Climate Alarmists and Climate Sceptics

It can be hard to know which is which. Is the alarmist the person who claims that global warming will massively accelerate bringing a change to life on earth as we know it, or is the alarmist the person who claims that the earth is not warming and that humans have no effect upon the planet’s climate. Both can be equally alarming in their own ways. Both are scepical of the opposite views, sometimes expressing such scepticism boldly and without politeness. The alarm depends on the truth of each position and as we cannot prove or disprove either position empirically or even mathematically, time will tell which is the alarmist and which the sceptic. 

My view, for what it is worth, is that global warming is happening and is man made and is undesirable and will have undesirable consequences. If I am wring then at worst the measures I support to combat climate change will make for a cleaner healthier planet.

 

7 Responses

  1. You’re presenting a false position for those scientists who disagree with the Climate Alarmists’ opinions.

    So far as I can tell, no scientist or politician claims that “the earth is not warming and that humans have no effect upon the planet’s climate”. Most scientists work on evidence. The evidence so far is that despite all of the dire predictions global warming is less influential on the world’s climate than the Alarmists claim. That is not to deny global warming can happen or that humans do not influence the planet’s climate.

    What undermines the alarmists’ global warming propaganda is simply that it makes lots of money for certain groups of corporations and individuals. (Al Gore). If the alarmists, like you, really wanted to save the planet they would give up air travel, cycle to work. turn the home heating down etc etc. Instead what do hypocritical alarmists do……..preach ! and make money!

    • I agree with the money for false science and or the support of those doing it, and evils main weapon in the wrong hands; however Rob has some good ideas, especially the hot water kind, which those scientists working in the AGW market/lobby never ever back unless they own the company, why, in a nut shell, because there is less money to be made by others making a saving in the long term.

      A scenario, if Robert managed to make this clean energy actually affordable for the masses, the very idea he is supporting would try their level best to close him down, legislation and blocking of planning, are you listening Rob, I know you are aware of what the political model is all about.

      What we have today is entire bodies of scientists who started their careers in the AGW field, the same field which is holding them captive and the grass is currently long enough to feed them all, and like the farmer who knows he can safely feed a hundred cows in a hundred acre field, add a few more to many and the signs slowly become noticeable.

      Those in the know, know this is reaching its tipping point.

  2. I guess Nigel Lawson is a good example of a politician who thinks the planet is cooling. The problem is not that we are spending money on climate change but we are wasting it on the wrong measures and on the wrong research. Look for example how the government subsidises wood pellet burning or how corn ethanol is subsidised in the US. Both these increase emissions compared with oil over a whole life cycle but are considered sustainable. So while we should look for clean sustainable energy we find and use dirty energy that is sustainable.
    Most Agw research should be driven by a goal to reduce emissions not to tell us how bad it isle going to be some time soon.

  3. Rob, why do you think governments subsidise (what you call) the wrong measures.

    Its because climate change is a smoke screen ‘bugaboo’ to frighten us sheeple into lining the pockets of bankers, politicians, energy companies etc etc.

    We are being scammed by big corporates/government and your eloquent/naieve support, unfortunately, is part of it.

    • The government (or more accurately the taxpayer) hands out money for nuclear energy biomass wind turbines and PV as well as hundreds of millions to the big six energy companies when they started the European emissions scheme. Free money for their mates. Even the scheme to hand out free insulation for poorer people ends up as an energy company profit centre.
      Because I think that we should be doing something to limit AGW doesn’t mean that I support anything. It can be argued that something however imperfect is better than nothing but I think the present system is disgraceful in terms of reducing measures positively harmful and in terms of the public turns off reasonable people to the threat of AWG because it can be hard to get beyond the spectacle of seeing the rich pigs at the trough munching the food of the ordinary folk.
      Robert

  4. “It can be argued that something however imperfect is better than nothing”

    That’s right. Unfortunately, history records that the Spanish Inquisition murdered a few innocent heretics along with the overwhelming number of real ones.

  5. Oh……. hang on a minute, what is heresy?

    Is it just not falling for obviously false theories?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: