"Climate Denier"

Su Campu

I watched the clip and I have to say it's laughable that people like de Burca are still spouting that old clichéd argument, "backing it up" with the ole list of bad weather events that took place because we drive cars....who are they trying to kid anymore?

I totally disagree though with people bringing the speakers' backgrounds - political or otherwise - into this debate. Lord Monckton is whoever he is, and De Burca is whoever she is. What people fail to concentrate on is the facts of the case. Climate changes - always has and always will - and devastating floods have happened before and will happen again. Pakistan, Queensland, Boscastle, Brazil (where hundreds died but it happened during the Brisbane floods so nobody cared) - were all naturally occuring events, but have been hijacked by the pro AGW and used to brainwash our kids.

Plus, while I'm on a rant, another gripe I have is the use of the term global warming. It has become the phrase of this generation, and is made out to be something bad, when in fact the globe has been warming and cooling for millions of years. If people want to talk about our (alleged) contribution to the current natural warming we're experiencing, please use the word "anthropogenic" before it.

Rant over

Danno

Watched the clip, and it is totally laughable. Anyone who would like to see where the Pro AGW camp collect their data, may I suggest this site as a starting block which shows the quality of the data being collected... http://surfacestations.org/ The sooner these foolish thoughts are put to bed, the sooner we can get to the real environmental issues such as water and waste management.

Joe Public

The other camp could be called "climate as usual deniers"

Deep Easterly

Su Campu wrote: »

I totally disagree though with people bringing the speakers' backgrounds - political or otherwise - into this debate. Lord Monckton is whoever he is, and De Burca is whoever she is.

I would normally agree with you on this Su, but given the fact the both Deirdra de Burca and Christopher Monckton are both first and foremost politicians (the very reason they got to speak on the Late Late Show) and thus ideologically motived to say what they had to say on this matter, I don't see bringing up there political backgrounds as a problem in this case.

But I do agree that the climate debate is becoming all too political. It is a pity that the real scientists, whether they be pro or anti Climate Change don't speak more often in the public sphere. Having the likes of de Burca claiming that certain weather events were 'climate disasters' before she quickly changed that to 'weather disasters' was just totally misleading. I am sure any climate scientist watching this squirmed in horror. I don't think anything De Burca or Monckton had to say added to the overall debate.

Su Campu

Deep Easterly wrote: »

I would normally agree with you on this Su, but given the fact the both Deirdra de Burca and Christopher Monckton are both first and foremost politicians (the very reason they got to speak on the Late Late Show) and thus ideologically motived to say what they had to say on this matter, I don't see bringing up there political backgrounds as a problem in this case.

But I do agree that the climate debate is becoming all too political. It is a pity that the real scientists, whether they be pro or anti Climate Change don't speak more often in the public sphere. Having the likes of de Burca claiming that certain weather events were 'climate disasters' before she quickly changed that to 'weather disasters' was just totally misleading. I am sure any climate scientist watching this squirmed in horror. I don't think anything De Burca or Monckton had to say added to the overall debate.

I agree, I was just saying that in an ideal world it shouldn't matter who says what - if it's fact then it's fact, and people should be able to see that and not the person who said it. As it happens I think Monckton won it hands down, because he stated what I believe to be fact, which people can go and research if they want. I don't care what his background is, if I agree with what he says then that's all that counts.

fizzycyst

A fact is only a fact until it's disproved IMO. But here's a reason why we should be skeptical of the so called 'climate deniers'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/25/michaels-climate-sceptic-misled-congress

Now I'm neither a staunch skeptic or believer when it comes to man-made climate change, but when I hear things like this I realise why. How can we make informed decisions with the knowledge that money infiltrates science like this. Lord Monckton acted like an a**hole, if he had an honest point to make he wouldn't have tried to shout de Burca down. She was just not able for him so it was an unfair debate. I'd like to see to people from opposite sides having a good fair debate on this, as if on the late late show:rolleyes:

darkman2

Both sides of the debate are compromised by finance. But the pro AGW lobby is far more compromised then the anti Man Made lobby. Think about all the scientists now employed by Governments to research the issue. Think about all the "environmental correspondents" in media organisations across the globe alot of whose jobs now depend on AGW as being a newsworthy item. Think about the IPCC etc.........if any of these people want to sow the seeds of doubt or give an absolutely honest unbiased scientific appraisal it would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. The whole debate is a biased sham.

thetonynator

fizzycyst wrote: »

A fact is only a fact until it's disproved IMO. But here's a reason why we should be skeptical of the so called 'climate deniers'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/25/michaels-climate-sceptic-misled-congress

Now I'm neither a staunch skeptic or believer when it comes to man-made climate change, but when I hear things like this I realise why. How can we make informed decisions with the knowledge that money infiltrates science like this. Lord Monckton acted like an a**hole, if he had an honest point to make he wouldn't have tried to shout de Burca down. She was just not able for him so it was an unfair debate. I'd like to see to people from opposite sides having a good fair debate on this, as if on the late late show:rolleyes:

The fact that it's in the guardian kind of devalues it . .:P

snowstreams

My opinion about AGW has swayed a few times over the last few years. But now i think its mostly natural.
I think that there is a small amount of warming from man made green house gases, but it is probably a far smaller amount than the IPCC etc say. Maybe 0.1c in the last 100 years.

I remember this program The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle on channel 4 a few years ago.
It came out with some ridiculous 'facts' against AGW saying that most of the co2 is from volcanoes and man has had no real effect on the concentration.
After seeing this program I ended up doubting the anti AGW side. Both sides seem to be lieing for political reasons!

This is always worth a watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

bobblepuzzle

Deleted User wrote: »

This is always worth a watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

Thank you very much for posting that... I just posted it in the AH thread...

MT Cranium, any chance you could submit your view here http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056157342

planetX

all I can say is that there are a number of university departments that were languishing in underfunding until the climate change machine started to roll. Handy that.

Koyasan

Deleted User wrote: »

This is always worth a watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

"I have no axe to grind" .... except for a lifetime of work. You see, this is called "escalation of commitment." People will defend a position to which they have committed a lifetime of work until the day they die just because they've spent so much time building up said position.

It would be great if he actually examined global averages, but this video falls apart from the start since he uses data from a single location.

also,

The NIPCC report, which Carter contributed to, was published by the Heartland Institute, an industry-funded organization that has worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks, and has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998 (infor here http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41)

Awkward :rolleyes: