Bishop Hill Intelligence squared debate on scaremongering
Feb 17, 2010 Climate This looks interesting: a debate on global warming scaremongering at Wellington College (a very posh school, if you are an overseas reader), which will take place on Sunday.
They told us the polar bears were going to drown; they told us the Himalayan glaciers were going to melt by the year 2035. Now we learn both claims are untrue. They assured us they were engaged in unbiased science. And then we read their emails and found that they'd deliberately suppressed inconvenient facts. What are we to make of these disclosures? Are they just minor scratches on the solid structure of climate change theory, or are they emblematic of something far more troubling? Can we still trust the climate change experts or have they been guilty of exaggerating the threat in order to draw attention to their cause?
The speakers are David Davis MP and Prof Philip Stott versus Mark Lynas and David Aaronovitch.
Reader Comments (26)
If Mark Lynas is there, expect lies and a punch-up.
OT: British residents and citizens, please sign the petition, to ask Gordon Brown to stop calling skeptics as "deniers" -
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Deniers/
note the only scientist is on the pro-side.
That's a great lineup. And very interesting that David Davis is coming off the fence to this extent. Not that that would have anything to do with mixed feelings about David Cameron having beaten him to the Tory leadership and then having (very foolishly) nailed his and his party's colours so unreservedly to the AGW mast.
Gordon Brown will try to use this 'division' within the Tories to win the election this year. That's an obvious fact. But Davis is quite right to make it a public issue at this time. What an interesting year we're having!
This is a petition to the US Environmental Protection Agency from Peabody Energy Company.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/no_legal_option.pdf
They are quoting like crazy from the Climategate e-mails, complete with references.
This is a good guide to following the scaremongering that has been rpomulgated.
I wish I could be there. There is an option at the website to vote on the motion.
The list of low Green propaganda tricks is impressive (impressive how they get away with it) & goes well beyond sweet-looking polar bears:
# famously, the use of word 'deniers';
# use of the word 'carbon' rather than carbon dioxide: the first is black powdery or gooey, sticks in your lungs. The second is invisible plant food;
# all AGW stories on the BBC, Guardian, Indy accompanied by scenes of plumes of smoke bellowing from factory chimneys. Whatever you're seeing aint carbon dioxide (invisible):
# my pet hate, the degrading of the words 'sceptic', 'scepticism'. Science is by definition organised scepticism, it's "highest duty" (Thomas Huxley).
Stott's great. (Let's hope they have accidentally booked Peter Stott!!)
Oops. Sorry. That should read:
Stott's great. (Let's hope they HAVEN'T accidentally booked Peter Stott!!)
"Great lineup"
I agree, not least because David Aaronovich will tie himself in knots with his lack of technical knowledge and Mark Lynas will probably explode! Anthony Seldon should be good in the chair. Too much to hope it will be broadcast, I suppose...
I think I finally understand why Obama is pushing so hard for carbon trading in the US. Obama was one of the persons responsible for the creation of the Chicago Climate Exchange, along with other people like Al Gore and Maurice Strong (involved in UN Oil-for-food scandal). Obama is pushing for a carbon trading bill in the United States because he stands to makes millions if not billions of dollars from this scam, trading in carbon credits (a made-up solution for a non-existent problem). Note how Obama is using the EPA to force through his carbon controlling agenda, even while the carbon trading bill has been stopped for now in the US congress.
I think Obama wants to become the first black man who is WEALTHY. Obama wants to be the first black Bill Gates. I mean, let's face it, there are no wealthy black people in the world. There are rich black people like Oprah Winfrey, but she's not WEALTHY in the way that Bill Gates or the Rockefeller family is WEALTHY. Maybe Obama thinks by being WEALTHY, he can make a real difference for black people in the world. Maybe he thinks he can become the first black Rockefeller or Bill Gates, and have huge influence on the world. And his best chance to amass this wealth is through this carbon credit trading scam, which will make the subprime crisis look like peanuts in comparison once it all unravels 20-30 years in the future.
Meanwhile, Obama can also scare the masses and control them by blaming CO2 (a harmless gas that plants need for photosynthesis) for being the cause behind global warming. Obama: "CO2 bad, therefore government must take control of CO2 and regulate all CO2-related concerns" -- meaning EVERYTHING. Meaning that Obama can control EVERYONE by being in charge of who can use energy and how much energy they can use. If this is not Big Brother, than I don't know what is. 1984 was off by about 30 years. Let's see how things turn out in 2014.
In a country like the UK (which no longer has natural resources or manufacturing capability), the only main way for them to make money and stay relevant to the world at large today is to be a player in the various world financial markets. Because the carbon market is expected to be worth trillions in the next 10-20 years, this why Gordon Brown is pushing hard for global carbon trading exchanges, as he wants the UK to get in early and be a player in this market.
As usual, the middle class will end up paying for all of this while a handful of politicians and bankers become megarich. Consider the subprime mess recently where all the greedy banks who caused the crisis were bailed out with taxpayer cash, and still the bank execs were given huge bonuses using the taxpayer's money.
With the advent of The Internet, it will be harder than ever for the elitist in power to hoodwink the masses, but do not underestimate the influence that these corrupt elitists hold. Look at how they have managed to shut up the mainstream media in regards to the unraveling global warming scam. They may one day find a way to control The Internet, so we all need to be wary. Remember that Al Gore is on the board of advisors for Google. Once we lose The Internet, we will lose our freedom.
A special note on Al Gore: Al Gore is behaving like a jilted lover who wants revenge. Al Gore: "OK, you didn't want me as your POTUS, so I'll scam the whole world with my global warming scare. And I'll make billions of dollars while I'm at it. You'll see. I'll have the last laugh. I'LL SHOW YOU." The thing is, even the people in his own state didn't vote for him because they know that he is a liar and hypocrite of the highest level. He keeps warning people that mega waves will engulf the coasts of the US; meanwhile he is happily buying and keeping beachfront property. He is such a liar to the extent that he even photoshopped non-existent hurricanes unto his latest book cover. His academy-award winning documentary has been legally declared in the UK to have nine glaring factual errors that mislead people about global warming. Companies that he is involved in regularly get huge million-dollar grants from the federal government, related to his global warming scare. He is a partner in the company behind the Chicago Climate Exchange, which stands to make trillions of dollars in carbon-trading commissions. How is it that some people still believe this charlatan and want to shake his hand?
Be wary of the ravenous wolves in sheeps clothing.
The VOTE button doesn't prevent multiples. FAIL!
Toward Paul Z.
Condi Rice joined C3 to my surprise, but now the C3 website seems to be 404. Maybe they are getting out of the business while they can...
Story here.
Toward Brownedoff's comments...
That Petition to the EPA was interesting.
However, doesn't somebody need to petition the U.S. Supreme Court before they can petition the EPA based on the April 2007 Supreme Court decision? The Court decision is based on IPCC AR4 among other propaganda. More about it.
@Paul Z: As much as I disagree with Obama's policies, I am sure that Obama does things for reasons other than because he is black and wants to help black people
I can not imagine you would say that Bill Clinton or George W. Bush - or Gordon Brown who you actually mention - chose a policy because they were white, or because they wanted to help white people.
There are also several plain factual errors in your post. Including:
- There are several black billionaires (among the 793 or so billionaires in the world) - although admittedly none as rich as Bill Gates
- Although financial services have been an important part of the UK economy -- since the mid-19th century they've helped keep the UK's balance of payments in check -- it's wrong to say the UK has no resources, manufacturing or other industries. The UK's economy is about <1% agriculture, 25% industry/manufacturing, 75% all services, and out of that all services only around 1/4 is the financial services and banking industry. The figures vary somewhat year to year and depending on source, but that's the ballpark.
@Kevin: Why do you direct a comment about Condi Rice (who doesn't seem to be mentioned in any previous part of this thread) to Paul Z? What connection are you suggesting between Condi Rice and Obama?
Paul Z, you appear to be a prejudiced extremist and I don't think your comments are very constructive.
Gentlemen
I concur with josh and others. This is way off topic. Can we get back to discussing the debate please. Thanks.
The one thing this whole debacle has clearly demonstrated, to this layman at least, is that "climate change experts" are mythical creatures.
Ticket booked, will report post event.
@josh and others: So I have an opinion. That makes me a "prejudiced extremist"? Why not go all out and simply call me a climate denier akin to holocaust deniers and nazi fascists.
Look at the facts. If I'm wrong, than great. But investigate the facts before treating me the way the alarmists have been treating the skeptics. And for those of you sensitive about race issues, go watch some Chris Rock and stop being so politically correct.
@AWatcher
I wasn't suggesting a link between Obama and Rice, I was suggesting that things are not one-sided or black and white when it comes to CO2 trading or making a profit on CO2 emission management/auditing.
Maybe I should have been more expressive of my position. I was mildly countering Paul Z.
I heard the IQ-squared debate "Is global warming a crisis" in 2007 and Stott performed admirably - just ask Gaviin. I think this will be a really interesting debate. Stott is going to bury them.
I hope Wellington put this on Youtube! Top marks to the person who said there are no climate change experts, that is very true. Climate science is not even in its infancy, what controls the earth's climate is a mystery. There are no experts at all.
Pity arch climate alarmist Mobiot is not involved in the debate. Has anyone noticed he has gone quiet on all things climactic of late ? A flurry of blogs in December but nothing as the IPCC claims are proved to be speculative nonsense and the general AGW arguement disintegrates in the media spotlite.
I wrote a letter to the Times regarding the recent Lynas article here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7000829.ece. Needless to say it didn't get published - I was very polite - honest !! Next time I respond I will sign it Sir Bufton Tufton as it seems only these contributions get printed.
Old Slaughter attended the debate and will post on it shortly. Mark Lynas was a disgrace as predicted, David Aaronvitch was as brilliant as ever.