttals in detail (and with links to data) when I have more time.

      DK

    52. jungle — on 16th July, 2008 at 7:55 pm  

      “Jus to correct you, i’ve spoken to a few scientists at my University on the subject.”

      Yes, but were any of them actually climatologists?

      Personally I’ve heard a few doubts about the *accuracy* of individual predictions of what exact problems will occur, but no climatologist I’ve met actually disputes the basics: that it’s happening, that humans are causing it, and that the effects are likely to be very bad indeed unless something is done soon.

      “The fact the earth heats up naturally, and cools down naturally can’t be ignored, as it has shown to have down this through the earths life.”

      We know the causes of these long term fluctuations. None of these causes explain the very rapid warming that is happening now.

      “The fact they agree with theory allows them to get EU funding to study the causes more :-)

      Oh, the classic conspiracy theory. All climatologists are secretly in the pay of a secret leftist EU cabal to fabricate evidence in order to justify malicious tax rises. Virtually every single climatologist, apparently. This conspiracy is so complete that no-one can ever get evidence on their corruption out of the university, despite their departments being full of skint students who would love to be paid for a tabloid scoop story.

      Do you even stop to consider how ludicrous that accusation is?

      The reality is rather different: in practice, as any climatologist knows, anyone who is prepared to produce a newspaper-readable anti-global warming “study” is immediately buried by an unimaginable avalanche of dollars emanating from the American Enterprise Institute.

      The objection to the vast bulk of global warming “deniers” is NOT that they dissent from the scientific consensus. The objection is that their “evidence” is demonstrably deliberately constructed lies in almost every single case. They’re not engaging in honest debate. They are engaging in wilful fraud and deception for commercial and political gain.

    53. douglas clark — on 16th July, 2008 at 8:01 pm  

      DK,

      I expected to evoke you here.

      Well done. Without even a pentagram.

      Am I supposed to believe you or the Royal Society?

      Answer this, why don’t you?

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?s=1940&qt=&q=&cx=009744842749537478185%3Ahwbuiarvsbo&client=google-coop-np&cof=GALT%3A808080%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A34374A%3BVLC%3AAA8610%3BAH%3Aleft%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BALC%3A66AA55%3BLC%3A66AA55%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A66AA55%3BGIMP%3A66AA55%3BFORID%3A11%3B&searchdatabase=site

      A highlight, for gentle readers:

      there was no shortage of people extrapolating wildly to support their pet hobbyhorses. This in itself is not so unusual; despite much advice to the contrary, people (the media and bloggers) tend to weight new individual papers that make the news far more highly than the balance of evidence that really underlies assessments like the IPCC. But in this case, the addition of a little knowledge made the usual extravagances a little more scientific-looking and has given it some extra steam.

      http://www.realclimate.org/

    54. jungle — on 16th July, 2008 at 8:07 pm  

      Rumbold: “Decades ago people thought that we were heading for a period of global cooling.”

      This is yet another myth that’s been spread around lately. That theory was never seriously endorsed by any significant number of actual climatologists. It just grabbed a lot of headlines, because it was scary, (rather like the MMR jab scare).

    55. douglas clark — on 16th July, 2008 at 8:23 pm  

      DK,

      Or you might care to look at this:

      http://www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere.html?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a54e0b21f-aaba-475d-87ab-1df5075ce621Post%3a47083c00-a776-4f89-b9dd-a2cb00a5dcb1&plckCommentSortOrder=TimeStampAscending

      Bloody hell, these links are so long.

    56. douglas clark — on 16th July, 2008 at 8:28 pm  

      Or you and your misguided followers could just start here:

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

      Phew, at least that was a shorter link.

    57. Rumbold — on 16th July, 2008 at 8:57 pm  

      Douglas:

      As I have said before, I am no scientist. And the balance of evidence does seem to point to humans impacting on the climate in a sufficiently negative way to damamge the earth. What worries me though is the way in which the environmentalists keep trying to shut down the debate. Not because they keep saying that they are right (as they should), but in the way in which they try and smear anyone who disagrees with them.

      Justforfun:

      Thank you, that was a really useful analogy. I never thought of it like that. I agree that if humans are causing major changes then cof course something needs to be done, but is there proof that human behaviour is changing the climate?

      And no, my training was in the humanities.

    58. douglas clark — on 16th July, 2008 at 10:02 pm  

      Rumbold,

      Thanks, I think, for that.

      However, from my side of the fence it looks completely different.

      It seems to me that the likes of DK is attempting to sow dissent where none existed before. There is a scientific consensus behind the idea that anthropogenic global warming is a reality. DK, and his chums, seems to me at least to be dissenting from that on the basis that the debate has not taken place. Whereas the debate is already done and dusted.

      My problem, if you like, is that DK is coming across as an ill-informed contrarian. Despite your, and I suspect, his beliefs, I think there is much to be said for a Libertarian perspective. This is just an example of how any philosophy - taken to extremes - can be seriously mismanaged.

      For, if you take any philosophy and apply it to an intansigent reality, the wheel will come off.

      I trust you’d agree that the continuation of the human race is a tad more important than political posturing.

      The last time DK honoured us with his presence he attempted to argue that the Libertarian Party does have a policy on global warming.

      When it was pointed out to him that it was not a tenable position, he didn’t come back with a rebuttal.

      You do not need to be a scientist to read the evidence. All you need is a clear head. Try my link at 56, it would do you good. And it’s not that tough.

    59. soru — on 16th July, 2008 at 10:59 pm  

      What worries me though is the way in which the environmentalists keep trying to shut down the debate.

      Most people on the ‘mainstream environmentalist’ side are scientists and amateurs, not paid professional lobbyists and communications experts. Consequently, they sometimes make the mistake of slipping into straightforward language, telling people what they think to be true. Not many people find being told they are wrong to be fun. Especially when they are.

      Meanwhile, the other two sides (lifestyle Greens and lobbyists) are generally doing a much better job of presenting their ideas as an individual choice, a positive lifestyle choice that can be freely embraced, a way to be your own man, a true, proud and clever individual. It’s a seduction, a viral marketing campaign, not a lecture.

      Overall, this doesn’t quite make up for the overwhelming bias of the facts towards the mainstream environmentalist case.

      But there are some people to whom those facts are invisible, who, for no fault of their own, just don’t have, or have never developed, that part of the brain that can tell plausible science from pseudo-scientific bullshit. For them, it all produces a very strange effect: the environmentalist side is winning for no apparent reason, despite having the less plausible-sounding arguments.

      Clearly, they must be cheating, bribing or intimidating the judges…

    60. Ravi Naik — on 16th July, 2008 at 11:14 pm  

      “As I have said before, I am no scientist. And the balance of evidence does seem to point to humans impacting on the climate in a sufficiently negative way to damamge the earth. What worries me though is the way in which the environmentalists keep trying to shut down the debate. Not because they keep saying that they are right (as they should), but in the way in which they try and smear anyone who disagrees with them.”

      I totally agree with you, Rumbold. There is a consensus that climate change exists (and thus one can easily dismiss the idiots who claim otherwise). But I believe there is disagreement on how urgent and serious the problem is. And that is bad because if we operate under panic or exaggerate the problem, then we make bad decisions in how to invest money to solve problems. For instance, some say that poverty and hunger are far more serious problems than the environment (while acknowledging that it is nonetheless a long-term problem).

      So, the debate should be kept open.

    61. Amrit — on 17th July, 2008 at 12:02 am  

      douglas clark - might I just say that I love the way you’re smacking it down! :-D

      No offense to Rumbold or anyone else, of course.

      This thread is one of the most informative recent ones for me, thank you all for your comments.

    62. Kulvinder — on 17th July, 2008 at 5:24 am  

      I don’t want to detract the thread but those arguing against the very notion of ‘climate change’ or disagreeing with the principle that ‘scientific consensus’ can be a valid basis for advocating policy are really quite insane.

      Its no better in concept than those who deny a link between HIV and AIDS and try to find a small group of dissenting scientists to form a barrier against criticism; at times the arguments about ‘gaps in data’ and the like are reminiscent of creationists making absurd points against Darwin.

      Some of the environmental ‘messages’ are of course pure hollywood hyperbole (The Day after Tomorrow etc) and there are plenty of lunatics amongst environmental activists but that doesn’t change the general validity of whats being said regarding climate change.

    63. justforfun — on 17th July, 2008 at 9:43 am  

      Rumbold - you are too kind about my explanations - I’ve re-read them! Luckily I don’t earn my money explaining things :-)

      Keep an open mind - question everthing and don’t lose sight of the big picture.

      Climate change is one thing.

      Use of finite global resources is another problem - but tends to be blurred into the climate change debate but it really is the existential problem for the freedoms we enjoy as a society, more so than climate change.

      We have to keep our heads and think straight. We have to educate the young far more than we do at the moment becuase this problem will span generations. Scientists and Engineers can only do so much - people trained in the humanities will be needed to change society itself, but you will need to get a better understanding of science and engineering first.

      justforfun

    64. billericaydicky — on 17th July, 2008 at 9:50 am  

      And now for something completely different. I know a lot of people don’t like Nick Cohen but he takes apart Living Marxism in “What,s Left”. Anyone who can believe anything that bunch of nutters comeout with needs to get a life.

    65. QuestionThat — on 17th July, 2008 at 10:30 am  

      @douglas clark:
      Bloody hell, these links are so long.

      Let me introduce you to Tinyurl. http://tinyurl.com/
      Never be troubled by the scourge of long links again!

    66. Rumbold — on 17th July, 2008 at 8:36 pm  

      If Al Gore, the high priest of hypocrisy, vanished today, hundreds of tonnes of carbon per year would not be emitted. Yet he is the hero of the museli-eating, sandal-wearing, Guardian-reading, I-Pod owning, Facebook devotees.

      Have all you environmentalists calculated your carbon footprint? Mine is 5.389 tonnes.

      http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx

      Douglas:

      I wouldn’t say that denying human-caused climate change is necessarily a libertarian position per se. What attracts a number of libertarians to it (but not me), is the fear that governments are using the environment as another way to control us and take our money (which they are).

      Soru:

      I am not saying that the environmentalists are wrong. My problem is the way in which they attack anyone who disagrees with them.

      Ravi:

      “For instance, some say that poverty and hunger are far more serious problems than the environment.”

      Exactly. Yet for the Islington dinner parties green is the fashion nowadays, so that is how it must be.

      Justforfun:

      Believe me, I think that there are far too few scientists and engineers around, compared to some humanities graduates, and social science gradautes as well (its not a science, stop deluding yourselves). And your explaination really was excellent.

    67. douglas clark — on 18th July, 2008 at 4:04 am  

      Rumbold,

      Frankly, this is wrong, or, at least misguided, you say:

      I wouldn’t say that denying human-caused climate change is necessarily a libertarian position per se. What attracts a number of libertarians to it (but not me), is the fear that governments are using the environment as another way to control us and take our money (which they are).

      Perhaps. But your assumption, and that of DK, is that there is no existential threat. That it is a mere chimera. It is that, that I am attacking. I cannot surrender the idea that realistic policies addressing climate change, whether it turns out to be correct or not, are anything less than sensible. We ought, I think, treat is as a serious threat, whatever our politics might be. This is what you call pragmatism, rather than the DK’s lunacy.

      DK would have us die, for the sake of his political beliefs. He, sir, is the moron, not I. I would give up any politics if they led me to that conclusion. The man is mad.

      You’ll notice that Mr brain dead has not been back?

    68. douglas clark — on 18th July, 2008 at 5:15 am  

      Rumbold,

      OK. lets play the invocation game.

      “Devils’ Kitchen are you there?”

      Bloody moronic to have to invoke your own idiot.

      Where is Mr Brain dead?

      Let’s see if he has an answer.

      “Are you there, oh specious one?”

      ——————-

      Err… Apparently not.

      Quite a tit is the Devils’ Kitchen, is he not?

      Up his own bum, perhaps? If the brainless moron deems to come back here, he’ll get both barrels, right up his stupid arse…

      And that, I assure you, will be painful for him.

      There is nothing in what he says that makes any sense whatsoever. A rabid moron is just that, rabid and moronical…

    69. Dave S — on 19th July, 2008 at 12:52 pm  

      Despite spending a considerable amount of my time trying to save the planet and it’s abundance of life (everything from risking arrest to talking to my mum), I am not an “environmentalist” or part of the “green movement”.

      There is no such thing as “the green movement” - it’s analogous to calling people who are house-hunting for somewhere safe to live the “house hunting movement” - and every bit as ridiculous!

      I am not trying to “protect the environment”, but to protect myself - because I am an intrinsic part of the environment, as are we all.

      That is the problem with “the green movement” or “environmentalism” - because in declaring itself as such, it draws a line which separates off environmental protection as a special interest group. Big mistake - it is no such thing.

      If anything, those who believe in the “freedom” to damage the environment with impunity are a special interest group - a group who mistakenly see themselves as above and outside of a living system, and who fail to acknowledge that their reckless actions have any consequences.

      But we are all part of the environment, and when we recognise ourselves as such, it becomes immediately obvious why continuing on our current path is nothing short of suicide (ecocide, really).

      We are not harming any form of “the other” - we are harming ourselves.

      Deluding ourselves into believing that we (or science, or the marketplace, or anything) exist outside of the environment is far more than denial of our impact upon it. It is denial of the nature of our very existence.

      So I am not an “environmentalist” - I am a human who wishes to protect my home from the destructive actions of other humans who don’t realise we are basically living on a type of spacecraft, with exactly the same constraints placed on what we can do “on board”.

    70. Don — on 19th July, 2008 at 2:01 pm  

      Rumbold,

      … Yet he is the hero of the museli-eating, sandal-wearing, Guardian-reading, I-Pod owning, Facebook devotees…. Islington dinner parties green is the fashion

      I see, so you think that the way environmentalist dismiss the opposition somehow negates their evidence? Your own rhetoric has taken a bit of a dive lately.

      You have already acknowledged that a lot of the denial of man-made climate change as a serious and urgent problem is because of other agendas. Rather like creationists, really. It’s the consequentialist fallacy: if this is true, then something bad will happen or I might have to give up something I like. Therefore it isn’t true.

      At which point any half-educated quibble with a detail in the mountain of evidence is grasped fervently, the honesty of thousands of dedicated scientist doing decades of meticulous research is traduced, second-rate journalism is treated as evidence and it somehow becomes a moral duty to disbelieve anything which goes against the narrative that ‘they’ are engaged in a massive conspiracy (which a select few have seen through) is seen as yet more proof of the conspiracy.

      I am not saying that the environmentalists are wrong. My problem is the way in which they attack anyone who disagrees with them.

      I may have missed the examples you gave of this. If someone has dedicated their life to gaining a high leveof expertise in a specialist area and completed years of work only to have it dismissed by a zealot who thinks a political agenda is a substitute for actual knowledge, then you are entitled to be as ascerbic as you like. Again, like creationsts who complain when real scientists refuse to take them seriously.

    71. Rumbold — on 20th July, 2008 at 9:25 pm  

      The three D’s (Douglas, Dave S and Don):

      Look, I think that climate change is happening, and of course if it is happening on the extent that some claim it is then it is a major issue. My problem is with the way in which the debate is framed. People who disagree are ‘deniers’, anyone who points to historical variances in climate is ignored, and so on.

    72. Don — on 20th July, 2008 at 10:57 pm  

      You still haven’t supported that assertion.

      anyone who points to historical variances in climate is ignored

      What? Are you seriously maintaining that climatologists are willfully disregarding historical variance? Or they just hadn’t noticed until some amateur on the internet started blathering?

      Give a few examples of people of standing in the relevant fields of research who have done what you claim. You are starting to sound like Ben Stein.

      I have to agree with Douglas, although not quite so vehemently, that you have fallen into bad company and convoluted ways.

    73. Rumbold — on 21st July, 2008 at 1:00 pm  

      Don:

      To explain myself a bit more clearly regarding the debate around climate change, I would like to use a football analogy.

      If you said that Man U did not win the premiership title last year, you could rightly be labelled a denier, as evidently they did. Here is a clear right or wrong. Climate change is more like predicting that either Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool or Chelsea will win the premiership this year. The vast majority of experts would agree with you, the evidence points in your favour, yet if someone said that a different team will win it this year, you wouldn’t label them a denialist, even though the evidence and consensus is not in their favour.

      You asked for examples. On this thread alone you have compared people who deny man-mde climate change with creationists, while someone else said that ‘denialist’ is a preferable term to ‘skeptic’.

      “I have to agree with Douglas, although not quite so vehemently, that you have fallen into bad company and convoluted ways.”

      You know how it is with libertarian gangs. You start off soft- a tax cut here, a revised law there. Then you get sucked in and the next thing you know you are calling for the abolition of income tax.

    74. douglas clark — on 21st July, 2008 at 1:12 pm  

      Rumbold,

      I found this video very convincing, please give it the 10 minutes it’ll take:

      http://www.globalwarmingawarenessblog.com/the-most-terrifying-video-you-will-ever-see.html

    75. Rumbold — on 21st July, 2008 at 1:28 pm  

      Douglas:

      It was a good video, though there were some flaws in his reasons. Namely, that the costs of such a plan could only be measured in economic terms. What about the socila/political unrest that would follow massive green regulation, especially in the developing world?

      In this country, I have already said I don’t have a problem with ‘green’ taxes, providing that the overall tax burden does not rise:

      http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/2028

      Good luck with your writing gig.

    76. douglas clark — on 21st July, 2008 at 2:18 pm  

      Rumbold,

      Good luck with your writing gig.

      Thanks. I submitted the proposal this morning so now I’m just sitting back biting my fingernails. Aarrghh!

      I think what the chap was trying to say is that the consequences of not doing something about it are even more extreme than the consequences of acting on it.

      Migrations due to flooding for instance, might well become unmanageable. We are talking potentially a complete breakdown of civil society in some places.

    77. Rumbold — on 21st July, 2008 at 3:51 pm  

      Douglas:

      What are you writing, and who are you writing for (if it happens)?

      “I think what the chap was trying to say is that the consequences of not doing something about it are even more extreme than the consequences of acting on it.”

      Agreed- but that doesn’t necessarily make him right. For example, if deep space radar picked up signs of alien life, should the governments of the world spend £10 trillion on defences against the aliens, in case they conquered our world? The question is whether the large cost and negative effects of stopping climate change (which will be a definitve cost), is more or less then the impact of climate change, taking into account that one is certain and one is only a probability.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.