Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

noggin

A growing groundswell of opinion?

Recommended Posts

Maybe we are seeing the first economic cost of global climate change in grain prices more or less doubling this last 3 months. Reduced yields due to drought in Australia and other areas(also flooding) being one of the main price drivers. Meanwhile set aside is being scrapped in Europe to increase production this coming year to try and build up grain stocks as there are no grain mountains left with carryover stocks at their lowest level for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe we are seeing the first economic cost of global climate change in grain prices more or less doubling this last 3 months. Reduced yields due to drought in Australia and other areas(also flooding) being one of the main price drivers. Meanwhile set aside is being scrapped in Europe to increase production this coming year to try and build up grain stocks as there are no grain mountains left with carryover stocks at their lowest level for years.

As you say, there are other factors at play as well, and the drought in Australia will not, I'm fairly sure, have been the primary factor - conversion to crop for biofuel seems to be the main culprit, though in a roundabout way this is still AGW at work: so much for the public losing interest?

As with oil, rising prices will tempt farmers to recrop next year. One big upside of farming is that decisions can be changed dramatically and annually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conversion to ethanol is certainly another factor, as are rising oil and gas prices. Commodity prices in general are raising the costs of pretty much everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I tend to agree with C.

But rather than blame the individual I do believe it is the fault of the government (past and present) for continually disenfranchising the individual out of any meaningful process of decision making. The simple result of that is apathy, cynicism and despondency which all in the long term lead to the same effects C expresses.

It is not the responsibility of Government to ensure 'the masses', or YOU, or anyone of us, are 'informed'.

Hell, if I had that attitude, I'd still believe that the world currency systems are 'stable' and that the dollar isn't about to become worthless by 2010. Unlike the ignorant masses, I 'think' about an issue, rather than just blindly believing whatever the Daily Mail happens to tout.

--

I hold to my view that soon enough, once we get a reasonably cold winter (and this time there will be significant nationwide power cuts as the grid will no longer be able to cope), the masses - lead by the hysterical media, will really get into slating those suggesting the climate is moving to a drastically warmer state.

The 'groundswell' is indeed growing, but like in many other issues, no point in hoping the ignorant masses will ever think for themselves.

Calrissian: his arrogance comes from a sense of knowing he is....correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Calrissian: his arrogance comes from a sense of knowing he is....correct.

Laserguy: His conviction comes from absolute knowledge of being correct,tempered with tact. To believe the Daily Mail you'd have to read it. Why d'ya do that,C?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Each and every person is entitled to their view it is of equal importance to that held by anyone else in my opinion. The way in which most things are achieved is on a consensus and with a relatively new platform such as climate change any consensus which AGW supporters thought they may have been building is now running in the opposite direction. Ignorance in society exists but diminishes with education, however we face a situation where coverage of the subject is turning the once enlightened into some form of swamp being. Or could it be that once educated the newly enlightened are simply taking an alternative view to the one they are suppose to have. I really don't think you get this Mr C the more you educate the more join the otherside, one day you will have to ask yourself why that is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Laserguy: His conviction comes from absolute knowledge of being correct,tempered with tact. To believe the Daily Mail you'd have to read it. Why d'ya do that,C?

LG, you might want to re-read more carefully what he wrote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LG, you might want to re-read more carefully what he wrote.

Nah don't need to,Strat! I read it right first time. Don't take my comment too seriously,t'was only a justly appropriate response to 'C's taunting and provocative sign off. Besides, it was only recently that your good self and me concurred entirely that all it would take for the whole global warming thing to implode in the eyes of 'Joe Public' would be one notably cold winter, so having said exactly the same thing himself,perhaps it's Mr 'C' who needs to pay attention! Besides,in the event of a really cold winter the media won't slate those who say global warming is still ongoing,they'll blame it on global warming! "Here comes the worst ice age since time began - it's all 'cos of global warming,y'know"! ( The Daily Smear, Jan 2008 ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly agree with Calrissian (both tome and content). Insofar as the 'Mail' is concerned I swing between finding it funny and finding it down right irresponsible! I had the misfortune of reading their 'Q and A's' on H5N1 yesterday.....though probably 'loosely true' they are vacuously reassuring about a subject that is very important.

I'd love to write for them as I suspect they are having such a jolly jape with the majority of their readership (who are not truely personally 'equipped' enough to suss the joke is on them!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is not the responsibility of Government to ensure 'the masses', or YOU, or anyone of us, are 'informed'.

Hell, if I had that attitude, I'd still believe that the world currency systems are 'stable' and that the dollar isn't about to become worthless by 2010. Unlike the ignorant masses, I 'think' about an issue, rather than just blindly believing whatever the Daily Mail happens to tout.

--

I hold to my view that soon enough, once we get a reasonably cold winter (and this time there will be significant nationwide power cuts as the grid will no longer be able to cope), the masses - lead by the hysterical media, will really get into slating those suggesting the climate is moving to a drastically warmer state.

The 'groundswell' is indeed growing, but like in many other issues, no point in hoping the ignorant masses will ever think for themselves.

Calrissian: his arrogance comes from a sense of knowing he is....correct.

The grid (i.e. the transmission network) can cope, generation might be an issue, however there were concerns a couple of years ago arising from NETA, and my understanding is that there is now more resilience in supply.

Your point about short-termism confusing weather and climate is well made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C / SF

I really cannot quite believe the view that everyone who does not fully subscribe to the AGW theory is ignorant or some kind of peasant. It seems that staunch supporters seem to be backing themselves into a corner alienating more and more everyday folk with each sentence spoken. If it carries on like this the IPCC and its supporters will be holding their annual meetings in a phone box just outside Slough.

I am amazed that some of you just don't get this at all, simply being right is all you care about the Earth can fry as long as you can sit and say told you so! C / SF etc you are having a negative effect on this argument, are you double agents because you are doing a really good job of sabotage.

You certainly know how to send the neutrals over to the otherside :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem! I'd align myself happily with Calrissian,Strat ,IPCC and the current Inter Governmental Panel on climate change. Though U.S. fought long and hard (in their Filibustering way) to change the wording (again) they have to accept a greater than 90% (bigger than the IPCC statement) probability of mans impact on global temps, that the change of sudden temp 'leaps' is on the cards and that the changes are irriversable (when you're extinct you're extinct).

The deniers have blocked any chance of saving the planet by 'muddying the waters' for the 20 odd years (and removing any chance of global action by measures not being ratified) when it was possible to slow/stop our impacts of our actions. You now have the audacity to say that the folk who have watched our chances slip away and are now at the point of saying " let 'em all fry" are out of order? Behave!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not talking about deniers, I am talking about the 70% of people who occupy the centre ground here, all hearts and minds to be won. You will not persuade them by beating them with sticks or calling them ignorant and part of the problem. Now GW and SF etc, this is not an attempt to say your views on AGW are wrong I simply don't know I belong to the 70% of ignorant folk you speak of, having done my best to gain knowledge and see through the mud of both sides I am still not totally convinced by many aspects of some IPCC views.

Much of the science and research in the hands of the IPCC is good and done in good faith, the results and statements then made are emotive and veer from what can called be called accurate. It is this plus government hijacking which is causing so many to back away from supporting the issue. Simply statements such as 'We can reverse of stop climate change' are not the result of science which does not know the answer to these questions. We may want to try but the outcome is unknown, we simply do not know how much natural factors come into play and whether taking out X amount of CO2 will have the same effect in reverse?

For me and I am sure many others honesty equals credibility, if untruths are told then you do give the deniers ammunition to muddy the waters. You do have to look at social and economics factors, as human's are your only source of a cure therefore you cannot ignore them or their needs. Yes the west enjoys its excesses which needs to stop but that takes education over a period of decades not shoving sticks up their bums because they are likely to revolt. There are many aspects of GW which would actually be good for the UK economy, and people do know this they are not as stupid as you would have us believe, although they maybe selfish I grant you. On top of these factors it needs to be remembered that 4 out 5 Africans do not have mains electricity and nearly as many don't have clean water to drink, they die by the rate of thousands a day now.

This debate needs honesty a considerable amount of further research, it needs education not indoctrination, you must lead your people to the promised land you cannot drag them. It is not enough to be right you have to win hearts and minds as any invading army will tell you, or else you will lose however honourable or just your cause!

DO YOU NOT CONCEED ANY GROUND HERE AT ALL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are many aspects of GW which would actually be good for the UK economy, and people do know this they are not as stupid as you would have us believe, although they maybe selfish I grant you. On top of these factors it needs to be remembered that 4 out 5 Africans do not have mains electricity and nearly as many don't have clean water to drink, they die by the rate of thousands a day now.

This debate needs honesty a considerable amount of further research, it needs education not indoctrination, you must lead your people to the promised land you cannot drag them. It is not enough to be right you have to win hearts and minds as any invading army will tell you, or else you will lose however honourable or just your cause!

DO YOU NOT CONCEED ANY GROUND HERE AT ALL?

HP, while we fiddle Rome continues to burn.

I am bothered by the inference of the first paragraph that I have copied above. Are you saying that because people in the third world die in considerable numbers anyway we should not be bothered about the global impact of warming, particularly if there is (and this is a particularly noxious argument that underpins the Oregon petition) potential economic gain for the first world? I think you should clarify because there's a rather vulgar undertone in your argument - it may be unintentional but I think you should clear up your argument.

In any case, if that is your argument, you can't have it both ways. If you're saying you are uncertain as to whether AGW is occurring, how can you honestly claim to be more certain about potential benefits. The simple fact is that with rapid warming a lot will change. Grain belts will become drier - it's easy to argue for a longer growing season, but if the rain belts move we're shafted. Sea level doesn't have to rise that much for many global cities to be threatened.

Hearts and minds isn't the issue, any more than it is on any aspect of international policy. We don't vote to go to war, we don't vote directly on the annual budget, I see no reason why governmental policy on action to combat GW should be put to the vote. As your response above illustrates, too many people will vote selfish. Don't blame you, that much is human nature, short term over long term, but it will NOT resolve the GW problem.

Yes, it might still just be a blip, but heaven forbid that in five or ten years time the same old voices on here are still muttering the same arguments. I've used the analogy over and over: you're lying in bed at night and smell smoke. Do you roll over and go back to sleep, or do you get up and investigate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HP, while we fiddle Rome continues to burn.

I am bothered by the inference of the first paragraph that I have copied above. Are you saying that because people in the third world die in considerable numbers anyway we should not be bothered about the global impact of warming, particularly if there is (and this is a particularly noxious argument that underpins the Oregon petition) potential economic gain for the first world? I think you should clarify because there's a rather vulgar undertone in your argument - it may be unintentional but I think you should clear up your argument.

In any case, if that is your argument, you can't have it both ways. If you're saying you are uncertain as to whether AGW is occurring, how can you honestly claim to be more certain about potential benefits. The simple fact is that with rapid warming a lot will change. Grain belts will become drier - it's easy to argue for a longer growing season, but if the rain belts move we're shafted. Sea level doesn't have to rise that much for many global cities to be threatened.

Hearts and minds isn't the issue, any more than it is on any aspect of international policy. We don't vote to go to war, we don't vote directly on the annual budget, I see no reason why governmental policy on action to combat GW should be put to the vote. As your response above illustrates, too many people will vote selfish. Don't blame you, that much is human nature, short term over long term, but it will NOT resolve the GW problem.

Yes, it might still just be a blip, but heaven forbid that in five or ten years time the same old voices on here are still muttering the same arguments. I've used the analogy over and over: you're lying in bed at night and smell smoke. Do you roll over and go back to sleep, or do you get up and investigate?

I am not really sure my point is coming across here, certainly no vulgar undertones intended at all just the reality of the situation we face in the world today, so let me try and clarify.

GW is real and the overwhelming odds are that humans are adding to this effect, but because it is also combined with natural influences I have despite my honest endeavours failed to reach a conclusion as to what the split is? I believe that this is currently open to debate thats genuine debate not deniers trying to muddy the waters, and this is important as we need to know this to have any real idea on what reduction measures will actually do. I worry that as soon as you raise these issues pro AGW supporters immediately jump on your back attaching the label denier which is not true I am talking about the 70% of us with varying degrees of intelligent that don't work for large US oil companies etc.

The gist of my comments are simply, its OK for the UK to say we will lead the way in reducing emissions and cut any figure they like, but the reality is this is head in the sand stuff. The 3rd world must not be stopped from developing, their problem is today and now hence my comment about thousands dying each day not sometime in the future from Climate change but today.

Now I am left with what I think are key important questions about the whole policy of reducing emissions on a global scale:

1) Do we know what X reduction equals in reduction of GW?

2) Where are we to take climate and to who's benefit is our long term aim?

3) The UK along with most western countries relies heavily on imported goods from Asia so reduction in home CO2 is quite simple, but what about its responsibility for the manufacture of goods elsewhere in the world?

4) International Carbon credits protect rich countries from real action and keep the poorest from developing, who's responsibility is that?

5) If the above are addressed without new technology the global CO2 product cannot drop below today's and will probably grow further. Its important to remember that CO2 emissions can also save lives especially when introduced to the 3rd world.

I am not a denier, I think sensible environmental policy is a must which includes reductions in many types of resource usage and emission controls, but the sums and actions here do not add up and that's why I am a sceptic on the issue as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

5) If the above are addressed without new technology the global CO2 product cannot drop below today's and will probably grow further. Its important to remember that CO2 emissions can also save lives especially when introduced to the 3rd world.

I am not a denier, I think sensible environmental policy is a must which includes reductions in many types of resource usage and emission controls, but the sums and actions here do not add up and that's why I am a sceptic on the issue as a whole.

HP, your point 5 clarifies. The inference previously could have been taken to be "they're dying anyway so what's the problem"; clearly not your intent.

Those are all good questions, and without easy answers. However, accepting AGW, it is clear that doing nothing is NOT an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HP, your point 5 clarifies. The inference previously could have been taken to be "they're dying anyway so what's the problem"; clearly not your intent.

Those are all good questions, and without easy answers. However, accepting AGW, it is clear that doing nothing is NOT an option.

Hi SF

I am keen to move on from the is it real or is it not debate, I do think that is almost dead and that the deniers are flogging a dead horse. My problem is that supporters if I can call you that spend so much time defending against that extreme view that those of us that are already on the bus or those queuing to board are not having our many issues addressed. I don't like the view taken earlier on this thread that basically if you don't fully subscribe and believe every facit of AGW you are somehow just ignorant, there are many including myself who are prepared to come along for the ride, but you must tell us where we are going? My scepticism is genuine and honestly thought out it not only encompasses the scientific arguments but the sociological and political ones which cannot be ignored. I sound like a broken record but simply being right is not enough the job is not done in fact only just starting, the debate of where to go from here is as complex as GW itself if not more so. I would like to see all political parties in countries sign up to a joint agreement so policy is not effected on change of government, and any amendments jointly made this will end short terminism.

We will have to see what the new agreement brings, but for me it would be far more credible if it said something along the lines of our next 20yr reductions will be offset by 3rd world growth. Before we can cut globally we have to share which means giving over our excesses to provide for others needs, in addition stable countries will have to use nuclear energy as alternatives just tinker around the edges.

Once you get beyond the initial basic question of AGW real or not the debate really does start and I just wonder whether many AGW supporters would rather not enter that and just stay with the relatively easy task of having a go at deniers. I think that job is done and its time to move on and the tag of sceptic should move on with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure we said a while back that the 'deniers'/'skeptics' were fast loosing credibility as evidence for AGW continues to amass ,jeez,even the U.S. is starting to accept their major role in our current situation (mainly due to the costs it is having on their persona lives) so we will soon be left with only debating it's impacts and extent.

I feel that the current level of activity in here (enviro threads) reflects this and maybe we need to start some new topics exploring extents of impacts and personal reflections of how far things will end up going.

Any takers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the dark ages people use to burn other selected individuals on a stake on the basis that they thought they were witches. There was some evidence to support their claims certainly and therefore thousands of people died this way. However, today, we know this to be nonsense.

The moral is that throughout human history there have always been scares - virtually all essentially myths but most taken seriously enough for some to talk openly about what the future has in store and others to act. Think of the BSE crisis some years ago when the chief vet in the UK came out and said something along the lines of beef being unedible in 15 years time on the basis that CJD was such a huge threat to humanity - no more hamburgers. The W.H.O was saying the same thing at the time - and you dare not question those titans of scientific accuracy in relation to disease and ailments. What happened was the W.H.O asked some of its scientists to investigate the disease and find out just how dangerous it was and what the risk was to humans. But the W.H.O had already told the world that a disaster was imminent. So it was a major shock to them when their appointed scientists came back and contradicted everything they had said previously regarding the risks. They were not happy with this and tried to prevent the report being published in the World press. American journals would not publish it in the end. It was left to a British journal to publish it. The rest is history. Another: 'The Millennium bug' - a money making exercise contrived at the height of the dot com boom certainly had many people very worried - all nonsense of course. The Global Cooling fiasco in the 70's was almost as daft as the Global Warming today......

The point is that all these scares were based on lies, falsehoods, munipulation of facts and distortion of the truth - being 'economical' if you will to suit the agendas of people who essentially need something to moan about. With GW today its gone a step further because while the munipulation and lies are still common - another crucial element essential to any propaganda campaign has emerged - it is now in the self interest of certain people (quite a number of people actually, not least the IPCC) to promote this particualar scare. Thats completely unacceptable because it immediately compromises the scientists involved. Thankfully there are many eminent scientists who are prepared to speak out about this. They are ignored by the IPCC and other oganisations and the usual suspects here too. The simlarities with with past scares is quite uncanny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the dark ages people use to burn other selected individuals on a stake on the basis that they thought they were witches. There was some evidence to support their claims certainly and therefore thousands of people died this way. However, today, we know this to be nonsense.

The moral is that throughout human history there have always been scares - virtually all essentially myths but most taken seriously enough for some to talk openly about what the future has in store and others to act. Think of the BSE crisis some years ago when the chief vet in the UK came out and said something along the lines of beef being unedible in 15 years time on the basis that CJD was such a huge threat to humanity - no more hamburgers. The W.H.O was saying the same thing at the time - and you dare not question those titans of scientific accuracy in relation to disease and ailments. What happened was the W.H.O asked some of its scientists to investigate the disease and find out just how dangerous it was and what the risk was to humans. But the W.H.O had already told the world that a disaster was imminent. So it was a major shock to them when their appointed scientists came back and contradicted everything they had said previously regarding the risks. They were not happy with this and tried to prevent the report being published in the World press. American journals would not publish it in the end. It was left to a British journal to publish it. The rest is history. Another: 'The Millennium bug' - a money making exercise contrived at the height of the dot com boom certainly had many people very worried - all nonsense of course. The Global Cooling fiasco in the 70's was almost as daft as the Global Warming today......

The point is that all these scares were based on lies, falsehoods, munipulation of facts and distortion of the truth - being 'economical' if you will to suit the agendas of people who essentially need something to moan about. With GW today its gone a step further because while the munipulation and lies are still common - another crucial element essential to any propaganda campaign has emerged - it is now in the self interest of certain people (quite a number of people actually, not least the IPCC) to promote this particualar scare. Thats completely unacceptable because it immediately compromises the scientists involved. Thankfully there are many eminent scientists who are prepared to speak out about this. They are ignored by the IPCC and other oganisations and the usual suspects here too. The simlarities with with past scares is quite uncanny.

Mmm, I have to say I don't share your recall of events re BSE there Darkman, perhaps the view fro across the Irish Sea was distorted, but I don't recall any suggestion of hamburgers ever being banned, not least because the problem was UK based, and in case you haven't noticed most burger chains are NOT uk based!

That aside there's another problem. Time has passed and we now know better. The likely scale of the problem was NOT known, but corrective action WAS taken, and, surprise surprise, the problem has gone away.

There is indeed, therefore, a link between BSE and GW, if not perhaps the one you suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the dark ages people use to burn other selected individuals on a stake on the basis that they thought they were witches. There was some evidence to support their claims certainly and therefore thousands of people died this way. However, today, we know this to be nonsense.

The moral is that throughout human history there have always been scares - virtually all essentially myths but most taken seriously enough for some to talk openly about what the future has in store and others to act. Think of the BSE crisis some years ago when the chief vet in the UK came out and said something along the lines of beef being unedible in 15 years time on the basis that CJD was such a huge threat to humanity - no more hamburgers. The W.H.O was saying the same thing at the time - and you dare not question those titans of scientific accuracy in relation to disease and ailments. What happened was the W.H.O asked some of its scientists to investigate the disease and find out just how dangerous it was and what the risk was to humans. But the W.H.O had already told the world that a disaster was imminent. So it was a major shock to them when their appointed scientists came back and contradicted everything they had said previously regarding the risks. They were not happy with this and tried to prevent the report being published in the World press. American journals would not publish it in the end. It was left to a British journal to publish it. The rest is history. Another: 'The Millennium bug' - a money making exercise contrived at the height of the dot com boom certainly had many people very worried - all nonsense of course. The Global Cooling fiasco in the 70's was almost as daft as the Global Warming today......

The point is that all these scares were based on lies, falsehoods, munipulation of facts and distortion of the truth - being 'economical' if you will to suit the agendas of people who essentially need something to moan about. With GW today its gone a step further because while the munipulation and lies are still common - another crucial element essential to any propaganda campaign has emerged - it is now in the self interest of certain people (quite a number of people actually, not least the IPCC) to promote this particualar scare. Thats completely unacceptable because it immediately compromises the scientists involved. Thankfully there are many eminent scientists who are prepared to speak out about this. They are ignored by the IPCC and other oganisations and the usual suspects here too. The simlarities with with past scares is quite uncanny.

So basically, your entire basis for not believing AGW is that some predictions were wrong in the past? That's hardly much of a scientific argument is it? I suppose logic, science and evidence are inconsequential - a handful of people were wrong in the past therefore everyone is wrong now!

That is not an argument against anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point is that all these scares were based on lies, falsehoods, munipulation of facts and distortion of the truth - being 'economical' if you will to suit the agendas of people who essentially need something to moan about. With GW today its gone a step further because while the munipulation and lies are still common - another crucial element essential to any propaganda campaign has emerged - it is now in the self interest of certain people (quite a number of people actually, not least the IPCC) to promote this particualar scare. Thats completely unacceptable because it immediately compromises the scientists involved. Thankfully there are many eminent scientists who are prepared to speak out about this. They are ignored by the IPCC and other oganisations and the usual suspects here too. The simlarities with with past scares is quite uncanny.

What we have to bear in mind with all of these scientific research papers is that all bar a handful rely on funding. So the larger the scare story, the more research dollars come your way to help you deal with it. Print a real big scare story - Global Warming for instance, and if you're lucky you'll attract enough funding to create an Industry.

The industry then creates employment and wealth, thus needing to keep the scary stories flowing to self perpetuate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What we have to bear in mind with all of these scientific research papers is that all bar a handful rely on funding. So the larger the scare story, the more research dollars come your way to help you deal with it. Print a real big scare story - Global Warming for instance, and if you're lucky you'll attract enough funding to create an Industry.

The industry then creates employment and wealth, thus needing to keep the scary stories flowing to self perpetuate.

It works both ways: industry variously invests in whichever side of the argument suits it; Governments just tend to provide funding which, in this country, is allocated by the Research Council, albeit against SOME agendas - though having an agenda does not necessarily mean a starting bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point is that all these scares were based on lies, falsehoods, munipulation of facts and distortion of the truth - being 'economical' if you will to suit the agendas of people who essentially need something to moan about. With GW today its gone a step further because while the munipulation and lies are still common - another crucial element essential to any propaganda campaign has emerged - it is now in the self interest of certain people (quite a number of people actually, not least the IPCC) to promote this particualar scare. Thats completely unacceptable because it immediately compromises the scientists involved. Thankfully there are many eminent scientists who are prepared to speak out about this. They are ignored by the IPCC and other oganisations and the usual suspects here too. The simlarities with with past scares is quite uncanny.

Sorry Darkman although I can be considered a sceptic on this argument, you simply cannot make a rational judgement on a subject based on previous subjects which are totally unrelated to the present situation. Although you can argue the girl that cried wolf may of done it once to often, but in defence of the pro AGW lobby that's not really their fault. Although it is something I have long since argued that the pro lobby really need to take into account with message delivery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...