Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Unthreaded

Nov 9, 2011 at 1:24 PM | matthu


Uh uh uh now - the classic avoidance technique - answer a question with a question to try and change the subject.

It's pretty simple, you've made an outrageous claim which I am fairly certain is incorrect. Namely, that "Talk of a near universal consensus in eistence today is poppycock". I've called you on it, and asked for evidence of this amongst climate scientists.

I'm guessing you haven't a shred of evidence - have you?

Nov 9, 2011 at 1:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

zed - can you remind me what the so-called consensus actually says?

Does it agree that catastrophic climate cange is just around the corner? Or is that something tacked onto the end of what the consensus has actually agreed : that some of teh current warming may be due to anthropogenic causes.

Nov 9, 2011 at 1:24 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

Got a new hobby

Troll baiting !!!!!!!!

Nov 9, 2011 at 1:18 PM | Unregistered Commenterbreath of fresh air

Nov 9, 2011 at 1:05 PM | breath of fresh air

Not actually able to come up with anything wrong with the IEA report then? No surprises there.....

Nov 9, 2011 at 1:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

Bankrupt EU (all except the Germans who have their hands in their pockets LOL) is blackmailed by China to keep AGW offset subsidy flowing even though subsidy is 70 times more than the cost.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/09/green-group-china-climate-blackmail

Nov 9, 2011 at 1:05 PM | Unregistered Commenterbreath of fresh air

Oh Zed, you're back! We had nobody to laugh at for a while.

Nov 9, 2011 at 12:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

"They've belived it for decades - and presumably nothing has been discovered, no evolving events have transpired to shake that belief one iota.
Only religious zealots remain as steadfastedly convinced as all that. Talk of a near universal consensus in eistence today is poppycock."
Nov 9, 2011 at 12:17 PM | matthu

I'm sure plenty of things have made them check, doubt, recheck, query and re-evaluate. The outcome has been the same each time, the theory is robust and correct. The other thing that tends to keep one believing something is right, is y'know, if you are, and that's what all the evidence says.

This 'religion' accusation is a classic attempt to dismiss climate science without addressing it. It's a silly diversion.

And as for your claims about climate science not having universal consensus, do you actually have any evidence at all for that - my betting is that you don't. In which case, your comment is just empty words.

Nov 9, 2011 at 12:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

They've belived it for decades - and presumably nothing has been discovered, no evolving events have transpired to shake that belief one iota.

Only religious zealots remain as steadfastedly convinced as all that. Talk of a near universal consensus in eistence today is poppycock.

Nov 9, 2011 at 12:17 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

"First of all the climate scientists themselves do not believe this rubbish."
Nov 9, 2011 at 11:57 AM | Mike Jackson

Mike - they do. They've believed it for decades, as they have been doing the research, and this is what they've been finding. That's why there is near universal consensus. You have no evidence to support your outlandish comment that climate scientists don't believe this, as it's simply untrue.

Your 'it's all rubbish because I have some trifling grumble about the timing' in no way addresses the contents of the report. It just seems like you finding a daft way to try and dismiss it all out of hand.

Nov 9, 2011 at 12:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

Zed
It's a bit difficult to know where to start really.
First of all the climate scientists themselves do not believe this rubbish. It's a scare story like so many others that appear — oh, quite coincidentally of course — just ahead of the regular IPCC wingdings in far-flung places where it's usually nice and warm and we can let our hair down a bit for a couple of days.
If this had been published six months ago or in three months time, I just might, but probably wouldn't, have given it a bit of credence. The timing says it all.
I'm not sure which bit of this piece of scaremongering you are actually choosing to believe. If you'd been following the debate across a number of sites of varying persuasions, as opposed to dipping in and out here when it suits just to make trouble, you would be aware that there are a number of hypotheses around, backed up what I believe to be pretty good — or at least credible — scientific research which argue very strongly against this now rather tedious repetition of "10 Days to Save the World" or variations thereon.

Nov 9, 2011 at 11:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>