Today give carte blanche to ‘scientist’ who denies link between CO2 and temperature

RT @leftfootfwd: Today give carte blanche to ‘scientist’ who denies link between CO2 and temperature: http://is.gd/4TkXF <— Incl. audio

This crystallises what was so worrying about the outcome of the Tim Nicholson case – man-made climate change is not a religion, it’s not a leap of faith, and if people are invited to speak on the scientific evidence (for and against), they must be qualified to do so, and what they needs to be placed in context.

I thought more of Radio 4 than this.

RT @leftfootfwd: Today give carte blanche to ‘scientist’ who denies CO2/temperature link: http://is.gd/4TkXF – Commented, a disgrace!

In view of the recent New Labour clamp down on scientific truth with Professor Nutt and the dangers from cannabis…

…what qualifications does this “Joss Garman” have to describe this guys opinion as nonsense?

Why does a perfectly fair (and true) comment about ‘extra-terrestrial forces’ get highlighted by ‘Flat Earth’ Garman?

Hey Joss – he means asteroids and the like – not ET that you probably believe landed at Roswell. Or were the dinosaurs (probably) not made extinct in this fashion?

(I know there are a few dinosaurs in the bunker in Downing Street but this type of opinion is ludicrous and in any event a mass extinction is due within six months anyway)

Leaving aside that this whole thing was invented by Maggie Thatcher (I love it when leftys don’t realise that!) to beat the Coal Board why is the Earth getting colder (again).

More importantly for myself, (as a designer of certain sections of Eco Enabled products and with an interest and education in this subject), why is the only eternal heat source this planet has (the sun Joss – that big fusion reactor in the sky called a star – remember what your mum said and don’t look directly at it) not included in the Climate Change computer programs?

Why? – it’s mad not to.

This scientist should be tackled on his science Joss, not derided for having an opinion different to yours. That is *so* New Labour control freak stuff.

I hope Will reads this post and reflects on his comments this morning about “playing the ball and not the man” on this blog and quickly advises you that just copying sections of someone else’s site is not the same as research and that since you (clearly) do not have a clue about science, like Alun Johnson, you should stop commenting on it.

Plimer has been derided for his science. Read the links – this one in particular: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/plimers-homework-assignment/

Which part of this piece has been copied from someone else’s site? Give me the url…

joss deals with plimer in a perfunctory fashion, which is all he deserves. http://bit.ly/1Qjhu9

Shamik – which impartial scientist (not one on the Climate-Change-Nutters payroll) derided him?

I know you’re not one who likes to answer questions when they seem too tough Shamik (http://www.leftfootforward.org/2009/11/jeremy-clarkson-and-dont-come-back/#comments) but let’s try this one:

Why is the global temperature getting colder?

Now assuming you’re not our Prime Minister in disguise Shamik, can try actually answering the question.

You first. You said “just copying sections of someone else’s site is not the same as research” – let me ask you again, which site has any section of this article been copied from?

You see here’s the thing you London based metrosexual left wing elites don’t seem to understand about the real working classes in this country.

We are heartily sickened and rightly skeptical of things that involve taking more of our money from us and giving it to champagne socialists like yourselves.

All you do is drone on and on. Can you imagine being stuck in an elevator with Harriet Harman or Yvette Cooper for an hour? (OK that’s a bit too excessive as an idea but illustrates the point)

Well that’s how the working classes in Britain feel about this stuff.

MMR causes autism, GM crops will make monsters, Hamburgers will give BSE, Mobile Phones cause cancer, CO2 cause Global Warming and on and on and on.

Bugger off the lot of you. If this government believed (Man Made) CO2 caused global warming why have the Runway 3 at Heathrow?

Why more coal fired power stations? (when carbon capture is as likely as Peter Mandelsons tax rebate on electric cars that don’t exist)

Al Gore wouldn’t get on a flight if he really believed this rubbish.

Why aren’t we bombing China tonight to stop their carbon emissions if it’s as Gordon Brown says “56 days to save the world”.

And lets face it when it comes to wars there’s nothing a New Labour supporter likes better than some mass killings in illegal wars overseas – especially if they can lie as a means of achieving it.

The fact is you lot force your views on people like the Soviet Union did and like them you’ll be gone in six months and rightly so.

Shamik – over 40% of the article was copied and pasted from the BBC Today site along with the link obviously to that site.

Now instead of dancing on the head of a pin (if you have problems understanding what that means try Wiki) answer what you were asked the other day on this site. Here I’ve copied it for you:

Shamik, 943,598 votes? – near enough a million.

Brown secretly planned Public Service cuts of 9.3% and ran down Cameron for proposing 0.7% more at 10%.
You don’t see anything wrong with that Shamik? Really?
For Labour to only get two and a half times the number of votes as the BNP is beyond belief – the Labour Party are horrified by that fact – why aren’t you?
Regarding Browns votes, I meant for the leadership of their respective parties. Brown’s thugs and bullies, McBride and Co, leant on ordinary members to not ask for a leadership election.
People like me also voted for Tony (Full Third Term) Blair. The way Brown and his cronies treated him was also a disgrace.
Finally who did I accuse of making false statements? Yvette Cooper openly lied this morning on the Today program – even when challenged, albeit pretty lamely, by the presenter she continued to lie.
What sort of an example is that to send to the public? Am I to assume you think that smearing and lying about people is an acceptable way to behave in life? Really Shamik?

Now’s your chance Shamik – step up to the plate my man. Show some courage – the floor is yours….

Shamik you ok?

Let’s try again:

Which impartial scientist (not one on the Climate-Change-Nutters payroll) derided him?

Why is the global temperature getting colder?

Go on Shamik, break your New Labour instincts and answer the question.

You mean this site? http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8356000/8356114.stm – which says, in bold, PLEASE NOTE: We are unable to offer transcripts for our programme interviews.

Plimer’s quotes have not been “copied and pasted” from anywhere.

The citations for the Wikipedia article on his book are a good place to start re: reactions from the scientific community, Billy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_and_Earth_(book)#Reactions_from_scientists

On the point about Nick Griffin, totally irrelevant to this post, he received 3,363 votes in the BNP leadership election – nowhere near 1 million. About 996,637 votes short. http://lancasteruaf.blogspot.com/2007/07/bnp-leadership-election-result-no.html

Claire it was “Global Cooling” in the seventies – so why are we right now and they were wrong then?

The planet is getting cooler Claire and I ask you, as I did Shamik (but he has no courage of his convictions and just rants in blogs – get a real job Shamik if you’re old enough to work) where are the impartial scientists without a vested interest (eg on the payroll) that agree with this?

If this Global Warming (man made) Nonsense is true that my opinion of this crooked government has gone even further down if they agreed to the third runway at Heathrow and coal fired power stations.

Challenge everything Claire – don’t act like a lemming without checking the facts first. If people had adopted that attitude before Iraq then thousands of people wouldn’t be dead in Labour’s illegal overseas adventures…

Shamik are you serious? Anon E Mouse said Griffin was elected by his party.

3363 votes is 3363 votes more than this dreadful unelected dithering fool of a Prime Minister we have.

Anon E Mouse also asked you: Am I to assume you think that smearing and lying about people is an acceptable way to behave in life? Really Shamik?

So Shamik DO YOU BELIEVE IT WAS ACCEPTABLE to smear David Cameron the week his disabled son died? Try YES or NO Shamik….

Claire:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/11/ncdc-october-usa-temperatures-3rd-coldest-on-record-wettest-ever-on-record/

The BBC had a program called The Weather Show in the 70′s and this was the type of thing they predicted. their graphs were amazingly close to the current situation.

Oh the Climate-Change-Nutters will have some convoluted reason why “Cold is the new Hot” but the facts speak for themselves – the world gets colder.

It’s exactly like Alun Johnson and the cannabis drugs debate – if you don’t like the truth just shut the conversation down. So New Labour….

The overall trend is upwards – but there will be fluctuations – see this from New Scientist:

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-2_808.jpg

I assure you that it is not nonsense.

However, I agree with you that we do not need a third runway at Heathrow.

BBC gives unchallenged platform to global-warming denier, again! Trying to appease right-wingers http://bit.ly/4svBPH

What was actually said was “Question Time were right to have Nick Griffin on – he’s got over a million votes – far more than Gordon Brown ever got.”

Then, by means of explanation, Anon E Mouse wrote “Regarding Browns votes, I meant for the leadership of their respective parties.”

For the leadership of his party, Griffin got 3,363 votes – fewer than a million. In the Euro elections the BNP got 943,598 votes – fewer than Labour. Wrong on both counts, however you want to spin it.

Thanks for highlighting this Joss, I’ve just tweeted it. Shameful behaviour by the BBC again

Claire – great response time woman.

That only goes back to the Industrial Revolution where we can be certain of man made CO2 (and obviously we have records) but we know the country was much hotter before this which is why we have Vine Street in our cities then it got colder again. It just goes in cycles, hot cold hot cold.

No one knows what will happen in the future.

This is just a fad Claire – I’ve seen them before – couple of years ago I saw a bunch of cranks in white overalls ruining crops in a field because of their fears of GM yet now GM tomatoes are on sale.

While the world gets colder and the effects of the sun on earths temperature is not taken into account I don’t believe it. Sorry.

RT @pickledpolitics: BBC gives unchallenged platform to global-warming denier, again! Trying to appease right-wingers http://bit.ly/4svBPH

Shamik. Stop ignoring the elephant in the room (if you have problems understanding what that means try Wiki) and answer the questions:

Anon E Mouse also asked you: Am I to assume you think that smearing and lying about people is an acceptable way to behave in life? Really Shamik?
So Shamik DO YOU BELIEVE IT WAS ACCEPTABLE to smear David Cameron the week his disabled son died? Try YES or NO Shamik….

Which impartial scientist (not one on the Climate-Change-Nutters payroll) derided him?

Why is the global temperature getting colder?

You mention spin Shamik but you put a washing machine to shame.

Finally if your teacher catches you mailing this blog I’m not responsible for keeping you from your studies – with the current state of education in this country I wouldn’t do that especially if you need to get revising to get on your Media Studies or Surfing degree in the future…

I found the Today Programme editorial choices this morning very suspect: giving a platform (again!) to a climate change denier with no credibility, and pandering to The Sun. I also think that John Humphries sniggering and abrasive manner is becoming increasingly outmoded. Thank God for the new recruits!

ARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHH what ever happened to young people challenging the system – I despair of the apathy here.

Show me the evidence of (man made) CO2 driven Global Warming.

Why is the global temperature getting colder?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/11/ncdc-october-usa-temperatures-3rd-coldest-on-record-wettest-ever-on-record/

I want evidence – not some computer program thank you from people on the Climate-Change-Nutters payroll….

Hey Shamik it’s “Home Time” soon (you’ll hear the bell any minute) so if you can’t reply until your Media Studies class tomorrow that’s OK…

Hey try this Claire:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=timeseries02&byear=2009&bmonth=10&year=2009&month=10&ext=gif&id=110-00

Trend up to this year (in North America but since we live in a biosphere it’s applicable) and goes DOWN.

Don’t want to spoil your (tax raising) party,but temperatures have been dropping for the last 11 years. And polar bears are doing quite nicely too.

Hey James why shouldn’t Today “pander to the Sun” as you put it? I don’t read the paper myself but Today is becoming more and more popular – just like the Sun.

More people in Britain read the Sun that any other paper – it’s popular. Obviously being popular is something Labour have no idea about having broken records for having an unpopular leader but I think that’s why Today pander to them.

You have to appreciate that climate science is never going to be able to give you the definitive proof that you ask for – there are too many variables, it’s just impossible to be precise. Yes, there have been higher temperatures in the past – but the temperature is higher than it should be for a cooling period. Further, based on how CO2 behaves in the atmosphere, viewed alongside the increased concentrations of CO2 (measured from air trapped in ice cores: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c1/page_6.shtml) since the Industrial Revolution, it is reasonable to infer that we could be in a lot of trouble if we don’t wean ourselves off fossil fuels.

I’m happy to look at the evidence, but you are not showing me anything new. You say you want young people to challenge the establishment – but our entire society is based on oil and consumption! Why shouldn’t we challenge that? After all, we’re going to run out anyway – we might as well leave it before it leaves us!

I would also add that you are being very rude to Shamik, and I don’t think it is necessary.

I need to stop feeding trolls over at @leftfootfwd. But they are really quite anger-making… http://bit.ly/JPS2o

The Royal Society has a handy guide to the myths about global warming – some of which have been trotted out here in the comments thread.
See: http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

My question to you deniers -

If you wont believe the Royal Society or NASA or the two thousand independent climate scientists who make up the UN’s IPCC or the literally thousands of peer reviewed climate science papers arguing the link between co2 and climate change… is there anybody you actually will trust?

Does it not seem more likely to you that these authoritative voices are perhaps more dependable than a bunch of headbanging blogs by loony tune conspiracists?

Claire – I need to look over the data on your link.

On the oil and consumption bit – it’s true but who cares? Clearly not this government. A friend of mine contacted the DTI with an invention to cut electricity usage but they didn’t even ring him back or reply to his mail.

I think we should wean ourselves off oil but only because I hate the pollution it causes not because of any belief I have from the sanctimonious Climate Change Brigade that (man made) CO2 is effecting global temperatures.

Personally we should be funding the race to Nuclear Fusion but mention the word Nuclear to people and they immediately start off on something else equally tedious.

Regarding Shamik I think it is the height of rudeness to accuse a person of not answering a question whilst refusing to answer one himself. If a person posts comments in a blog they should (provided they are polite as people should be) stand by and answer their posts – or not post them.

The problem Shamik and other contributers have on this blog is the dogmatic blinkered view they have for this current government means that their own personal decency stops them defending the actions of this lot.

It is frankly indefensible to smear the good name of an opponent with lies as Damian McBride did, from the same office as Brown, the week his disabled son died.

Shamik, like everyone else knows that behavior is wrong but instead of saying so he keeps trying to avoid the question which is annoying and in my mind rude.

My problem with that action is that Brown has no right to not respect the high office he holds in our country. Can you see Callaghan, Churchill or Thatcher allowing such disgraceful behavior to take place?

Joss – tell me how independent the two thousand independent climate scientists who make up the UN’s IPCC actually are.

Are none paid for their opinions?

Do they have vested interests here?

McBride has nothing to do with this. And anyway, when have I ever sought to defend his actions? Evidence? A blog post or comment I might have written in support of the ***insert expletive of choice*** or his lackeys?! Stick to the issues. Lets go back to the very first paragraph of this article: Plimer is “not a climate scientist and have never published a peer reviewed paper on the subject” – maybe you have evidence to refute this claim; please provide it.

Well, I care, and I’m not the only one, not by a long shot. Further, there are people who care within the current government. You don’t have to believe it – it doesn’t matter to me. I just care that we don’t distort science to twisted ends – or give credence to those who have been wholly discredited by their peers in the scientific community.

You can explain the attitude any way you like – but debate is only productive when people don’t resort to name-calling and personal attacks.

Shamik the McBride comment was from your evasive answers elsewhere on this blog – a point of which you are fully aware. Your tacit silence on the matter when questioned speaks volumes…

I don’t believe in (man made) CO2 driven Global Warming – I have the right to disagree with you believe it or not.

Since the effects of the sun are not taken into account the Climate Change Model must be wrong – it’s common sense that the hottest item in our solar system and the reason we have any energy on our planet has to be included.

I don’t trust anyone on the IPCC payroll. “They would say that wouldn’t they” springs to mind.

The Earth keeps getting cooler as predicted in the 1970′s.

I care about strategies in life Shamik, big picture stuff, so I wouldn’t nit pick about a single line in an article. Especially one written by a man like Joss who is quite clearly not a science major and has just jumped on the *yawn* Climate Change bandwagon and probably earns his living from this.

Just because someone hasn’t published a peer reviewed paper doesn’t mean they aren’t right – just that they haven’t had a paper peer reviewed.

And why so serious Shamik? Lighten up fella. This isn’t the Soviet Union you know.

Ian Plimer gets prime airtime because he is well spoken, looks reasonable, garners credibility and he gets people to watch and listen. This is how commercial radio and television make money. And besides, the BBC is beginning to turn to the dark side now so people like Plimer are allowed airtime, whereas a few months ago this would never have happened. The BBC is now a climate denier and is therefore a holocaust denier. Lol!

Claire – let me guess you’re going to make a difference, yes?

Lower your expectations in life and you may not be so disappointed.

No one really believes in it in government or as I stated before they wouldn’t fly round the world in Lear Jets (at our expense of course).

Charles Darwin was REALLY discredited by his peers but he was right. There are many others in the same position as well – fully vindicated in the long run.

The planet gets colder. The Sun isn’t taken into account in the model of climate change – ask yourself why?

That’s just a fact but because it doesn’t fit into your theory you play the man not the ball and attack him with snide smearing comments – like those used by a man called David Kelly before the Iraq war.

You remember him – the lies by this government drove him to suicide – he was right on WMD but right before the Iraq War no one believed him. I didn’t.

Shamik asks questions but doesn’t answer them himself – that is not a personal attack. Read other posts elsewhere on this blog and you’ll see he’s got form.

Joss – Why keep saying consensus?

Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 1%) explicitly endorse the ‘consensus view’.

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm

Of course this was ignored as well…

You seem to be questioning everyone else’s credentials… Care to lay out your own? And on the subject of avoiding questions, you still haven’t given the link to the website you claim sections of this piece were copied from. You also seem to have completely ignored the point about Nick Griffin.

Prof Ian Plimer asserts that his critics do not engage him on the science. There is an extremely careful point by point refutation by Ian Enting at the web site http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91 . If anyone is unwilling to read the 143 points of criticism, they can go straight to the Summing Up on page 35 where Enting explains how that the Plimer book fails to support Plimer’s assertions. By how much time does someone like Plimer delay effective action against climate chaos?

Sounds like Billy the Kid’s credentials are a PhD in ranting & abusing people.

Hey Shamik I haven’t made any claims regarding my background but what’s quite clear here is the numbers of people willing just to go along with their mouths hanging open reciting facts they accept at face value while we get fed more and more unproven drivel from the Climate-Control-Nutters.

People in our country dish out inaccurate and alarmist views that have no basis in science. Flawed opinions are dealt out as fact.

Gordon Brown and his “56 days before Copenhagen to save the world”?

We all know this unelected, dithering and useless fool has a record of delusion in his comments but even he takes the biscuit here. No pun intended.

The fact is it’s just another “cause” that costs the workers in tax and I ask again if the government really believed this hogwash why approve the new runway at Heathrow? Or coal fired power stations (carbon capture is a theory at the moment).

If any person *really* believed it the fact their own children and grandchildren would be affected they wouldn’t do it. I know this governments moral compass spins faster than they do but even they couldn’t be that bad.

In fact why fly to this climate change conference at all? What’s wrong with Video Conferencing?

Shamik – I’m not sure what you want on Nick Griffin – he got thousands more votes as party leader than Brown did – is that enough or are you back dancing on the head of your pin again?

Julian G – don’t worry about the climate chaos – the world keeps getting colder and has done for a decade and Enting works “primarily on modelling the global carbon cycle” so he’s hardly unbiased is he and his calculations (again) don’t include the effects from the sun.

Henry – my credentials are not in “Blind, unquestioning obedience to the Dear Leader”.

“Useful Idiots” Lenin called people like you lot. He must be turning in his grave at the apathy from the youth today. No critical questioning anymore?

Where’s Bob Dylan when you need him?

Finally, after loads of complete nonsense, ‘Billy the Kid’ has made one good point. It IS inappropriate for world leaders to fly massive delegations and themselves to Copenhagen, if they really want to show climate-leadership. They need to show by their actions that they MEAN it about reducing carbon emissions. They should be sending smaller delegations / travelling by plane / using video-conferencing more.
It was an outrageous decision for the BBC to make this scheduling move. See http://www.facebook.com/note.php?created&&suggest&note_id=337212490300

http://bit.ly/fG9GR BBC gives unchallenged platform to climate-denier, again! Trying to please right-wingers http://bit.ly/4svBPH

Aw shucks Rupert, your comments have left me with a warm glow… thanks man. My faith in the humanity of Left Wing blogs has been restored.

Personally no one recycles like me – done for longer than half the commentators on this blog have been alive (Judging by the childish comments they place).

I hate biofuels because I love animals, especially Orangs. In the US 10% of the mix is ethanol – I disliked it because I had no choice when I filled the tank but it did come from US crops… no animals were harmed etc

I HATE energy saving lamps for obvious reasons (as an engineer you’d understand and if you are an environmentalist you’d agree with me) and wish the idiot governments had pushed LED instead, as they have in Japan.

I hate Unleaded petrol because of the greenhouse effect compared to the old 4 star.

I dislike being told what to support in Global Warming terms because until the effects of the sun are included in the calculations and someone tells me why this planet just keeps getting colder that’s my position.

What is dispiriting is the “YOU’RE WRONG” and “we won’t listen to you” debates here. I assumed younger Leftys would have their own brains and be autonomous in their opinions. Shame really.

Whatever is Billy on about now? Maybe he’s in the pub.

Henry – just setting out my stall. Setting out my stall is all.

Ignore him Henry – he might go away – he’s in the workshop next door ranting about something (again).

The BBC letting deniers loose to spew their pseudo-science over the less than scientifically literate public’s heads is as irresponsible as letting someone claim cancer can be cured by smoking 60 a day. Hey, dudes, the future of our planet is at stake. Why are you trying to prove? That humanity is so unbelievably stupid, they deserve what they get?

Yakoub – Freedom of expression and speech is a bastard eh….

The only “pseudo-science” I see is the planet getting colder. There is nothing pseudo in that – it’s a fact.

The effects of the heat from the sun not included in the warming statistics is a fact.

“The future of the planet is at stake”?

What a load of unproven pseudo-scientific scare mongering drivel that is.

The reason the BBC interviewed this guy is because the tide of public opinion is finally turning against this type of nonsense and rightly so.

To see the likes of Sting and Bono preaching about the Rain Forest in their private jets stinks. Oh there will be an excuse for it. *Yawn* There always is. Leave us alone.

Henry – I couldn’ agree with your more re Billy et al having a Phd in ranting & abuse… doesn’t he have anything better to do? I presume he is usefully employed, plus I do think it’s a tad disinegenous/cowardly when people don’t use their own names……

Liz – you said:

“I presume he is usefully employed” – he is. Are you? Usefully?

” I do think it’s a tad disinegenous/cowardly when people don’t use their own names……”

Or in your case ranting on another section of this blog and not answering questions from another commenter yourself. Pots and kettles Liz?

Here’s what was asked:

Finally Liz does this “connection” you feel wrt ethnicity extend to not condemning the actions ‘Caroline Not Happy’ finds so disagreeable – “burkhas, woman treated unequally, homosexuals threatened with death, female genital mutilation, “honor” killings, forced marriage …etc etc” or do you just pay lip service and just gloss over and ignore the point?

‘Caroline Not Happy’ stated as a feminist she found those actions disagreeable. Don’t you Liz?

Interesting further news. Were the Beeb aware of this when they got him on-air?: Prof. Plimer is a director of three Australian mining companies: Ivanhoe Australia, a subsidiary of Bob Friedland’s Ivanhoe Mines,[3][4] CBH Resources,[4] and Kefi Minerals.[5][6]
Plimer argues that the proposed Australian carbon-trading … Read morescheme could decimate the Australian mining industry,[11] and “probably destroy it totally”,[12] as well as creating “massive unemployment”.[12]
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ian_Plimer
So, Mr. Plimer has huge financial interests in being a climate-denier. Shouldn’t the BBC audience have been told this?
…And don’t you think that it rather undermines his claims to being a disinterested scientist on this issue?…

Anon E Mouse (I presume that’s not your real name – but you never know these days…)

Strange that you are talking about multi culturalism here I thought this post was about climate deniers but maybe I am mistaken but in response to your comment I can happily say yes that I do not like the thought of female genital mutilation and other traditions/beliefs that denigrate and demean women likewise I find lots of other religions also quite dodgy re women’s issues and status including some Christian ones so why single out one? Is this part of the current vogue of increasing islamaphobia?

Hi Liz. My point was that although everyone is quick to attack Billy they don’t answer points elsewhere in the blog – such as yours above.

Regarding the Climate Change brigade I don’t believe them either. I’m sorry but the planet just keeps getting colder and has for a decade and as Billy states, the heat from the sun is never taken into consideration which is plainly stupid.

The left keep smearing and lying about anyone that does follow their “flawed”
science. Just the way people did to Charles Darwin.

To be clear Liz. There is no EVIDENCE that CO2 is causing Global Warming. Lots of speculation but NO evidence – flawed science is all.

This report says it all but you lot won’t challenge it, all you’ll do is attack the guys character, not his points –

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1226808/Earth-absorbing-CO2-claims-climate-change-study.html

http://bit.ly/4okm50 Monbiot’s latest GUARDIAN piece (and my response), prompted by my challenge to the TODAY programme on their free-airing of climate-denial, as discussed here.

Well it seems that this guy in the Guardian agrees with Billy on this blog and not you about shutting down debate.

Your remarks of: “By doing interviews like that, that you chose to air this morning, you are materially damaging the chances of an agreement at Copenhagen, an agreement that might just save our civilisation and species from self-destruction.”

What kind of childish rubbish is that? This isn’t an episode of Transformers Rupert. Do you really think this helps the case? It’s no wonder the Greens are where they are in the polls. I thought this blog was supposed to be evidence based.

Hey Rupert – this is a blog about important issues you know.

This is not supposed to be a platform for your self promotion.

If you have nothing positive to contribute to this discussion, then go somewhere else and foist your “Survival of our species depends on it” nonsense on them. These stupid remarks do nothing to further your cause and serve only to alienate sensible people.

This is an adult blog and I’m going to report your actions to the webmaster.

Steve G.: so are you saying that evidence is needed to support the claim that without a deal at Copenhagen the future of human civilisation is at risk? The evidence is contained in every climate scientist’s study for the last 30 years.

Billy the Kid, who is of course a climate-change-denier, is wonderfully mature in his comment here:
“This is an adult blog and I’m going to report your actions to the webmaster.”
Basically the same as saying: “I’m going to go _tell_ on you, and _then_ you’ll be sorry!!!!!”

Rupert – I am not a climate-change-denier, quite the reverse, I just don’t share your views on the matter and unlike you I have an open mind on these things. Being a climate change denier isn’t a crime you know.

The climate changes all the time – always has done. The reasons for its change are wide and varied and perhaps some of it is man made. Perhaps. You are not a scientist – I deducted that from your childish comments here – so your opinion is just that – an opinion; not one based on fact.

This guy Steve G above makes a fair point on evidence – there isn’t any and thirty years ago the prediction was for global cooling and it seems to be right since the global temperature has gone down every year for over a decade.

Not one single scientist involved in this (man made CO2 causes it) nonsense has any proven link since the sun isn’t taken into account which is just stupid. Everything is opinion and nothing more. Even when faced with facts that show you are wrong, facts based on evidence as science should be, you ignore it. People like you Rupert should really be called Flat Earthers.

When people with narrow closed minds who don’t like inquiry or question what they are told then start preaching their psycho babble hokum *at* decent folk, especially when it will eventually mean those same decent folk will pay more taxes for people like you to be feather bedded in life, it’s just irritating.

Your silly “We are all doomed” remarks are alarmist, childish and should be treated with the contempt you show the rest of us.

I said I’d bring the matter up with the webmaster because you are using this blog for your self promotion. Let me guess you’d like to be an MP. Who cares if you questioned some fella who writes for a newspaper about a Radio 4 program? Big deal Rupert. You’re not important. Get a life. Leave us alone.

I need to go to bed – keep hitting F5 to refresh.

Rupert Read (that name has got to be made up!) I’m going to email Caroline Lucas about you tomorrow.

I find your patronising tone to be beyond the pale and I have voted for the Greens once in the past but if you are typical of their members, with your hectoring, holier than thou attitude, then people need to be aware of it.

You do the Green Party no favours with your selfish ambition and I am simply not going to let the matter rest here. Rupert Read you are out of order

“I’m going to email Caroline Lucas about you! I’m going to tell you Mummie off you!”

And yes: How DARE I email our state broadcaster questioning their decision to air unchallenged the views of a man who stands to make enormous financial profit from lieing about (denying) the greatest threat facing humanity? How DARE I ‘step out of ine’ to do that?

[Sorry: that should have been 'step out of line'. Still a bit bleary eyed from reading all these hilarious comments.]

Rupert you need help – calm down, it’s just a blog – why are you so serious in life? If you can stop ranting for a minute and catch your breath you might want to answer the points raised here.

Wolfgang Knorr says CO2 absorption isn’t included in Climate Change modelling – like the suns heat. Since our own government proposes carbon capture then why not? His data shows (data Rupert – not opinion, it’s called science) that CO2 is absorbed at a higher rate than previously believed.

“The study relied entirely on empirical data, including historical records extracted from ice samples in the Antarctic, rather than speculative climate change models”

Now, without ranting Rupert and placed with the EVIDENCE in front of you and knowing, as everyone does, that the planet is getting colder…. explain why you’re right, as a responsible representative of people in Norwich, to be ringing and emailing people with stupid unproven scaremongering.

Read the Times this morning Rupert. The majority of people in this country disagree with you and do not believe man made CO2 is causing Global Warming. You are in a minority (doesn’t mean you’re wrong) and you and your other Flat-Earthers need to get your facts straight.

You can smear, discredit and lie about people with views different to yours all you want Rupert but you are arguing without any scientific basis whatsoever because the planet is getting colder.

Let me guess Rupert. You believed it was right for this government to sack the scientist Professor Nutt over his FACTUAL reports on cannabis?

As regards to reporting your behavior to Caroline Lucas I do so because I have voted Green in the past and hate it when people like yourself make the party look foolish. I’m sure she cares how her party is perceived even if you don’t.

Same with the BBC. If you rang as an individual I’d have no problem with it but you huffed and puffed up your chest thinking you were important because you’re a Green Councillor and that that gives your opinion and yourself more credence. It doesn’t Rupert because you have NO scientific basis on which to be making your claims. Just flawed opinion.

Mankind going extinct if an agreement isn’t reached….PAH. Grow up.

Rupert Read – so you do want to be an MP (what a surprise) – I’ve just checked the Norwich East results where you came in behind UKIP. With the backward views you force on other people I’m surprised you got any votes at all. I guess you “Can fool some of people all of the time”.

[I've removed this last statement - on second reading, it definitely falls outside our comments policy - WS]

It’s kinda obvious that the whole global warming situation is far too complex to calculate what caused it and/or how we can cure it.

Anyone who does try to figure it all out should take all factors into consideration – the sun, the moon, magnetic fields, asteroids (and the effect), o3 depletion, blah, blah blah!

Even then, with all the evidence, all you can say is a guess!

What we should do is play the odds and try fix things as best we can, not bury our heads in the sand like a stupid bird.

This chain is getting a bit nasty. I’m not going to take sides other than to say that one commenter stepped over the line with a personal attack and I’ve removed their comment.

Be passionate, but be nice, or I’ll put an end to this thread.

Aw c’mon Will – this thread is just getting interesting!

Let me guess Bill stepped over the line? (again)

He’s away next week so your blog should be safe.

This is a very good blog Will – keep up the good work!

[...] in the past three months alone, the BBC have given platforms to climate sceptics Philip Stott and Ian Plimer on their flagship “Today” programme on Radio Four, and only last week, on Question Time, [...]