Its been interesting over the past few weeks watching the 'scientists' spin themselves out of the 'mild winters are all we will ever see' predictions of a few years ago into the 'extreme cold is a consequence of global warming' pronouncements now.
You have to wonder about scientists though, sometimes.
When the most vocal champion of AGW, Nasa's James Hansen (i.e. the bloke who names the hottest year - go figure how
independent he is ?) decides to
FLY to the UK to give an hour's worth of court evidence in defence of protesters who were trying to shut down a UK power station despite the CO2 involved and despite the potentially life threatening consequences there may have been for people affected by that station closing - then you have to wonder how serious this problem really is. Has this moron never heard of video conferencing or perhaps writing a submission for the court from his desk ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
What motivates the deniers, I wonder?
|
Sorry, I have to take issue with this phrase.
You see the 'denier' sobriquet was originally used in relation to treating people who argued against the theory of AGW in the same way as we treat those rather strange people who deny the reality of the holocaust as a historical event. It was followed by the suggestion that there should be "crimes against humanity" charges for all prominent non-believers. As someone who has read a lot about history and in particular that period, this link is something I find particularly offensive. Now of course the people who originated that phrase, realising that it alienated so many undecided people, now try to spin this phrase as someone who "denies science".
I don't deny science. I deny that science has changed this theory into a proven fact. I refuse to allow my society, country, government to commit us all to Pascal's Wager on the truth or otherwise of AGW, and in the mean time commit billions of my fellow humans to starvation or to be unprotected from natural disasters because that action may raise the levels of a trace gas in the atmosphere.
Note the 'may' there - that is as certain as the science is by the way...
I refuse to do so on the limited, cherry picked studies of people with vested interests in research of this kind or who stand to make billions from artificial trading schemes which I will end up paying for by not being allowed to do the things they will be permitted to do forever.
I refuse to do so when the so called gold standard of science, peer review, is twisted only to allow research to be published when it supports one side and is used to do everything to try and prevent any studies which may call that science into question.
Just a thought, and in the interests of this debate, the science and the technology you think may be involved, do we have a thread about how much energy and CO2 we are make / use ?
Can such a thing be calculated seeing as some of my energy comes from Hydro, some from Coal and some from Nuclear - the mix changing minute by minute. As for renewables they are are waste of time - 0.4% of peak demand in December, pointless.
So thats (just for starters)
- No driving, public transport for all.
- No flying.
- No TV, no puter, no leccy, no interweb.
- No heating, except what you can make yourself.
- No supermarket. Thats none at all, not even one visit a fortnight
- No local doctor with access to drugs, or local hospital.
I suppose in short are you living a life with 1700-1800s level of energy usage ?
No ?
Thought not.
