What The Guardian first printed and then deleted. I saw this comment just after mine. Now it isn't there. THE CENSORSHIP by the Guardian really makes them deniers, doesn't it?
In his usual abusive and ad hominem style, Georgie Moonbat has an article in the Guardian under the heading: "Are the climate change deniers with no evidence just naturally gullible?". Piers Corbyn put up a reply in their comments section which the paper deleted. The comment is below:
George, YOUR "poser" must be applied to yourself!
You ask: "Are people who entertain a range of strong beliefs for which there is no evidence naturally gullible?".
Well you are a person with a strong belief in man-made(CO2) Global Warming / Climate Change, and there is no evidence for it. So are you naturally gullible?
If you have observational data evidence for the theory - using available data for the last hundreds, thousands and millions of years - let's have it. We don't want your usual opinion-polls, bluster, innuendo and opinion of peoples' attitudes, vibes and mental states we want EVIDENCE-BASED SCIENCE.
There are three key points which must be be understood:
1. The theory of Man-made Global Warming & Climate Change is failed science based on fraudulent data. IT JUST DOESN'T ADD UP!
All the dire predictions of the UN (IPCC) since 2000 have failed. CO2 does not cause extreme weather. The world is cooling not warming. There is no evidence in 600, 600,000 or 600million years of data that changes in CO2 levels in the real atmosphere drive world temperatures or change climate; indeed it is temperatures which generally drive CO2 levels. - See http://bit.ly/9UKlBD . Extra CO2 has ZERO effect, and any concession to the notion there is somehow some 'weak' effect waiting to happen falls into the trap the Climate hype industry machine has set for the ill-informed and the usual Appeasement brigades who surface in all political conflicts.
2. The driver of all important weather extremes is solar activity.
In the end it is extreme weather that matters rather than averages and this is controlled by Jet stream shifts and extra activity of weather fronts, and These are driven by changes in solar activity and largely predictable – See ongoing discussion in Comments as link above, http://bit.ly/bpZDlp - espec comment Aug 8th concerning predicted changes in the jet stream + records of the solar activity that caused them.
3. MORE CO2 is GOOD not bad.
CO2 is plant food and more CO2 increases the productivity of agriculture. Carbon fixing policies are madness which if carried out in the name of ‘Clean coal’
[NB Smoke from coal is easily removed and should be, but that is another issue]
would double the cost of electricity and double the amount of coal used to produce power because carbon fixing (‘sequestration’) is very energy intensive.
Showing posts with label UK Guardian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UK Guardian. Show all posts
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
UK Guardian - So Right and yet So Wrong
The UK Guardian praises Sceptics. What you say? I repeat, the UK Guardian praises Sceptics.
Scepticism is a healthy attitude to adopt to many, if not all, untested propositions. Sceptics throughout history, by applying their reasoned judgment and hard-headed critical faculties, have exposed lies, delusions and superstition.
Well, that's right. We have looked at the flawed hypothesis that man-made CO2 emissions are causing runaway global warming, picked at it, looked at both sides of the argument and found it wanting.
So, does the Guardian agree with us? No.
"Which is why scepticism is entirely the wrong word to apply to those who deny that emissions of carbon dioxide from human activity are leading to rises in average global temperatures, with potentially disastrous consequences. True sceptics respond to evidence."
Then the Guardian goes on to say:
"Research, led by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, drew on data from 11 possible indicators of climate and found that each one suggested warming consistent with expected effects of rising concentrations of greenhouse gases."
Call me a Sceptic and I may be wrong, but, reading the report three times through, I didn't see any mention of "rising concentrations of greenhouse gases." I did see mention of the el Nino/La Nina as a cause.
But CAN WE BELIEVE THE REPORT?
Well, if we look to both Jo Nova and the SPPI we find a different story.
Joanne Nova says: "As usual, the official taxpayer-funded report is full of half-truths and strawmen. Arctic sea ice is shrinking (no mention of the Antarctic), the world is undeniably warming (yes, so? what’s causing that warming?). There’s the compulsory allusions to “consensus” — 300 scientists, blah blah blah (trust us! we’re experts).
The interesting thing is that the seven different responses are all quite different, yet all skeptical, even though there was no coordination behind the scenes to create that. There are so many holes in the NOAA document, that seven commentators could fire ad lib, and for the most part, all find different targets."
From the SPPI report, we find:
Craig Idso: NOAA is rewriting history.... The Vikings were never forced out of Greenland due to the nasty cold spell called the Little Ice Age.
Dennis Ambler: Are sea-level rises accelerating? No sir.
David Evans: 250 years of warming but not so not much lately
Plus Lord Monckton, Joe D'Aleo and Chip Knappenberger.
So Guardian Editors, Seven critiques of the NOAA report. Seven examples of Reasond judgment and hard-headed critical faculties. And where did we come in?
Scepticism is a healthy attitude to adopt to many, if not all, untested propositions. Sceptics throughout history, by applying their reasoned judgment and hard-headed critical faculties, have exposed lies, delusions and superstition.
Scepticism is a healthy attitude to adopt to many, if not all, untested propositions. Sceptics throughout history, by applying their reasoned judgment and hard-headed critical faculties, have exposed lies, delusions and superstition.
Well, that's right. We have looked at the flawed hypothesis that man-made CO2 emissions are causing runaway global warming, picked at it, looked at both sides of the argument and found it wanting.
So, does the Guardian agree with us? No.
"Which is why scepticism is entirely the wrong word to apply to those who deny that emissions of carbon dioxide from human activity are leading to rises in average global temperatures, with potentially disastrous consequences. True sceptics respond to evidence."
Then the Guardian goes on to say:
"Research, led by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, drew on data from 11 possible indicators of climate and found that each one suggested warming consistent with expected effects of rising concentrations of greenhouse gases."
Call me a Sceptic and I may be wrong, but, reading the report three times through, I didn't see any mention of "rising concentrations of greenhouse gases." I did see mention of the el Nino/La Nina as a cause.
But CAN WE BELIEVE THE REPORT?
Well, if we look to both Jo Nova and the SPPI we find a different story.
Joanne Nova says: "As usual, the official taxpayer-funded report is full of half-truths and strawmen. Arctic sea ice is shrinking (no mention of the Antarctic), the world is undeniably warming (yes, so? what’s causing that warming?). There’s the compulsory allusions to “consensus” — 300 scientists, blah blah blah (trust us! we’re experts).
The interesting thing is that the seven different responses are all quite different, yet all skeptical, even though there was no coordination behind the scenes to create that. There are so many holes in the NOAA document, that seven commentators could fire ad lib, and for the most part, all find different targets."
From the SPPI report, we find:
Craig Idso: NOAA is rewriting history.... The Vikings were never forced out of Greenland due to the nasty cold spell called the Little Ice Age.
Dennis Ambler: Are sea-level rises accelerating? No sir.
David Evans: 250 years of warming but not so not much lately
Plus Lord Monckton, Joe D'Aleo and Chip Knappenberger.
So Guardian Editors, Seven critiques of the NOAA report. Seven examples of Reasond judgment and hard-headed critical faculties. And where did we come in?
Scepticism is a healthy attitude to adopt to many, if not all, untested propositions. Sceptics throughout history, by applying their reasoned judgment and hard-headed critical faculties, have exposed lies, delusions and superstition.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
AGW - The semantics of denial
On George Monbiot's blog on the UK Guardian Web site:
They claim they're sceptics – but when any explanation will do as long as it backs their theories, 'climate change deniers' is the only term good enough......I use the term deniers not because I am seeking to make a link with the Holocaust, but because I can't think what else to call them. They describe themselves as sceptics, but this is plainly wrong, as they will believe any old rubbish that suits their cause.
Well, George, you are wrong, sorry but you are.
The deniers are the promoters of AGW. Science has moved on. They have had twenty years and spent trillions trying to show that CO2 causes global warming and have not yet done so. (Because they cannot!)
They have denied the fact that ice core studies show that a rise in global temperature CAUSES a rises in atmospheric CO2 and not the other way around. They say that warming will cause all kinds of gloom and doom; denying the historic proof that warming during the MWP was beneficial to mankind; great wealth in Europe; farming in Greenland where the now is permafrost etc etc..
So, George, you see, we are not the deniers, they are! THEY will believe any old rubbish that suits their cause.
They claim they're sceptics – but when any explanation will do as long as it backs their theories, 'climate change deniers' is the only term good enough......I use the term deniers not because I am seeking to make a link with the Holocaust, but because I can't think what else to call them. They describe themselves as sceptics, but this is plainly wrong, as they will believe any old rubbish that suits their cause.
Well, George, you are wrong, sorry but you are.
The deniers are the promoters of AGW. Science has moved on. They have had twenty years and spent trillions trying to show that CO2 causes global warming and have not yet done so. (Because they cannot!)
They have denied the fact that ice core studies show that a rise in global temperature CAUSES a rises in atmospheric CO2 and not the other way around. They say that warming will cause all kinds of gloom and doom; denying the historic proof that warming during the MWP was beneficial to mankind; great wealth in Europe; farming in Greenland where the now is permafrost etc etc..
So, George, you see, we are not the deniers, they are! THEY will believe any old rubbish that suits their cause.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)