Global warming deniers have undermined well-founded public alarm on Global Warming. Panic is our only hope. Channel Four and Nigel Lawson have pushed the seductive message of comfort and reassurance that Global warming is not happening.
It’s bunkum, but the weak long for happy delusions that will ease their worries. Confronted by the loud-mouthed environmental ignoramus brigade of fuel gluttons and macho poseurs, British politicians' green convictions are wilting. Today's Observer poll suggests that six out ten
Britons are not convinced that global warming is the supremely vital issue.
The public fear must be cranked up again.
When challenged in the comments, little Mr Flynn was pathetically dismissive. Given that the man is a pig-ignorant fuckwit with an over-weening arrogance (have he and Polly Toynbee ever been seen in the same room together? Just saying...), I decided to fisk his reply...
Paul,The global-warming deniers do not have science on their side.
I know that you are a politician, but do try not to lie. Let us have a look at two pillars of the AGW: the Mann et al. "hockey-stick graph", and arch-climate loony, James Hansen.
The hockey-stick graph was thoroughly debunked—it was shown, by MacIntyre and McKitrick (try Google, Paul), that whatever data you put in the result was always a hockey-stick. Which is why, of course, the IPCC no longer relies on it. There is an example of the science being on the side of the "deniers".
And James Hansen... Well, where to start? I know, let's start with his speech of twenty years ago to the US senate, shall we? This gentleman has helpfully shown how accurate Hansen was.
Further, we have been told recently that the current cooling trend is due to cold currents in the Pacific and that this will mask the catastrophic warming. Really.
It is strange, is it not, that not one of the climate models predicted this cold shift. One might almost conclude that the models were not terribly accurate and that their predictions should be taken with a sack of salt. Especially since these "scientists" have all been using a set of equations that assume that the Earth has an infinitely thick atmosphere.
You might also like to observe that the only significant warming in the land temperature record is added after the figures are collected.
There are, of course, also significant problems with the way in which land temperature figures are collected (urban heat island effects and suchlike) which leads one to wonder why NASA, for instance, does not use the far more wide-ranging and accurate satellite data (clue: because the satellite data shows insignificant warming as compared to the land measurements).
But I doubt that you will be interested in actual data, eh, Paul? You'll just take what you're fed, like the good little bit of lobby-fodder that you are. I can imagine you now, which your fingers pressed tightly into your ears, shrieking, "la la la la! I can't hear you!"Over 90% of the best scientists in the world are demanding immediate action from Governments.
Who says that they are "the best", Paul? You? What qualifications do you have to judge that?
And since when was consensus of any use in science? A couple of hundred years ago, the consensus was that the sun revolved around the Earth.
More recently, the consensus was that thousands, if not tens of thousands, were going to die of vCJD (remember that, Paul?). We're still waiting...
But what should we do? Well, why don't you have a look at the IPCC SRES A1 family of scenarios? They are the scenarios based on technological advancement, greater international trade and cooperation, and people around the world getting richer. Go on, have a read: you never know, you might like the idea.
Oh, and just while we are on the subject, the Stern Review made absolutely no mention of the A1 scenarios. At all. Nada. Zilch. Nothing. Which is just one of the reasons why those of us who actually know about the subject and who read his report dismissed it as useless scare-mongering.
Oh, and the scientific consensus supports us there, by the way. The only people who still quote the Stern Review without getting actively embarrassed are politicians, because they, as usual, know no better.Some, but not all of the deniers, are in the pay of the oil industry.
Oh, yawn. Nearly every single one of the AGW scientists is in the pay of governments and the state is hardly a disinterested party. These scientists also know that if they mention AGW in their reports or proposals, they are more likely to get funding.
And do tell, what motivates those people who, you admit above, are not in the pay of the oil industry?My description of them is a little too restrained.
Paul, my description of mental fascists such as yourself is never so polite and yet I too am still far too restrained.There was a gobal warming denial vote in the Commons recently. 5 out of the 650 were found.
Sorry, Paul; how is that in any way significant? How many MPs have any scientific qualifications at all? How many of them have actually read any original reports or studied raw data?
For god's sake, the vast majority of you could not even be bothered to read the Maastricht Treaty, or the Lisbon Treaty and I bet there are more lawyers in the Commons than there are scientists.
Most of you vote on issues of which you have little or no understanding and base that vote on little but your own prejudices, petty squabbles and party affiliations.
The only thing that we can rely on is that you MPs will, at every turn, vote for more money and more power.
No wonder the general public holds you all in utter contempt: you are, in the very clearest sense of the word, contemptible.
Paul Flynn, ladies and gentlemen: arrogant arsehat of the day and a wonderful ambassador for our elected representatives. Well, excellent for those of us that maintain that they are all stupid, corrupt, self-serving simpletons, anyway.