Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Log In to post a reply

81 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Merrick
Merrick
2148 posts

Edited Nov 26, 2009, 12:04
Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Nov 23, 2009, 11:46
jshell wrote:
if this is true it will damage the case for CO2 controls and, well, just about everything to curb temperature rises.


Er, no it won't. It doesn't show anything that would do that.

Rather like heading this thread 'cat's out of the bag', you are vastly overstating the importance of the emails and blatantly misrepresenting what they contain. They do not show that climate change is not being driven by human activities.

jshell wrote:
If you ignore links to this revalation, then it's just sitting in the dark and believing in something with blind faith...a bit like religion.


That would be true, were it not for the fact that the leaked emails don't show any cover-up of human-induced climate change being a hoax, and for the fact that there is overwhelming data from scientists all around the world that is accepted as fact by 99% of climatologists and meteorologists. These things put it well beyond the realm of faith.

You are either too dim to realise that difference, or you are smart enough to but want to miscast it in that light. I wonder which it is.

As far back as 1995 scientists advising the Global Climate Coalition - a fossil-industries climate denial body - said plainly that:

"The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied".

Yet those industries continued to deny climate change was happening, and after that became irrefutable in the public mind they switched to saying well yes, it was happening, but it wasn't human-induced.

The continuing job of the climate denier is not to show climate change isn't happening, but to say that there's some doubt as to whether humans are responsible.

The scientific consensus level is similar to that saying that there's a link between tobacco and cancer. So having someone misrepresent minor material as proof that the entire realm of scientific evidence may be fraudulent, with links not to any data from scientific bodies but to right-wing denialist blogs, well, you see what that looks like, don't you?

jshell wrote:
I'll say it again, make up your own mind.


And I'll say it again

All you have to do is answer four simple questions.

1. Does the atmosphere contain carbon dioxide?
2. Does atmospheric carbon dioxide influence global temperatures?
3. Will that influence be enhanced by the addition of more carbon dioxide?
4. Have human activities led to a net emission of carbon dioxide?
Topic Outline:

U-Know! Forum Index