Get out of my head, Clive

The rise of climate change denialism* in Australia has been a gnawing concern in my head since Tony Abbott was elected the leader of the Liberal Party last year. It wasn’t until then that I realised the size of the anti-science movement, which has been gaining ground over the summer by rhetoric, lies, ad hominem, threats and bombardment of any public forum on climate change. This month, I plan to expand my thoughts on this subject in more detail, but at the moment I’m reading a series of five articles published over the past week by Clive Hamilton on the issue. He’s done an admirable job covering the topic; if you’ve had your interest piqued by the media chatter about ‘climategate’ and the integrity of the IPCC, check these articles out and consider who is putting their best moral foot forward.

Bullying, lies and the rise of right-wing climate denial.

Who is orchestrating the cyber-bullying?

Think tanks, oil money and black ops.

Manufacturing a scientific scandal.

Who’s defending science?

If you’re not up for reading all 5, I’d recommend the first and fourth articles.

Climate change denialism is present worldwide, but if I’m not mistaken, Australia is currently bearing the brunt of one of the most extreme attacks seen to date. It sounds extreme, but the best advice I could give anyone reading media articles which are anti-climate-change at the moment is: don’t trust them**. Yes, the science underlying our understanding of the climate is not yet complete, but it may never be. Climate change denialists are willing to lie, abuse, quote-mine and intimidate people to push their agenda. They can sound superficially reasonable and may even raise some valid points, and some have genuine concerns about the way the issue is being handled by organisations and governments, but many of the most outspoken are, in the plainest terms, liars.

*I’ve mentioned in an earlier post my hesitation in calling people denialists or skeptics, because I don’t find those terms useful in building a dialogue and helping people to understand climate change. However, there is an element – an extremely vocal and increasingly powerful element – of the community which deserves the term, and they aren’t interested in dialogue. They’re the people who hate-rush blogs or news articles, who parrot lies and vitrol and intimidate those who support important, necessary steps to mitigate our impact on the environment.

**This goes, of course, for any opinion piece, or newspaper article, or any article. However, climate change denialism is almost always opinion and is frequently  emotive, anti-scientific and untrustworthy.

Advertisements
Categories: environmentalism, Problems | Tags: , , , | 28 Comments

Post navigation

28 thoughts on “Get out of my head, Clive

  1. Clive certainly knows his stuff. He wrote a very interesting book which I read called AFFLUENZA. It’s probably the reason we have these climate change problems at the moment.

    • Yes, it was a good read, easy to understand and really made me think about the social norms (more on these in future posts this month) in our society.

  2. rogerthesurf

    There is no anthropogenic CO2 caused global warming. Read my blog! It takes a satiric and humourous view of all the porkies we hear every day,(In my country, a “porky” is a grossly untrue statement or an outrageous exaggeration) but it points to the real facts which lie in recorded history.

    Incidently it is also a serious error and tantemount to being a porky to say that warmer climates cause desertification.

    As the air warms there is more evaporation and therefore more precipitation including in the polar regions as snow. For example one should be aware that during the Holocene Optimum with temperatures significantly higher than the present, the Sahara Desert was lush and fertile.

    There might be global warming or cooling but the important issue is whether we, as a human race, can do anything about it.

    There are a host of porkies and not very much truth barraging us everyday so its difficult to know what to believe.

    I think I have simplified the issue in an entertaining way on my blog which includes some issues connected with climategate and “embarrassing” evidence.

    In the pipeline is an analysis of the economic effects of the proposed emission reductions. Watch this space or should I say Blog

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    Please feel welcome to visit and leave a comment.

    Cheers

    Roger

    PS The term “porky” is listed in the Australian Dictionary of Slang.( So I’m told.)

    • I note that you’ve posted almost exactly the same comment here before, Roger. I also note you’ve made at least one claim which isn’t true.

      “Incidently it is also a serious error and tantemount to being a porky to say that warmer climates cause desertification.”

      For starters, I’ve not mentioned desertification at all. Also, your explanation of precipitation may hold in some regions, but regional climate is influenced by a much greater range of factors than temperature alone. Rainfall on the east coast of Australia has dropped significantly over the past 40 years while there has been an increase in mean temperature. Rainfall is projected to become more variable in the future, increasing in some places and decreasing in others. Note that I am not implying a causative effect of temperature and rainfall here, just stating that your claim is not broadly true.

      You also contradict yourself:
      “There is no anthropogenic CO2 caused global warming.”
      “There might be global warming or cooling…”

      I’m finding it hard to see what you’re trying to achieve. Your blog is, frankly, poorly presented, in bad taste, and does not present a coherent argument.

  3. rogerthesurf

    David,

    Sorry about the repeat on my comment.

    I agree with what you say about rain fall as temperatures rise. Like you say, patterns will inevitably change but it is also true that overall preciptation must increase.
    However this is not what the IPCC and other commentaries are asserting.
    For instance read http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=378 where we see phrases such as “Desertification: Climate change and desertification remain inextricably linked” and other assertions along the same lines. The IPCC has been recently criticised for saying “Global warming threatens one third of African and world habitat ” although I cant find the original source of that statement.
    These statements sound very porky like to me.

    I am also puzzled how you can find the statement :
    There is no anthropogenic CO2 caused global warming.”
    “There might be global warming or cooling…”
    a contradiction.

    What I am saying here in essence, is that the world is experiencing some climate change, just that the unproven, (and unproven it will remain) “CO2 causes global warming” hypothesis has nothing to do with it.

    What am I trying to acheive?

    I am trying to show that the panic over global warming, no matter what the cause of the warming, is entirely unjustified, because the planet has been as warm and warmer before IN HISTORICAL TIMES, and there is no reason to suppose that the current warming (or cooling) is any different from previous history.

    And because historically, human kind has prospered during warm periods, I believe that we should embrace the warm weather while it is here and instead of breaking our economies fighting it, we should enjoy the prosperity it is bringing.

    Cheers

    Roger

    • Roger, even if overall rainfall does increase, like I said in my last reply, that doesn’t mean desertification can’t happen on a regional scale. If you read further in that summary, you’ll see that the IPCC aren’t saying that warmer temperatures cause desertification. They are saying the processes are linked – deforestation, for example, can alter regional weather patterns and decrease local rainfall, while releasing CO2 and decreasing carbon sequestration. These aren’t just idle suppositions; read the relevant full chapter of the IPCC report and go to the primary literature cited. It is actually, literally happening in the world, and you saying that it’s a porky doesn’t change the fact that in many countries, desertification IS happening and it IS linked to regional climate.

      I see now that your statements aren’t necessarily contradictory, but want to point out that you don’t seem to have an intellectually honest position on this issue:

      “the unproven, (and unproven it will remain) “CO2 causes global warming” hypothesis has nothing to do with it”

      Scientists, by training, do not talk in terms of certainties when it comes to a hypothesis or theory, because there is always a chance – no matter how slim – that it may be incorrect in either substance or detail. By claiming that AGW is going to remain unproven, you admit that your position cannot be swayed by evidence: no matter what information is offered to you in the future, you will not change your mind. If I’m wrong about this, please explain to me what kind of evidence you would need to see that would convince you AGW is a reality.

      On the final note in your comment, your (unsupported) claim that humanity did well in past warm periods misses the point that now is a different scenario. There was a lot of room to move and follow the ‘best’ climate regions when there were 5 million people planet-wide. 6 billion people spread across the globe, with agriculture already taking up a majority of fertile land and stretched to its limits, gives less room to adapt. I suggest you go have a chat to a farmer in the Murray basin and ask if they like the warmer climate they’ve had over the past 10 years; you’ll probably end up as target practice.

      • rogerthesurf

        David,

        Is my claim that humanity did well in past warm periods unsupported?

        Well put it this way, we do know that after the Roman Warm Period i.e. the middle ages, when it got distinctly cooler, human civilisation and agriculture declined, and then after the Medieval Warm Period during which the known world prospered again, the population of europe declined through starvation, sickness and civil unrest.
        Similar events are recorded in history and research of other parts of the world and cool periods. The references for these events are numerous, If you are really interested I will send you a number.
        There is no doubt that cool periods cause drought, famine and accelerate soil erosion.
        I think your farmer in the Murray Basin should be more concerned about global cooling.

        “please explain to me what kind of evidence you would need to see that would convince you AGW is a reality”

        It is true that the AGW hypothesis is un provable however its credibility would be enhanced if there were no factors disproving it.

        Now some say that we had better take it as proven and reduce CO2 just in case it is correct (And the world is going to burn up) but few have so far recognised the danger from the economic effect of the proposed CO2 reductions and wealth transfers currently being asserted by the IPCC.
        As an economist I believe the CO2 reductions and the transfers of wealth being advocated by the IPCC will have a profoundly negative effect on the world economy. So profound that I would expect starvation and poverty in all countries including our own.
        Now if this was all in aid of preventing the distruction of the planet, maybe it would be worthwhile, but we had BETTER BE DAMN SURE ABOUT IT.

        So to illustrate a good example of how hard it is to prove a hypothesis I suggest you watch the series of videos starting at the one below.

        You may think this is irrelevant but in this factual video, the pilots of the plane adopted a hypotheisis of the problem, their actions and subsequent events seemed to support the hypotheisis, but in the end they were tragically and terribly wrong. Yet at any time they could have discovered the truth.

        We are in that situation with global warming right now. Nothing supports the hypotheisis, a number of facts disprove it.

        Cheers

        Roger

  4. “It is true that the AGW hypothesis is un provable however its credibility would be enhanced if there were no factors disproving it.”

    I see no reason to continue discussing this issue with you, Roger. Unless you’re using some kind of philosophical “nothing can ever be proved completely” ploy (I suspect you aren’t), you have stated that you think AGW is unprovable. You have already dismissed any evidence or arguments I might present, simply because you disagree with them.

    • rogerthesurf

      David,

      I must have missed the evidence you presented.

      Please explain and indicate whatever you have and I will review it.

      You must understand that because we are effectively discussing the credibility of the IPCC it is pointless to quote them or any of their associates.
      If there are scientific facts around they will most certainly be also available and supported by experts who are truely independent in their research.

      Cheers

      Roger

      • Roger, the IPCC reports are like an index to the work of thousands of experts. By dismissing the literally thousands of pages of carefully prepared information, and thousands of painstakingly researched and written scientific articles referenced therein which corroborate the broad hypothesis of climate change, you basically say ‘I don’t like them, so I don’t have to listen to them.’

        I haven’t given you evidence – I asked what kind of evidence you would need to see that would make you believe AGW was happening. It is a good indicator of someone’s intellectual honesty if they can describe a position in which they would change their views. What kind of information would you need to see that would make you change your mind?

  5. rogerthesurf

    David

    Quote from your previous comment.

    “You have already dismissed any evidence or arguments I might present, simply because you disagree with them”

    And by the way I dont see anything wrong with establishing the IPCC’s credibility or otherwise with independent studies. Seems a very sensible thing to do to me.

    Cheers

    Roger

    • You’re tenacious, I’ll give you that!

      What constitutes an independent study? Remember, the IPCC is not actually conducting the science which goes into its reports. At any point, you or anyone else in the world can look at the references for each factual statement – go back to the primary literature, which is generated by people who may or may not be part of the IPCC process (ie, independent research groups).

      The IPCC pulls current knowledge about climate change together. The reason it was established is that climate change research is so vast – there are literally tens of thousands of people actively researching it – that any one person couldn’t be expected to summarise it all.

      I feel like I need to explain the very basics of how science works to you, but I’m afraid you wouldn’t listen!

      Again, I ask you: what would you need to see to convince you AGW is happening?

  6. rogerthesurf

    David,

    Your answer largely lies in my blog. I have identified some of the many things which contradict the hypothesis.
    Adding to that, I have no faith in anyone who attempts to predict the climate, whether it be ones local met office or some climate scientist. They are both dealing with random and uncertain events.
    I dont know about where you are but here the Met office publishes a forecast at about 7:00AM every morning. Invariably inaccurate and then between 11:00AM and 12 noon they will update it to whats actually happening that day. I sail on the sea a lot and I try to rely on that?

    Anyway it appears you ether havent read my blog or you missed the main points.
    Also you haven’t checked out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxiBHNeTG7o&feature=related Admittedly there is a good 60 minutes of viewing there. Its not about climate change, its about the captain of a passenger jet forming a hypothesis when the plane malfunctioned and the poor people who let him believe his mistake even when they knew or strongly suspected that he was wrong.
    This is an attempt to try and illustrate to you what a hypothesis is in real life and the difficulties or simplicity in disproving it and the dangers of relying on experts who are only humans.

    I must also say that petitions like the petition project http://www.petitionproject.org/ have some influence on me although the UN is doing its best to raise other petitions in response.

    Cheers

    Roger

    Cheers

    Roger

    • Roger, I am literally a researching scientist. I understand what a hypothesis in real life, and don’t need to see a video about a plane crash. You suggest that scientists who are experts shouldn’t be trusted on this issue because they are ‘only humans’.

      That’s like saying that a vast majority of pilots worldwide have, for the past 4 or 5 decades, all been flying their planes incorrectly, and colluding to prevent people from correcting their errors. After all, pilots are only human, right?

      Climate is not weather, you are making a false analogy.

      And you still haven’t answered my question: Please outline what evidence you would consider convincing regarding AGW. I am NOT trying to get you to admit that it is taking place, or to change your mind. I want to know what you’d need to see to admit AGW is actually occurring.

      If you don’t include such an explanation in your next post, I will no longer reply to you.

  7. rogerthesurf

    David,

    I have to say that you dont come accross as “literally a research scientist”

    A research scientist has to be humble and ready to investigate from any source.

    Because checking out the things I suggest, appears to be beneath you, we are obviously not going to get anywhere in fact you are sounding like a broken record.

    ” I want to know what you’d need to see to admit AGW is actually occurring.”

    How clearly do I need to put it. We have a hypothesis “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming”.
    Fact: It is unproven.
    What would make me support it?

    Included would be:
    Some facts that appear to support the hypothesis.
    Absence of facts that disprove the hypothesis.
    Absence of facts that do not support the hypothesis.
    Absence of hypebolic statements from such people as Al Gore, the media and the IPCC which are frequently nonsense.
    A lack of scientists who do not support the thesis.
    A lack of silence on the costs (Social and Economic)of actually acheiving the CO2 reductions demanded by the IPCC.
    The absence of apparent hidden agenda of a number of the key players in this scare.
    The absence of the attitude of many “Alarmists” such as yourself in that they refuse to consider any facts which contradict their faith.
    The absence of Cap and Trade proposals which are pointless except to take money from the masses.
    The absence of the proposed diversion of funds through the above and other measures, away from the real needs of this planet.

    Now take my suggestions from my previous comments and you will be able to see some of these things for yourself.

    Cheers

    Roger

  8. First, thanks for replying to my query.

    I apologise that I don’t conform to what your view of a scientist should be. It’s interesting that you claim scientists should be humble, yet you display staggering arrogance suggesting that, for example, the ecologist I heard a presentation from this morning, discussing the impacts of observed climate change on tropical ecosystems in northern Australia, as well as the half dozen or so researchers in the audience who are looking at similar things, are wrong. These are honest, dedicated, well-informed individuals who I know personally and have spent years or decades studying these issues, and you are saying their beliefs are baseless.

    Scientists should be humble, and almost univerally are, in the face of evidence. They do not have to be in the face of public challenge and sustained attacks on their integrity.

    I have read your Blog, seen the Great Global Warming Swindle, and regularly see material blogged or talked about by climate change skeptics. I’m not uninformed of their arguments like you imply.

    Looking at your list of things that would make you support AGW, most are completely unscientific – it appears that you mostly aren’t opposed to the science, you are opposed to the people who talk about it, and the proposals to deal with the problem. Only your first three points are actually relevant from a scientific perspective (and it is far from ‘humble’ of you to claim that there are no facts which support AGW).

    If I was to see compelling evidence that AGW wasn’t happening – for example, that the atmospheric absorbance bands for CO2 and methane were completely saturated already, and that the mean global temperature cooled significantly over a period of decades with no overriding forcing factor stronger than greenhouse – then I would swallow my pride and side with whoever held that position, whether they had a bad ‘attitude’ or not.

    As it is, we have a globe which is warming, a vast majority of non-temperature climate indicators moving in the same direction, rapidly increasing greenhouse gas levels and no other substantial explanation for this rising trend in the known climate mechanisms (solar cycles, etc).

    As I suspected, your opposition to AGW is much deeper than a simple questioning of the science. It seems to stem from a rejection of the attitude of environmentalists, and scientists whose conclusions you don’t like the implications of.

  9. rogerthesurf

    David,

    But I was waiting for a list of unassailable facts supporting the AGW hypothesis from you?.

    Am I missing something here?

    “If I was to see compelling evidence that AGW wasn’t happening – for example, that the atmospheric absorbance bands for CO2 and methane were completely saturated already, and that the mean global temperature cooled significantly over a period of decades with no overriding forcing factor stronger than greenhouse – then I would swallow my pride and side with whoever held that position, whether they had a bad ‘attitude’ or not”

    A hypothesis has to be proven before it is accepted, not the other way around.
    Gosh science would be a tangle if that was not the case.

    I humbly suggest you get your thinking in order.

    Cheers

    Roger

    • While I’ve enjoyed the discussion we’ve had here (in some ways), I haven’t bothered presenting the evidence I find convincing for climate change because I know you will reject it out of hand (you’ve said as much in your posts). Maybe check out skepticalscience.com if you are honestly open to finding out about climate science.

      I am not a climate scientist. I have, however, read the IPCC full reports – significant parts, at least (not so much the mitigation sections) – and find the evidence presented convincing. I’d suggest you check out my most recent blog post (“The Arrogance of Ignorance”) and reflect very carefully why you reject the IPCC and climate scientists in general. While doing so, remember that climate scientists are not an amorphous mass of conspirators; they are each human beings, passionate about their science and, in most cases, of high integrity in their work.

      Again, if you’re honest about wanting to know more about climate science and the evidence for AGW, actually read the whole Working Group 1 report of the IPCC. If you doubt a claim, look at the reference and check up on it. Some people have found errors doing this (none, as far as I’m aware, in WG1 yet). Can you?

  10. rogerthesurf

    David,

    First of all you seem to be implying that I and other people (rapidly becoming a majority) who share similar views do not care about the planet.
    Well you can put that out of your head straight away. We think the planet needs care and nuturing make no doubt about about that. But we also care about humanity. But we see the AGW theory/hoax as drawing away resources need for the well being of the planet into an incomprehensible fight to reduce the friendly gas CO2 and an even stranger solution of cap and trade which does nothing but tax the masses and enrich the few.

    The reason that you have not presented any credible evidence is because either you dont have any, or you are afraid of it being contradicted.

    You havent bothered to even visit my blog where some of mine is laid out.

    You dont know what a hypothesis is and if you read my blog you will see I dont even deny that the climate is changing.

    Your only redeeming thing you show is that you are prepared to sort of discuss this instead of simply spamming anything that you disagree with.

    Cheers

    Roger

    • Roger, this will probably be my last post in our exchange. I must say, I’ve been using it as a bit of a sociology experiment more than anything.

      I have visited your blog. I was unimpressed by the collection of statements you’ve put together; a collection of personal attacks, ridicule and cherrypicked and poorly substantiated ‘evidence’.

      I don’t have evidence which I have gathered personally (obviously); I directed you to the leading organisation on climate change for the past 20 or so years, who index (NOT create) the state of the art research. It’s your fault, not mine, that you dismiss them as a credible source, and by association, the bulk of scientific literature about the issue. Have you read the IPCC WG1 report? In full? If not, why not? Do you not read evidence if you dislike the source?

      I clearly understand what a hypothesis is; on Tuesday, I had a meeting with my research supervisors in which I outlined no less than 6 hypotheses I’d come up with, experimentally tested and rejected in dealing with an inconsistency I’d come across in my research. I’m fortunate enough to be in a research area where I CAN look for simple solutions to simple problems.

      You’re telling me (a practicing, qualified scientist) that you know what science is and I don’t. I hate to appeal to education on this one, but… really?

      It’s been interesting talking with you, Roger. I genuinely hope you’re right on this issue, but the weight of evidence suggests otherwise.

  11. rogerthesurf

    David,

    “If I was to see compelling evidence that AGW wasn’t happening – for example, that the atmospheric absorbance bands for CO2 and methane were completely saturated already, and that the mean global temperature cooled significantly over a period of decades with no overriding forcing factor stronger than greenhouse – then I would swallow my pride and side with whoever held that position, whether they had a bad ‘attitude’ or not”

    Frankly I dont care who you are but you seem to have jumped onto an unproven hypothesis as if it was fact and claim, (although you refuse to discuss), that you would abandon your belief if some proof appeared that demolished it completely.

    I dont care who you work for, if you think AGW is a fact you are hardly a scientist. There are a number of facts that may suggest AGW, but they may just as easily be coincidences. There are a number of facts that disprove AGW and these cannot be coincidences.

    If you were honest with AGW you should be running around to check out anything that disproves the hypothesis in case it is fact, because every scientists and intelligent lay person knows that the AGW hypothesis is unprovable.

    As for using me as a social experiment, you dont even know who you are talking to.

    “I have visited your blog. I was unimpressed by the collection of statements you’ve put together; a collection of personal attacks, ridicule and cherrypicked and poorly substantiated ‘evidence’”

    So you visited my blog? Where are the personal attacks of anyone apart from politicians? Where has a fact not been properly referenced?
    Where is your comment that refutes any of the sources?

    Bless you and your new religion.

    Cheers

    Roger

    • So, I’ll take that to mean you haven’t read the IPCC working group 1 report and references therein.

      Hope you have a great life, Roger!

  12. rogerthesurf

    David,

    Although I do not mean to make a personal attack, I dont believe you know much about science at all. If you had taken the time to study IPCC WG1, I presume you mean AR4, you would find that it does not deal with the basic disproving of the hypothesis as dealt with in my blog. In fact it is all based on the assumption that the hypothesis is fact, or near enough that it dosnt matter.
    Of course it would help if you actually read the blog and discussed the points therein.

    Dont bother replying any more unless you are prepared to discuss the points in my blog at http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
    Our conversation is proof enough that you are simply an alarmist, and you have shown already that you are not prepared to discuss anything reasonably in spite of my efforts to encourage you – so a fair conclusion is that YOU will not listen to reason under any circumstances.

    I certainly will not reply to you again unless you are ready for a reasonable discussion, starting off with some research on your part on the definition of a hypothesis and some explaination why previous warm periods on this planet are irrelevant.

    Cheers

    Roger

  13. Pingback: Halfway through March Madness « David Robertson

  14. rogerthesurf

    “also had a (now ended) tangle with a climate change denier unbeliever, in which I refrained from arguing on the climate science ”

    Those are really your words right?

    You know one hears the same terms “denier” and “unbeliever” from Islamic extremists.

    Perhaps the difference between me and you is that I deal in facts and you are dealing with faith.

    What ever you believe about AGW, faith will get you nowhere and you I serious suggest that you need to examine your own mind about whether your “faith” is causing you to think logically or irrationally.
    Cheers

    Roger

  15. David, perhaps you could lend your views on the Dunning-Kruger Effect, after your tussle with Roger? You extracted yourself nicely, I thought.

    Do you think he spelled “surf” correctly in his handle?

  16. Bush bunny

    Well Ed Darrell wishes to compare Green houses, you know the ones you grow in gardens, to the real Greenhouse effect in our planets atmosphere.

    David I would advise you to read the website

    http://green-agenda.com/index.html.

    Maybe you will then start to understand so called skeptics point of view?

    Ignoring the Medieval Warm Period and the following Mini Ice Age from the equation is not scientific. Of course during the last 160 years
    the planet has warmed again but temps are no
    warmer than during the period of the MWP from
    800 – 1350 AD. Only 1 C anyway. Big Deal!

    I’ve studied this at UNI and have a BA degree in the science of Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology that included units studying palaeo climates to monitor the advance of Homo sapiens and their adaptations to climate change.

    I am presently completing three years studying
    Organic Agricultural production.

    Yours and others, such as James Hansen, Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stephen Schneider (the latter who in the mid 1970s was claiming another ice age was imminent).

    Well I believe this is more likely than uncontrollable warming due to AGW. When CO2
    doesn’t drive the climate anyway!

    And the prime architect of AGW Al Gore is an investor in clean energy and CCTS.

    Without including the MWP and Mini Ice Age to compare with modern day temps (excluding the
    Michael Mann hockey stick!) you will have to
    agree that the globe is cooling again. Even though with human CO2 emissions from urban areas has increased. Pollution yes – climate change NO! You can not plot temps to prove AGW
    without including the MWP and the MIA!

    Also how can you explain why four planets/moons
    are also warming for now in our solar system?

    As far as I know, no humans inhabit them? LOL

    The UN IPCC reports are faulty, they are socially
    and politically inspired, and their scientific reports manipulated and faulty. The solutions will deprive
    developed and democratic countries in favor of a global governance that seeks financial wealth redistribution.

    If you wish to support them fine. But in my estimation you are supporting one of the greatest scams and cons perpetrated onto humanity.

    The AGW science so to speak is faulty and manipulated, and those that are geared to benefit
    are the Carbon traders and clean energy investors! Luckily their investments expecting a Copenhagen treaty to be delivered, are plummeting badly, including Uranium investments.

    Will you be willing to be one day be proven to be guilty by association to one of the greatest crimes against humanity? Think carefully, eh?

    Do you know that skeptics are being threatened
    by green groups that are telling them
    “We know where you live?”

    • Bush bunny, I’ve seen you cheerleading over at Roger’s blog. Your worldview is twisted will past the point that I can imagine *anything* I say having any influence on how you see things. At least Roger is willing to engage, to some extent, in dialogue.

      Your ridiculous comments, such as about 4 warming planets and moons (out of, oh, 200 or so), and repetition of tired conspiracy theories bear this out. It’s even more hilarious that you mock Ed for comparing backyard greenhouses and the globe, when that is an excellent comparison to make.

      So I’m not going to argue with you. Please don’t post here again.

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: