Tags
(not satire – it’s the Tories!)
I see climate-change deniers have brought out their big guns to deny the recent flooding and storms are anything to do with climate change.
Former Thatcher chancellor Nigel Lawson went head-to-head with Met’ Office Chief Scientist Professor Julia Slingo – destroying her scientific assessments that the recent extreme weather conditions were almost certainly the result of climate change with the devastating scientific argument that she is just : “this Julia Slingo woman“.
Personally, I don’t know much about the science behind climate change. So let’s take a look at who is most likely to be right on the scientific arguments around climate in general:
.
You had me at “it’s just this woman” Nigel.
.
Please feel free to comment.
.
Related articles by Tom Pride:
Climate change sceptic Andrew Neil also once thought heterosexual AIDS was a myth
Climate change deniers – just who is Daily Mail reporter David Rose?
.
Pride's Purge 
But he does add gravitas ……
LikeLike
Reblogged this on The World of Neil.
LikeLike
If Gravitas is a variety of Gravadlax, maybe yes.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on seachranaidhe1.
LikeLike
Nigel and his chums float on oil and mining money.
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2009/11/oil-links-of-tory-climate-denial-grandees/
LikeLike
I can’t see anything wrong with Lawsons qualifications, nothing at all. Mind you there was that teensy little problem a year or so ago when all those Brit scientists were caught lying about climate change, something to do with emails I think and possibly the wrong sort of weather…..
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Pippakins Other News. Or something.
LikeLike
he alsos says wants britian to leave the eu but does not want to leave it himself.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on uselessanddangerous.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on The Greater Fool.
LikeLike
Pingback: Climate-change denier Lord Lawson is an expert – he once wrote a book about dieting | Badders911
Reblogged this on nearlydead.
LikeLike
Love this 🙂
LikeLike
climate change is happening….see work on icecore samples…
there is also another rarely discussed phenomena called global dimming…caused by particulates released during industrial processes, which has the affect of reflecting the suns energy back into space…this not only cools,slows down the rate of warming, but causes long term drought in some areas, and increased rainfall in others, by changing global rainfall patterns, for example…the science of climate and climate change is complex…
LikeLike
Please watch and share:
~Geoengineering And The Collapse Of Earth 2014~
LikeLike
Just for the record: in 2009 Lord Lawson also wrote “An appeal to reason: a cool look at global warming,” published by Duckworth Overlook (Apparently he had some difficulty finding a publisher). I know as I have a copy here, which I bought for 1p in order to be able to comment on it, as I have been writing a paper on the unethical nature of climate change denial. It is worthwhile skimming through to get the hang of the rhetorical tricks on which he relies.
Bienh
LikeLike
Is that sarcasm, support for Lawson’s view, or just an admission that you don’t have a clue?
LikeLike
That’s for me to know and you to ponder, all I will say is that the Lawson column was on the bare side. He like so many being nothing more than an opportunist fart.
LikeLike
weibina
the answer is to get back to the laws of nature…to permaculture, and stop destroying our home with capitalism….
LikeLike
When in doubt go with the fat tory who knows fuck all…
LikeLike
No it was the stupid interpretation of what they wrote …fucking Americans couldn’t understand biritish irony..
LikeLike
If I had to pick one of those options I would say that you don’t have a clue, because you don’t seem to have an opinion about climate change… or maybe you just don’t like to give it in case anyone asks you to justify yourself. The truth is that Lawson is only invited to comment because it’s next to impossible to find even a vaguely qualified person who will argue against man-made climate change.
What was the point you were trying to make about British scientists lying and the “wrong sort of weather”? Are you saying this undermines the majority scientific case?
LikeLike
That’s how most people in the UK vote!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Hope – Rise & Shine.
LikeLike
That would be it then…
LikeLike
I think climate change is happening but I’m not sure its all down to us. Climate change has happened before whose fault was it then. I suggest you find some happy pills and take them.
LikeLike
Of course the planet’s climate has changed radically during its history – that’s a statement of the obvious. The overwhelming scientific case is that it’s the RATE of change which is unprecedented over the last few decades. Is that something which you dispute?
LikeLike
I’m not sure ‘they’ are right. The subject is complex and the historical data is debatable, what’s not debatable is that ‘climate change’ is big business and whenever I see big business advocating and making money out of something I’m suspicious.
The recent floods in the UK might be down to climate change but they are definitely down to long term neglect by successive govts. Flood defence just wasn’t trendy.
LikeLike
Isn’t the whole point that the data are NOT seriously debatable? They are only debated by people like Lawson (and perhaps you too) who are unable to come up with a coherent argument. If you think the data are debatable, then it’s up to you to present your argument, or accept that your opinion will be dismissed.
I don’t deny that whatever happens in this world there will be people seeking to take advantage of it. Is that a reason to ignore the evidence? People make money out of curing cancer too!
LikeLike
the icecore data, is not debatable…roughly every 12000 years there is an ice age slow gradual cooling and warming…co2 has increased 40% since the industrial revolution, and is/has been accompanied,by rapid global warming, and a masking affect called global dimming..both are caused by industrial processes..try to remedy global warming by reductions in greenhouse gases alone, worsens the affects of global dimming…climate change is slow and climate change reversal strategies have also to be slow, purposeful and measured…global warming is caused by rapid consumption, pouring energy ie money into attempting to solve it makes things even worse…we have to slowly and gradually reduce the consumption of the earth, it self, and learn to live on it’s natural income, or find somewhere else to go…
LikeLike
ps should read…climate change, is normally naturally slow….
LikeLike
My opinion (for what it’s worth) is that although man-made global warming is a fact, it doesn’t actually matter that much. Whatever you or I do, humanity is going to continue to burn all the readily accessible fossil fuels until a cheaper, better alternative is available. For that reason I think we should put every penny we can afford (and more!) into nuclear fusion. Nuclear fission and tidal energy are the best bets until fusion reactors become a reality.
Of course this means that many parts of the planet are going to become uninhabitable over the next hundred years or so. Millions will die, and there will be many more refugees and migrants looking for somewhere to live. This is actually what we have to prepare for.
LikeLike
Errrrr… which Americans are you talking about?
LikeLike
f f
yeah, i’m going to put my solution in an envelope and mail it to myself, for what it is worth…the planetary political system that we currently have will remain for say 30yrs +, by then the problem will have resolved it’s self, for me at least…do something do nothing one way or the other it will be resolved…because i cannot see agreement ever being reached on the best ways forward, as things currently stand…
LikeLike
OBD – That’s fair comment about futility. All we can do is voice our opinions when we can, try to find what seems to be the truth (and change our opinions if we do)… and vote for whoever seems to have or want some rational solutions.
… and the last bit seems close to impossible!
LikeLike
On one side you’ve got the like of Lawson on the other Al Gore. I can’t stand either of em but I know who made the most money out of his ’cause’
Its a case of believe what you will. We should invest in nuclear power and it would be a good idea if we didn’t build nuclear power stations in earth quake or other problem areas.
LikeLike
pippakin
i don’t think lawson v al core amounts to viable comparisons…
i hope you have deep pockets…http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21298117
LikeLike
Why not? Both are former successful politicians who take separate sides in the climate change debate. Nor do I have any idea what you mean by deep pockets…In the event of nuclear disaster about the only things that wouldn’t be affected are my pockets.
LikeLike
pippa
is it scientifically proven that they are successful politicians then, as global warming and dimming is…if you had read the link you can assume i mean plenty of dosh…£70bln + decontamination costs for one power station…supply the whole country with solar panels, insulation, double gazing, energy saving light bulbs, and have change…see german energy saving town of frieburg, others are available…
LikeLike
One was chancellor of the exchequer the other vice president I think both the holder of either position can be called successful. I know exactly what you mean by plenty of dosh and it doesn’t apply to me.
Cumbria is not Fukishima
LikeLike
The A15 in North Lincs used to have signs reading ‘No Windfarms Here’. They all got blown down in the storm.
LikeLike
“Its a case of believe what you will.”
That’s the argument of a person who is too stupid or too lazy to try to find, understand and discuss the evidence.
I think you don’t understand the difference between nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Do you?
LikeLike
Don’t be childish finish your shandy and go to bed.
LikeLike
the use of an ad hominem attack proves that Lawson had no convincing arguments in his favour
LikeLike
Same story in the U.S. where the flat-earthers on climate change, in the absence of science and scientists on their side, trot out psychiatrists, journalists and anyone else they can find who has (presumably) been to college.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Beastrabban’s Weblog and commented:
Attacks on Climate Change now seem to be routine parts of Conservatism on both sides of the Atlantic. The motive is less an attack on what is perceived to be bad science, than an attempt to defend unrestrained capitalism. The American Right despises the climate lobby for its attempts to regulate industry to protect the environment, and the Left-wing views of many of its supporters. They are explicitly denounced and resented for supporting the redistribution of wealth. Hence Conservatives decry and vilify them, and seek to refute the science on which discussions of climate change are based.
LikeLike
OBD – The £70bn estimated cost is not for one power station, it’s for the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing site. Most of that cost is because of past mismanagement of waste, which has been left in forms which are extremely difficult to manage. Future costs will be lower, because the industry has learned many lessons in the last 40 years or so. I don’t deny that nuclear fission power generation will still have very large waste management costs, but don’t judge future technology by past mistakes.
On a more general point. when you look at public costs such as this you also have to think about where that money goes. If it’s spent on paying for British technology and workers then is it all wasted?
LikeLike
Pippakin – That comment is itself very childish.
LikeLike
I had to sink to your level. Read your previous posts.
LikeLike
Which previous posts?
LikeLike
Any addressed to me, starting with your first.
LikeLike
What do you think is the best way to resolve what you apparently see as a conflict between capitalism and science?
LikeLike
f f
i knew that it was for reprocessing, but it slipped my mind…i think in hindsight that it would have been better if the industrial revolution had never happened, and the fall out from it did not have to be cleaned up….but it did and it has…future generations have to clear up it’s complexed mess, who knows if things will eventually come good…i do know that the IR has done much more harm than good, it has trapped humanity, rather than set humanity free…it has created a fools paradise…
LikeLike
My first to you was simply a rational question, which you rather petulantly refused to answer. Also, is it an adult argument to simply call Lawson a “fart”? I would suggest that your reply was far more childish than my question.
LikeLike
OBD – I flatly disagree with you that it would have been better if the industrial revolution had never happened, and I don’t think you believe it either.
LikeLike
f f
i do now believe that, as an engineer i obviously never used to….but that i believe it or not is irrelevant, as we are in a position where only science and technology will extricate this climate mess…..1st and foremost i am practical…
LikeLike
Pingback: Climate-change denier Lord Lawson is an expert ...
Supposed to be where a legislature comes in. Find the balance. Sadly, ours are corporate stooges, it’s where a lot of our problems come from. Instead of providing the moral framework for amoral business (bottom line is the only consideration, not evil, just amoral) to operate in to operate in AND providing a pragmatic balance between the competing interests around them, our politicians just go with where the deepest pockets are.
LikeLike
Pingback: Cameron warns floods of government ineptitude “likely to get worse” | Pride's Purge
OBD – Maybe I misunderstood you – are you still saying that it would have been better if the industrial revolution had never happened? If you are, then you are a fool. I will give you numerous reasons if you like…
LikeLike
f f
how dare you call me a fool, get lost…
LikeLike
That’s gravity. He adds gravity. Hence the diet book.
LikeLike
OBD – I said “are you still saying that it would have been better if the industrial revolution had never happened?” and you didn’t answer…
If somebody says something foolish then I call them a fool, and I expect others to do the same if I say something foolish. I’m interested in reality, not making online ‘friends’. Would you like to be practical and discuss the benefits of the industrial revolution to everyone in our society, or would you prefer difficult arguments to just “get lost” so you don’t have to think about them?
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Munkusbubbly's Blog.
LikeLike
When I mentioned gravitas I WAS taking the piss
LikeLike
I agree with you that money speaks far more loudly to our legislature than science or rational argument does. I have no sure answers to that problem other than to ask rational questions of my elected representatives and then vote according to their answers. Maybe this is where democracy fails, because most people are too lazy to think rationally or ask questions… as many people on this site repeatedly demonstrate!
LikeLike
Mind you, he has got a tasty daughter 🙂
LikeLike
f f
i clearly have clearly previously stated my opinion, but you missed it, and tried to get another bite of the argument and insulted me BEFORE, you put any arguments that might be valid to me, BEFORE, i had a chance to reject them or indeed accept them…you often do that and it makes me wonder if indeed you do want a rational argument or just to wind people up…my get lost is to you, and not any rational debate about whether or not the IR was/is worthwhile on retrospective balance or not…in hindsight it has been a catastrophe.. but in fact it is a massive debate that cannot imo be done in sound bytes…so i will not have such a debate in/on this format in any case…
LikeLike
Perhaps Dame Julia is not the right person to put up against Lawson on this particular subject, in view of the insistence by Professor Collins that there is no link between global warming and the recent storms/floods – and the Prof certainly is an expert!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2560310/No-global-warming-did-NOT-cause-storms-says-one-Met-Offices-senior-experts.html
LikeLike
I didn’t miss it, I was asking to clarify your opinion – and I ask you again… Are you saying that on average people in our society were better off before the industrial revolution than now? If you do, then I repeat that you are a fool.
What catastrophe are you talking about? If you mean a global warming catastrophe, then it hasn’t happened (yet), and may still be mitigated or averted if we are prepared to think and act rationally. I thought you were someone who does so, but now I’m not sure.
…and if you think I’m going to get lost just because you tell me to, then you are also a fool. That’s not how online discussion works! I explained that very clearly to Ms Fawkes, which I expect you saw.
LikeLike
For me the whole of human history, and especially current events, points clearly to one thing. The human species, despite being the most intellectually advanced animal on the planet, is little more than a cancer that has spread unfettered across the globe causing death, disease and disaster, wherever it exists. Darwin’s theory of evolution has been stunted by the arrested development of human kind. Further, his survival of the fittest (or in the minds of the 1% – survival of the richest) will inevitably prove untrue also as we are heading full speed towards our own destruction, as well as the planet.
Scientists have proved not only that climate change happens but that human kind has had a direct impact on it. Our so called progress has increased the normal pace of how our planet maintains itself. Worse the actions of some, who naively thought they knew better than nature, who attempted to reverse or cure global warming (yes I’m talking about geoengineering) have taken us closer than ever before to the tipping point.
We arose from a delicately balanced ecosystem that maintained homeostasis all by itself and we lived in harmony with it. That is until our intellect outgrew our need to co-exist in harmony with our environment. And with our growing intellect came the growing ego of human kind that thought it could control and manipulate something that had survived successfully without us for millions of years. There are those among us, those who control the money and the power, who not only think they know better than the rest of us but also think they know better than the laws of nature.
The cancer is spreading; human kind is impacting ever more seriously on the natural laws of this plant and the universe. Every aspect of life on Earth is impacted by the developments we inflict on our environment. The arrested development of humans has led us to believe that money and profit are more important than the survival of the species and the planet. Unless there is a change in our thinking across the planet, at every level, we will not be around for much longer. The human population will either wipe itself out or the planet will do it for us. We have a choice; take better care of ourselves and the planet or face extinction.
We know that the planet is struggling to sustain the current population levels, and we know that unless we address these issues we are headed for troubles we cannot yet imagine. We know geoengineering is being used and climate change is happening. But what we don’t know yet is are we on the precipice of being wiped out by our own hand or by the natural processes of our planet. Only time will tell but in the meantime we need to think more about what is really happening in the world. We all need to wake up and think more critically about what we are being told. We all need to open our eyes, stop being distracted by the banalities of our world and really look at what is happening. We can either become the tool which ensures our survival or the weapon of our own destruction.
It will take more than one or two or 50 governments to make the necessary changes. It will take the participation and collective actions of the world’s population to achieve a sustainable future for our species. We will need to put aside our differences, of race, colour, religion etc. We will need to stop seeing separation through false constructs such as nationality or politics. We have to work together towards one goal…the survival of our species. Collectively we can be stronger than all the power establishments across the globe if we stop handing over our destiny to the elected few. Collectively we can be more powerful than those who control us through the accumulation of their wealth if we stop accepting the theory that there isn’t enough to go around. Collectively we can save ourselves and the planet from the small minority who think just because they have power or wealth that they can decide the fate of the rest of us without consulting us. Until we begin working collectively as one species on the brink of destruction we give the small minority with the power and control the green light to continue making the mistakes that have brought us to this point in the first place. The very same group of people who cannot see beyond their noses and are therefore blind to the bigger picture, who don’t care about anyone’s survival other than their own. Their ego is so overinflated that they cannot see that the methods they are using – wars, famine, weather manipulation etc – don’t just keep the population under control, they threaten the very existence of our species and no matter what they do they will die with the rest of us one day.
So put aside the social constructs that divide us and start coming together to save us.
LikeLike
I see that the problem of incompetent politicians is not only an italian matter!
LikeLike
f f
i can see that you have still avoided putting your pov forward, but at the same time you expect others to put their pov forward, to be ridiculed by yourself, you are very good at putting people into that position, so you avoid answering the questions put to you, and expect others to answer your questions….you deflect the debate until it becomes obscure and no longer relevant to the core issues of it, obfuscations take place…can’t you see your omissions in the debate…i was/clear, i always am/was clear about my position…i still say this is not the format…how do you translate what i have written in this post…over and out…i will not respond again to your threads, on this post, bye for now…
LikeLike
I put my point of view about the core issue very clearly, but here it is again:
“Although man-made global warming is a fact, it doesn’t actually matter that much. Whatever you or I do, humanity is going to continue to burn all the readily accessible fossil fuels until a cheaper, better alternative is available. For that reason I think we should put every penny we can afford (and more!) into nuclear fusion. Nuclear fission and tidal energy are the best bets until fusion reactors become a reality.”
If that isn’t clear, or if you want me to answer any other questions, then try actually asking me some questions instead of falsely claiming that I don’t answer.
So let’s hear your point of view, such as justifying that “it would have been better if the industrial revolution had never happened”. Refusing to respond simply proves that you’re too lazy to think about the issues, or too scared to admit you were wrong…
LikeLike
trinkats
i do see what you are saying…but it will never happen, unless the mind is cured of violent attachments, and denial stands in the way of this happening….see the work of dr alice miller and dr bob johnson…
LikeLike
Trinkats – That’s a long and interesting statement. Do you have any suggestions about how to make our species work together for the long-term benefit of all, as opposed to the short-term benefit of the individual?
LikeLike
OBD – Perhaps you should read the book by Alex Buzzard about ‘HAB’ (Human Attachment Behaviour).
LikeLike
They were cleared of those accusations.
LikeLike
Yes but as with everything mud sticks and added to the nay sayers artillery.
LikeLike
You miss out the fact that he’s paid a lot more than her, so by his own capitalist view he must be right – see kids ignorant ranting is a lot more lucrative than hard work!
LikeLike
Pippakin – If that’s how you assess evidence then I hope you never serve on a jury!
LikeLike
Who said anything about trial by jury or even Diplock…Its trial by public opinion far more devastating. I must add though that I’m not sure climate change believers would win a trial by jury either so much of it seems flim flam.
LikeLike
This is the crux of the matter. I think the evidence DOES support the charge of man-made climate change beyond reasonable doubt. The problem is that some people are too lazy to seek and evaluate the evidence, or they refuse to come to a conclusion unless they see a smoking gun. The difference from a court is that the full evidence is not presented to you on a plate, you have to go and look for it. Have you?
LikeLike
Over the years since the debate began I’ve read quite a bit on the subject. I must say I lean toward the sceptical not of climate change I think its happening but of the cause, but in my case its irrelevant since I think we should be treating the planet with far more caution and respect than we have shown so far.
LikeLike
If you think the evidence has not passed the ‘reasonable doubt’ threshold then that’s a respectable position to take, and to be cautious about how we treat our planet anyway is also respectable. I suggest that in a few years you will become convinced, but only time will tell.
My first judgement that you don’t have a clue was wrong. Maybe you’re right that Lawson is a fart, but it isn’t a good argument!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on .
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Gogwit's Blog and commented:
One speaks for, one against – fair, innit?
Sadly, for many this constitutes a balanced argument.
LikeLike
That is the point of climate change denialism, after all. As long as climate change isn’t anthropogenetic, there’s no need to pass environmental regulations that might interfere with the coal and oil businesses, which totally don’t affect the climate, just like tobacco totally doesn’t cause lung cancer.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on garywilliamsblog.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Dyade-bloggen.
LikeLike
Mat Collins: “I said that the models don’t tell us much about how the jet stream is affected by climate change. I don’t disagree with Julia.”
And later Collins wrote: “Together with the Met Office I’ll be putting out a statement tomorrow clarifying the statements in the Mail on Sunday article.”
LikeLike
I agree with your vision of the world Trincats, and at the same time I’m at a loss about how to enable this to happen as our species since the Latine tribes became the Romans (and this FinkFurst, is a judgement I base on linguistics which was part of my degree and which I am not prepared to enunciate here, maybe you would like to some research) has been on a course of ‘divide and rule’ . Science and the Industrial Revolution itself grew out of this ability to take one problem and then find its solution.This approach underpins great advances in technology, but it also has grave consequences to our perceptions of the ‘wholesomeness’ of life.
FinkFurst you seem to act like any fine Roman Patriarch in this thread, as you demand a certain scientific and rational proof from everyone, and also in your own certainty that your solutions of nuclear fusion will be the answer. Not being a scientist I see the seeds of hubris in your stance.
We are just human and therefore slow to change, we have progressed mightily through science and our use of fossil fuels, which helped to develop concentrated but irreplaceable energy into fast life, material production, and the politics of consumerism and the arrogance of Imperialism. We developed egos alongside of landing men on the moon which tells us that we are in control of the world. Just as we believe we are in control of our own biological systems. Yet our bodies without a moments conscious or rational thought works tirelessly to keep our internal temperature within a matter of a few degrees and our hearts beat continuously to bathe all our cells each day, and our bodies are hospitals where any invaders are immediately expelled and so on. These are not under our control.
We live on a tiny planet in a breathable bubble about 5 miles high, on a top soil which is a thin crust covering molten lava. The consequences of our technological progress has given us the means to both intentionally, and as an unforseen side effect breached the skin which contains our habitable system. Just as our own bodies when traumatically breached if not repaired quickly will kill us, and just as our own systems can be overloaded by toxins to the point that we die, it is the same with our eco system.
In some ways it does not matter if its because we have put out so much carbon emissions which is bringing in its wake other responses, or its an enormous earth cycle the consequences are the same. We are at a critical moment as methane is released from the oceans floor as plankton is dying at such an alarming rate and as geo egineering and the pile ups of toxic wastes from energy whether it be coal or nuclear are making vast spaces poisonous, and as species are becoming extinct daily, each and every government and individual person, and the media who ignores all of this, ought to be made aware of the threats to our system.
People who use ‘climate change’ for political purposes, like Lawson and indeed like Paterson our Minister for the Environment or rather I should say our Minister for Monsanto ( and badger killing) are the ones who need to do some research. This is not a matter to snigger about or be arguing amongst ourselves about it is a matter of survival. No one can eat money.
LikeLike
Geraldine – No, I said nuclear fusion is the best solution, not nuclear fission! You seem to be yet another person who is too lazy to try to understand the difference.
I will repeat (for the third time):
“Although man-made global warming is a fact, it doesn’t actually matter that much. Whatever you or I do, humanity is going to continue to burn all the readily accessible fossil fuels until a cheaper, better alternative is available. For that reason I think we should put every penny we can afford (and more!) into nuclear fusion. Nuclear fission and tidal energy are the best bets until fusion reactors become a reality.”
LikeLike
Geraldine – My sincere apologies, I misread what you wrote so please disregard my last regarding fission/fusion.
Yes, I do demand rational argument (NOT proof) and also if i’m unable to give it then you have a right to call me a fool. Is that not reasonable? Do you have any better solution to the long term energy needs of our planet than nuclear fusion?
LikeLike
geraldine
1st emotional attachments caused by violence must be cured….as they are the cause of all destructive human behaviours…see work of dr alice miller, dr bob johnson, dr dorathy rowe, and robert whitaker…
LikeLike
Thanks for that, Victor. One presumed that there would have to be a certain degree of consensus, although it’s a bit thin in the statement which has been issued. Think it’s fair to say that neither of them knows!
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/met-office-in-the-media-16-february-2014-response-by-professor-mat-collins-and-the-met-office/
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Ace News Services 2014 and commented:
#ANS2014 says `Love it just Love it’ 🙂
LikeLike
He’s a f*****g idiot.
LikeLike
Yes it is fair but not necessarily right or correct. a balanced argument is one between equals in their subject. There are two things Gore and Lawson have in common the first is that they are largely pig ignorant about climate change and the second is neither cares as long as the money is right – and theirs.
The vast majority of us live in the here and now climate change will make small differences to us and can therefore be disregarded by most people.
LikeLike
Hmmm… Who to believe? The woman who is a scientist, or the man who has clearly swallowed THREE scientists? Hint: 3 > 1.
LikeLike
Dear Mr Absurd, I hope that every reader will click on your link and judge for himself whether your comment is a fair summary of the press statement.
The way I read it is that the only controversial aspect is about one of the possible causes, namely changes in the storm track.
That globally precipitation will increase will increase and strong precipitation even more is quite clear, although this issue is a bit complicated because science expects large regional differences in the increases. As the press statement writes:
“What the Met Office report – and indeed the IPCC – does say is that there is increasing evidence that extreme daily rainfall rates are becoming more intense. It is clear that global warming has led to an increase in moisture in the atmosphere – with about four per cent more moisture over the oceans than in the 1970s – which means that when conditions are favourable to the formation of storms there is a greater risk of intense rainfall. This is where climate change has a role to play in this year’s flooding.”
LikeLike
Pingback: Climate change sceptic Andrew Neil also once thought heterosexual AIDS was a myth | Pride's Purge
Well you were right about man made climate change being a myth, but not about smoking not causing health problems.
LikeLike
Didn’t scientists used to say the earth is flat and you will fall off the edges if you go to the horizon? Look at the history of medicine and you will find it littered with mistakes Doctors have made, and seeing as global warming has been proven to be a false claim now the people who don’t want to look stupid because of that are saying climate change instead, although they don’t look at history and see how climate has always changed.
LikeLike
Michael Mann Faces Bankruptcy as his Courtroom Climate Capers Collapse
http://www.principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse.html#.Uwdgw3pKV_4.twitter
LikeLike
Just for once a tory gets something right and he gets slated for it, there are so many things they get wrong that you could write about.
LikeLike