Africa wants polluters to pay for climate change

Well, that would be right. AGW, climate change, whatever you want to call it has NOT been proven to be caused by mankind; but here come the rent-seekers looking for - scratch that - DEMANDING, compensation.

In the unlikely event there money does come (sorry, hey?) anyone want to venture some suggestions where it might land up?

I am a cynic because experience has taught me to be a cynic.

Duncan McGregor do you know anything about this topic or you just commenting beacuse its Africans involved?

You are so right Duncan.
There is no evidence YET of any significant effects from "climate change".
Yet these collapsed, dysfunctional states, mostly lead by racist dictators are already standing up with their hands outstretched for more money from the "evil" west - most of which will end up in their private bank accounts.
Al Gore, the proven fraudster, together with the United Nations and the completely dishonest IPCC are busy with what they call "carbon trading".
Al Gore, hopes to make millions out of his business which will become the middle man in trading carbon from countries with "high carbons footprints".
This despite the fact that THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT CO2 IS IN ANY WAY LINKED TO CLIMATE CHANGE.
It should be now evident, even to the most naive individual, that the 3rd world, is once again playing the "victim" and demanding BILLIONS from the west for no good reason at all.
No doubt South Africa will also blame "climate change" for the failing agricultural output.
For the first time in history, South Africa became a nett importer of food last year.
Since 1990 - over then thousand commercial farmers have left the land in Southern Africa - many of them because of the almost genocidal murder rates.
With the general collapse of most of SA's governmental infrastructure there is little doubt that SA will be joining the "begging bowl" nations of Africa in the not too distant future.
An El Nino event that sees even moderate drought across Southern Africa, as has been the pattern for centuries, could see a tipping point that could bring famine on a scale never before contemplated.
I am sure that there is not one individual in government that has even the vaguest idea of the destruction taking place in agriculture.

The rubbish spouted above by Hoines and McGregor suggests they should consider selling their unwanted large fluffy feathers for dusters - that way they could be useful. Any attempt to counter their drivel is a waste of time.

Typical: African nations standing in line DEMANDING a hand out. As if these nations with their civil wars, mismanagement and corruption honestly think that climate change is the main reason why they havent been able to feed their exploding populations.

Always someone elses fault. Even without el nino and global warning people would still starve in Africa.

The rubbish spouted above by Hoines and McGregor suggests they should consider selling their unwanted large fluffy feathers for dusters - that way they could be useful. Any attempt to counter their drivel is a waste of time.
Justin on October 12, 2009, 9:42 am

Never fails!!
When anyone even DARES to question the Co2 theory - the response from the alarmists is playground name calling and silly insults.
Must be awfully frustrating for them becaue the Co2 alarmists have absolutely no proof!!
All they have is what they call "consensus" science which is the latest weasel word when you cannot substantiate a theory.
And they all worship at the alter of Al Gore who has been proven t be a lying , fraudulent con artists with the claims he made in his documentary An Inconvenient Truth.

Paul Vincent its always someone elses fault in this case the rich nations 1 example for you - Take the dumping of nuclear waste around the Somali waters (it was exposed during the tsunami, i dont think the Somalis have nuclear power stations. White peole!

My message at 9:42 should not be at the top of the messages - it was in reference to McGregor and Hoines drivel.

I was thinking while driving along Edwin Swales Drive, Durban (beside the harbour which I saw from my GPS has an elevation of 10m above sea level), that that whole area will be under water before 2050. So will most of the Thames valley. Global warming is as real as the summer crossing of the Arctic from Canada to Europe is now, the Maldives and other low-lying islands submerging...

As for the idiots politicians (not only in Africa, but elsewhere) wanting bucks for something - it's none of their business. What on earth do they want compensation for? What mindless crap!

International action must be taken now: against the countries which destroyed their rain forests - by implementing a reforestation programme starting NOW.

"International action"? Obama, if you really care, pull your troops out of Afghanistan and other irrelevant places, put spades and seedlings in their hands, and invade the rain forest zones with a massive planting programme. And any local who so much as mentions "chain saw" or appears with one must be shot on sight. And any fat mouth, anywhere, that so much as mutters "compensation" must be dressed in overalls, given a spade and told to start digging holes - for trees. This includes denialists like McGregor and Hoines.

Oh yes, and cull all ostriches masquerding as writers. It's far too easy to fart co2 while they have their heads in the sand.

Oh. Hello Dennis. Please don't start with the "proof" thing again. You still haven't explained to me (and James) what you think is wrong with our understanding of science. Every time you diss the notion of consensus you prove how little you know about scientific process.
And it also seems that you don't understand how funding, research grants and research independence works. Maybe you should desist from making comments that require knowledge of academic process and try another tactic. Could be fun.

Clayton, where did I mention race? Why do you play the race card? You insult me without any cause or evidence. Shame on you!! And yes, I do not a lot about this topic. Care to debate on facts? There are those for and against and I am persuaded by those against.

Justin, if the sea rises just one metre I will apologise to you and every one else. HOWEVER, do not assume for one second that I believe in consuming carelessly because I do not believe in AGW. I save water, electricity and use a motorcycle instead of a car. I walk and cycle when I can and recycle religiously. And I plant trees. Just because I disagree with you and disapprove of rent seekers does not mean I should be disrespected by the likes of you. You should apologise to Mr Hoines and myself and debate on facts.

And Dennis, making generalisations about how we "alarmists" adore Al Gore is just silly, and makes it pretty clear what kinds of websites you get your info from. I'm not about to defend him, but even he didn't exist, heck, if the IPCC didn't exist.. the theories would remain, and the science would stay the same.
No climatologist gives a hoot about either.

The facts are clear. Temperatures are rising. Sea-level is rising. There is no debate. And yes, politicians everywhere (not only in Africa) wanting hand-outs are to be dismissed. The time for opinions and debate is past - facts are not on the side of McGregor and Hoines. So, sorry if I called you ostriches. But, if the cap fits....

Lisa says.... "the theories remain". Amen and amen. Just theories. The science is in the observations which should prove those theories. But they are not. The latest UAH globally-averaged satellite readings show further temperature declines. No wonder I am 'in denial'. The programs to reduce 'global warming' are nothing more than taxes.

If any one asks, I have access to heaps of observations which show the IPCC models are way off beam.

Clayton Majona, do you also accuse white people for pollution while you throw your Streetwise Two out of your car window? Idiot F*ck!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5kg1oOq9tY = nice and simple, easy to understand. And no errors in calculations or fudged stitching.

Oh, and Messrs McGregor and Hoines, science can never PROVE anything - science merely disproves hypotheses.

Facts: since 1990 co2 has increased gradually to about 390ppm now; destroyed rain forests since about 1990; a clear summer passage from Canada to Europe via the Arctic; twice DAILY flooding of Thames-side properties every day now; these are FACTS - of increased temperatures, co2 and rising water levels.

Global warming IS real, and it isn't going to get any better without drastic action. I have no issue in principle with the proposal to bill the polluters (USA causes a third by themselves). The proviso I would add is that the $65B that is requested can only be spent on renewable energy projects, reforestation and desalinisation plants here in Africa. This would stem the rise in Co2 and also allow Africa to develop unhindered.

If it is to fall into AU coffers to be shared by the continents strong men, then there's no point in paying it.

Oh. Hello Dennis. Please don't start with the "proof" thing again. You still haven't explained to me (and James) what you think is wrong with our understanding of science.

Lisa van Wyk on October 12, 2009, 10:55 am

Dearie me - Lisa you're back again like a one string banjo with the same unproven theory.
You ask what is wrong - I'll tell you; "consensus" science, dodgy computer models and no proof whatsoever??
Isn't that enough???
You even have poor old Justin, driving along Edwin Swales VC Drive, (Is it still called that after that very brave pilot or have they changed it to that of some sly savage political murderer??) believing that sea levels are rising!!
Now I know you find it "tiresome" to have ANYONE even remotely question Co2's contribution to climate change but has it ever occurred to you that reasonable people all over the world might want more proof than just - the majority BELIEVE THE C02 THEORY - therefore it must be right!!!
The Americans seemed determined not to play ball with the dishonest IPCC and their "gravy train for delegates" conferences at exotic destinations round the world.
Thank goodness!!
With the UN based in New York they are familiar indeed with the corrupt shenanigans of the shady characters who run this shabby organisation and who constantly bleat about funding from the US whilst attacking them at every opportunity.)
And Lisa - Al baby, despite your denial, IS INDEED the DARLING of all the alarmists.
A few days ago, like slavering disciples they all gathered to hear Gore address a packed, cheering hall at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago.
This ugly American is an acknowledged fraudster - yet instead of throwing their shoes at him (and the IPCC) and demanding that he hand back the Nobel prize and the money -THEY GAVE HIM A STANDING OVATION.
So much for not giving a "Hoot". (Please won't you and James come right out and say that this fellow is a crook??)
Oh and if James is around, he might like to visit the website I posted for him regarding the NW passage.
It shows that he was completely wrong in claiming that GW is responsible for the "recent opening".
Whilst there, he may also wish to view some of the articles from SCIENTISTS that show arctic ice recovering in certain areas as well as other scientific papers on methane gas.
You seem to keep forgetting as does James - the IPCC is the organisation formed by the United Nations to collate scientific information on climate change for all the world's nations.
Instead they have become a largely politically driven body, reflecting the views of third world countries and certain scientists, who believe, despite any proof, that Co2 alone could be responsible for climate change.
The IPPC need to be reminded that their manifesto requires a non-political and unbiased approach in this regard.
In this they have singularly failed.
I reiterate - climate change needs to be addressed across a broad front, not just Co2, which despite BILLIONS in funding remains unproven to this day.
This is not unreasonable in anyone's terms, I am sure you will agree.

You ask what is wrong - I'll tell you; "consensus" science, dodgy computer models and no proof whatsoever??
Isn't that enough???

No Dennis.. it's NOT enough... I have commented on your other debate on another article. What was said there, and has been said here, is true. There is no proof, but there is NO PROOF IN SCIENCE.
Please explain what your objection is to this. It is the way science works. People who believe in CO2 and AGW will never do better than this, but here's the thing: neither will the people that sit in your camp. I am quite keen to know the answer to Lisa's question. WOULD you smoke 100 a day, with no "proof" that smoking causes lung cancer?

Yeh! lets get some money while we can, by the way, remember plans also pollute the air, and cars. So come on Africa lets sue, the little town in the USA where the Wright brothers ran their first flight. And while we at it lets hit those Fords down. wE GOING TO BE RICH!!!!!!!

Sea levels ARE rising - take a trip up the Thames from Wesminister Pier to Hampton and see the daily effects of rising water levels. This is not my BELIEF. It's a visible fact.
Visit Siberia. SEE the results of the vanished perma-frost - no longer perma(nent), no longer frost - just scorched earth with harmful gases rising. This is not my BELIEF. It's a visible fact.

(PS, like all sensible Durbanites I shall never call any streets by their politically re-named titles, so Edwin Swales VC Drive it remains, Moore Road, Northway etc...) - just as my father refused to call Pretoria Avenue, Randburg by the apartheid regime's "Hendrik Verwoerd Drive" (which I think it still is today.- and to answer the question, all the signs from the N2 to Bluff Road are still Edwin Swales VC Drive).

African leaders have come up with a new and innovative way to get more loot by claiming compensation for climate change from Western nations, while pretending to represent their people, who will obviously receive nothing from this clever scheme.

moloko moloko you being silly everything in my street wise 2 is bio-degradeble. The reason why i bring race in this whole argument is people like you who think when an african leadser speaks all they want is handouts. If climate change is a threat to the earth why should africans (people who stay in africa) suffer beacuse of a few greedy individuals?

What I find absolutely wonderful is how SA is managing to play the victim here – considering we are the 13th most polluting country in the world!!!!

Asking for money is a very bad idea – I can see it going straight into the pockets of corrupt officials with the real people seeing nothing of it.

Sorry, two things: Who's "James" and what's a "Streetwise 2"?

@ Justin

James is taking part in THIS debate which Lisa and myself have both referred to

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-10-06-global-recession-linked-to-drop-in-carbon-emissions

Justin - I admire your tenacity in holding on the historic names, particularly those that featured in International History.
However I always wanted them to change the name of the Victoria Falls to Mugabe Falls, as it would have made a marvellous headline!.
On the subject of rising sea levels on the Thames - the barriers were put there because of rising tides accompanied by "surges". These are caused largely by wind and distant ocean storms which cause severe swells to develop.
The main reason though for the flooding is the fact that London has been sinking into the sea for many centuries now.
Also the water table at Trafalgar Square is just several feet below the surface now.
The departure of industry from the London area combines with the disappearance of hundred of wells has allowed the water table to rise to levels unknown in recent times.
This high water table means that tide surges are no longer absorbed with resultant flooding.
I refer you to Professor Tim Lenton, professor of Earth Systems Science at the University of East Anglia in Norwich who says:

"It’s worth remembering that the sea level rise over the past century was on the order of 18-20 centimetres. London is lucky because it already has the Thames barrier, which should protect it for at least a century.
Few people may know that the whole crust of the UK is still adjusting to the retreat of the ice sheet at the end of the last Ice Age. Unfortunately London and the South East are sinking, irrespectively of climate change, at the rate of about 2 millimetres per year, which makes around 20 centimetres a century"

The fact is Justin, if there was a rise in sea levels it would affect the whole world, not just the UK.
Most of Durbs CBD is at or below sea level.
Many of the buildings in the lower part of West Street have pumps going 24/7 to keep the basements from flooding.
The lower marine parade along the beach front used to flood quite regularly when there were spring tides - I know as my Uncle owned what was the Cooee tea Room at the foot of West Street, roughly in line with the seaward side of the Lido.
The restaurant was flooded at least once a year.
The sea has not reached these levels in twenty years.
Nearly all the predictions of the alarmists have yet to manifest themselves particularly any variance to the rate ocean levels have been rising historically.
I do believe that we need to tread carefully in regards to climate change and that the glib, Co2 theory is not the only approach that should continue to be researched. That in a nutshell is the point I have been trying to make on this an other threads.

How, Clayton, is money (bags and bags of the stuff) going to help Mrs Ping and her handful of hangers-on?

P Lawson on October 12, 2009, 1:27 pm said:
There is no proof, but there is NO PROOF IN SCIENCE.
I am quite keen to know the answer to Lisa's question. WOULD you smoke 100 a day, with no "proof" that smoking causes lung cancer?

What a load of twaddle. Do you really expect the world to shut down power stations, close factories, stop driving cars, flying planes, create vast unemployment and distribute their wealth to tin pot racist, dictator murderers in the third world - BECAUSE THE POLITICALLY DRIVEN IPCC SAY THAT CO2 CAUSES CLIMATE CHANGE????
Any reasonable person would say - gimme proof before we destroy our economy!
And you lung cancer analogy might be more useful if you framed it around Malaria.
There you had a similar situation - the vast majority convinced that it was cause by "bad air".
It was the perfect example of "consensus" science.
And the absolute proof of its in-built fallibility.
They were of course all wrong.
Just like they'll be wrong on Co2.
Simply because there is no proven connection, never has and never will be.
It's time to look for the real answer not some simplistic theory created by a dodgy computer model.

Dennis, go back to the other thread and see where I am coming from.

No one is proposing "shut down power stations, close factories, stop driving cars, flying planes, create vast unemployment and distribute their wealth to tin pot racist, dictator murderers in the third world". That is of your own invention, Dennis.

No, Dennis. The lung cancer analogy is the relevant one. As it stands there is no "proof". Answer the question. Would you smoke that much?

Dennis, let me break down the 'proven connection' you mentioned as simply and clearly as possible:

Fact #1: Global temperatures have risen by about 0.8 degrees C since records began, with the ten warmest years on record all occurring from 1997-2008. This is not disputed.

Fact #2: CO2 is a greenhouse gas; a basic physical property of CO2, repeatedly measured and confirmed since the 1890s, is that it absorbs and emits infrared (heat) radiation, so CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat from the sun. This is undisputed.

Fact #3: CO2's concentration in the atmosphere has risen by 35% since the Industrial Revolution, and is now at its highest level in at least 450,000 years (measured in bubbles of air trapped in ice cores). CO2 measured at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii shows an uninterrupted increase since records began in 1959. This is undisputed.

Fact #4: The amount of extra CO2 in the atmosphere matches almost exactly with the amount released from fossil fuels (minus the amount that would be taken up by natural carbon sinks). That sounds like a big claim, but miners, drillers, factories, and utilities are, after all, businesses who keep careful records of the fuel they burn, so it's relatively easy to measure. So we know with 100% certainty that the extra CO2 comes from human emissions. This is also backed up by how the carbon isotope balance of the atmosphere is changing. This is undisputed.

So, we know that humans have increased atmospheric CO2 levels, we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we know that globally temperatures have increased. The logical conclusion is inescapable, and that is about as airtight a proof as science can ever offer.

Essentially your position consists of 1 - saying that it's possible to pump great quantities of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere without increasing temperatures (essentially violating basic physics), and 2 - proposing no alternative. What else is driving this warming? No other known climate forcers can sufficiently explain the extent of the warming of the last 120 years - note that is NOT saying that CO2 is the ONLY cause of climate change as you repeatedly say, but that for the past 120 years it has been the MAJOR ONE.

I really don't know how to make it any clearer than that...

P Lawason, I suggest you have a serious read of this lunatic statement from a senior UN official - then review the posting you made.

At the opening session of the Rio Earth Summit Maurice Strong, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Secretary-General, bemoaned the world’s “explosive increase in Population”. His speech also stated that “current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable. A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations.”
Mr Strong has since stated that “The United States is the greatest threat to the global environment. It is guilty of environmental aggression against the planet” and “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”

This is the kind of sick mentality driving the UN, the IPCC and all the alarmists.
Excuse me whilst I vomit.

James - you most unconvincing post yet.

The jury is still out on your point 1.

Point 2 is hotly disputed by many scientists, contrary to your statement that it isn't.

Point 3 - So what?? Where is the CONNECTION???

Point 4 Is probably the biggest fantasy of them all. 100% certainty??? Sure - like the NW passage James???

I find you "facts" mere parroting from IPCC documents which are questioned by many highly qualified scientists world-wide.
The logic is also highly questionable.
It's the same bizarre rationale that led people to believe Malaria cam from "bad air" merely because nearby swamps smelled bad. And merely because "everyone" said it must be.(Good old consensus science in action here)
And you're still ignoring Al Gore - (goodnight to Lsa at this point) - champion of the alarmists!!
He would appear to be untouchable to you Lisa and P Lawson - when in reality he is the Jimmy Swaggert of science.
A complete phony sharing a Nobel prize with the IPCC who are sly accomplices in in his big lies.
It is evident that you chaps are certainly not "one sandwich short of a picnic" yet it is quite remarkable how closed your minds are to the prospect that climate change may have another set of causes.
It is certainly disappointing - mankind deserves more from his/her scientists in the quest for knowledge and understanding.
The bigotry fostered by the UN and the IPCC and their clever little clutch of head-nodders will surely be recorded as one of the darker episodes of science.

Duncan and Denis
The rich countries are investigating climate change. Do you think they are going to conclude that they are responsible.Also what proof is therte that Carbon emissions are not causing climate change. I remember India asking for compensation in the first conference.

The African countries have a right to ask for compensation. How the money is used is another matter.

This is reaching new levels of absurdity even for you Dennis - I don't think I've EVER spoken to a AGW-skeptic (I'll save you the denier tag) who said that temperatures haven't increased AND that CO2 doesn't have greenhouse properties - did you really just say that? Once again I'll support all the points with quantitative data (and not an IPCC reference in sight).

Fact#1 - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Fact#2 - Basic high school physics and spectroscopy: increase the amount of CO2 in a space and you'll increase the amount of radiative absortion. Here is a list of studies confirming the radiative absorption characteristics of CO2

http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/

Fact#3 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

Fact#4 - Besides the blatantly obvious fact that we've burnt a billion years fossil fuel reserves and released all that CO2 into the atmosphere in the past 150 years; another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

More here - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

Now Dennis, your turn. Try and stay focused here and show me scientific data that can dispute those 4 facts. Don't mention Al Gore, don't name call, don't mention malaria, don't cherry pick temperature records for a 5 year period - just take each of these basic scientific facts one by one and try and dispute them.

What worries me the most is that even if you acknowledge those four facts to be true you don't seem to be able to reach the logical conclusion they imply. There's a great saying that's very relevant here - you cannot remove an idea with logic that was not put there by logic in the first place. Your irrational beliefs in non-science and conspiracy are so self-defensive that it's clear that no amount of real data and science will influence you. How do you talk to someone like that?

Dennis.. answer the questions we ask, if you have any argument at all. I see you haven't bothered to respond on the other page. All you are displaying is a willful ignorance of science.

Every time you take a headache pill, or something for flu, you are putting your faith in "consensus science". I'm assuming you shun modern medicine. Do you believe HIV causes Aids?

I see you haven't taken up my offer to debate the science, that i made here

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-10-06-global-recession-linked-to-drop-in-carbon-emissions

And as for Maurice Strong:
That "quote" is notorious for the fact that it is only found on sites run by conspiracy theorists. I did a quick search now. Still true. Maurice Strong is an American who is disgusted by the fact that the per capita CO2 emissions of the US population far outweigh that of any other country, as does their consumption of fuels and resources. He has stated that (I paraphrase) "we cannot allow there to be another USA". His concerns are only partly to do with CO2, as it happens, so even if you debate that point, his other concerns remain valid. If you deny THAT, then you have a very strange view of the world.

And as for Al Gore.. James and Lisa are right to ignore him. Many scientists disagree with some of his figures, but many are grateful that he has made an issue that they have been arguing for decades public. But he is irrelevant. The science exists before him, and after him.

I am a climatolgist and a scientist, Dennis. I see these arguments everyday, but the work I do both in my lab and in the field, as well as discussions with collegues who work in different areas, makes me believe what I do. There is no need to mention Al Gore and the IPCC, unless you really can't think of any other argument.

... and so, after all that hot air, Hoines and McGregor are proved wrong, and something drastic has to be done, NOW. www.350.org is a good place to start.

Lawson. Lisa.Justin and James
What a bunch of clever scientists and climatolgist (sic) chaps you are. I am impressed.

As P Lawson said: "And as for Al Gore.. James and Lisa are right to ignore him."

Yes - why not ignore EVERYTHING that conflicts with your narrow view of climate change - it would make things so much simpler. Sadly the rest of the world, the UN and the IPCC don’t ignore him as he sallies forth with one idiotic presentation after another.
What is completely beyond me is why the alarmists become hysterical whenever a scientist expresses a view that questions their unproven theory of Co2.
The name calling, the disparaging remarks and the insults all come out.
This is most unbecoming.
The debate really is not about science but about why alarmists behave in this unseemly fashion.
Lawson, James, Justin, Lisa et al - have their views on global warming.
My view, as an objective bystander, is that there are also many other conflicting views.
Not from laymen.
But from many scientists who are qualified to question and make comments.
Yet these scientists are publicly insulted and vilified by the alarmist gang.
Time and time again.
P Lawson does his best to whitewash Strong - a man whose loony statements are in good company with both the United Nations and the IPCC who both evidently subscribe to his views - for neither of these dodgy organisations have distanced themselves from either him or his sick opinions. (And there are lots more to come!)
And it seem neither does P Lawson, James, Justin or Lisa.
Their secret support of Al Gore and his fraudulent ranting are also evidenced by their inability to come out and call him a liar and a crook who should hand back his Nobel prize and money.
Most alarmists remind me of WSC who said during the early stages of WWII that he would make a pact with the devil if it would help him defeat Hitler.
It seems that Gore and Strong are a couple of devils that the alarmists just could not bear to unload!
And as for P Lawson's raising the headache pills, headache and aids.....another complete non sequitur to the discussion. But then in his consensus view everyone was absolutely right to believe that bad air caused malaria.
We now come to James and his little collection of “Facts”.
(And James old chap, you accuse me of name-calling you chaps – this is something I refrain from despite the many temptations – please re-read my postings and you will find your accusations as untruthful as your claims of Co2 and climate change.)
Now back to what you like to believe are “facts”. You have your sources old chap which in your narrow restricted view represent the “truth”.
I also have a few sources which you will no doubt disagree with, claim they have been debunked, disproven, are total lies, fabricated by oil companies, and made up by scientists who are just plain stupid.
This is stated with a shiny –eyed conviction reminiscent of a born again happy clapper full of self-righteous conviction that only their way is the right way. Praise the Lord!
So your sources James are the ONLY right ones???
Start here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/4029837/Global-warming-Reasons-why-it-might-not-actually-exist.html
Then type into Google ‘why there is no connection between Co2 and climate change.
You will find well-researched papers from scientists who are well qualified.
But of course every one of these scientists – all these hundreds of pages – they are all CRAP.
Conspiracy people, Minutemen, Klu Klux Klan, Barbershop Quartet Singers.
Come on now James.
If you believe in consensus – then surely there is some consensus here amongst the many thousands who disagree with Co2??
Or are only the alarmists adorned with the mantle of truth.
Perhaps you should consult Pontious Pilate on this tricky subject.
It is interesting to read of similar parallels in history, where the vast majority of “consensus” scientists were proven to be wrong as seems to have happened quite often.
It was stated frequently and often that radio waves, like light would only travel in a straight line – therefore radio signals, like light, could not possibly “bend” over the horizon.
Those who believed it possible were vilified in the same way by the “consensus” boykies a la malaria.
But eventually, working alone, and without mainstream funding, Marconi was to prove all the consensus clowns wrong.
Radio waves could indeed travel over the horizon and across the Atlantic – but not by bending, but by being reflected off ionised layers above the earth.
And for the benefit of P Lawson – he was actually able to PROVE it through a series of experiments.
Now we could embark on a game of “my sources are more credible than yours” but that surely is, “tedious” and a waste of time and effort and would only have poor Lisa going off to be even earlier.
Instead, I believe the real danger of the whole climate change issue, is not the science, but the politics driving both the UN and the IPCC.
As politics has largely destroyed real sportsmanship and even the arts – so it will destroy the fundamental freedoms of science to the detriment of all mankind.

Oh, so now the debate ISN'T about the science? I am sorry Dennis, but when it comes to a debate about the existence or non existence of physical process and its causes, it is all about the science. Anything else is a distraction. But arguing with you about the science is pointless, because
a)You obviously don't have the faintest clue about how science "works"
b)You refuse to acknowledge your own shortcomings in this area, telling me that my arguments are somehow not relevant, when in actual fact they are simple illustrations of how scientists approach science, and how it works in everyday terms. I take it your refusal to answer any of the questions posed to you is because you're stumped when it comes to an answer.
c)You bring up something where the proof was found "in a lab". We have known for ages (through "proving in a lab") that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and a more effective greenhouse gas than any other present in industry. So there you go. It's "proven" by your own definition. But ask ANY scientist about the nature of "proof" and they'll agree with me.

Sure, there may be many scientists who disagree with the CO2 theory. But the task of any scientist is to then formulate a new hypothesis, giving REASONS that they question it. You can't just "disagree" unless there is reason or alternative theory. There is no convincing argument, through example or illustration or real world scenario, AGAINST CO2. You say the scientists who disagree are being ignored? Not true. They are simply not putting forward any reasons, any research, that will convince the scientific community. And believe me, we want to see it. The predictions we have formulated are HORRIBLE. If someone could tell us that "it isn't that bad" or we don't have to try convince nations to make changes soon, it would be welcomed.

As an aside.. you accuse us of name calling? Where? I want examples. And you call us "alarmists" at the drop of a hat? Tut tut.

The Telegraph report was fascinatingly devoid of verifiable facts.

The rest of the newspaper was fascinating, especially the letter to Richard Branson - thanks for the link and for the good laugh.

Have a good day and buy yourself some water wings. You're going to need them sooner than later.

;-)

c)You bring up something where the proof was found "in a lab".

P Lawson on October 14, 2009, 10:00 am

What on earth are you referring to??
What lab. What something??
Another non sequitur??

Guglielmo Marconi? He did much of his work in a lab? And then he transferred his work into a limited real world scenario (still considered "lab work" to some scientists, but then again I am not surprised that you didn't realise that).

What does that remind me of... Oh! I know. Climatogists and scientists, who have for a century, been "proving" in labs that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the more there is in the atmosphere, the more warming occurs. And then have applied this PROVEN theory to the real world.

Also, you seem to be confused about his story (I am, as it happens, a big fan of this pioneer). He was not ridiculed and rejected by the scientific community. He worked alone because that is just what inventors in the late 19th/early 20th century did, and "funding" did not work the way it does today. And the shortwave technology you are referring to (if you are talking about the ionosphere then you must be) has been perfected by amateur radiographers before he did his first tests in this regard, and by that time he was an established and respected figure in this area (he had won the Nobel prize in 1909).

If a physical process is demonstrated in a lab, that process should occur in the real world. That is why we can take medicine, that is why you can put fuel in your car. That's the great thing about science, and I can't understand your objection to this.

P. Lawson semantics do not an argument make.
I am not sure where you get your information but scientists at the time said that it was indeed impossible for radio waves to be radiated over the horizon.
In fact the overwhelming body of scientists at the time were of that view - just like they are now with climate change.
Moreover, the popular press ran stories at the time that perpetuated that "myth" and that Marconi was wasting his time.(Just like they do now on Co2)
And whilst he certainly conducted experiments in his lab he had to take it into the real world in order to PROVE it.
(Ionospheric layers as per the D, F2, F1 and E layers cannot be duplicated in the laboratory.)
This is something that alarmists like yourself adorned in the saintly mantle of science have been unable to do.
Despite billions of dollars being spent.
Vick Pope in the latest article in the M&G on arctic ice makes a very good point.
If more scientists adopted her stance instead of making ridiculous scaremongering claims they might be taken more seriously.
It is interesting to note that this same article is printed in several newspapers around the world - BUT THE STATEMENT MADE BY VICK POPE WAS REMOVED FROM THEM ALL!!
In a recent UK survey, probably one of the most literate and highly educated countries in the world, the majority were not convinced, despite the millions spent to convince them, that scientists had presented convincing evidence of global warming.
Alarmist claims of sea levels rising twenty feet or more.
In fact the profession of "scientist" seems to be sliding down the scale in comparison to other professions as a direct result of the "scaremongering", unfulfilled predictions and lack of any proof.