Sick of hearing about AGW

So is Garth George and his article the other day in the Herald is a pearler.

He starts off;

[quote]If you believe all the garbage you've been reading, seeing and hearing lately about global warming, then you probably still believe the Earth is flat.

And if you believe that the cause is human-produced CO2 emissions and that you personally are somehow responsible – your car is too big and your seaside bach is likely to be inundated any old day – then you probably still believe those ancient charts in which large areas are marked "Here be dragons."

This scaremongering, doom-saying global warming industry is shaping up to be the biggest rort of the decade and, if it goes on much longer, of the 21st century.

Because, as Richard S. Lindzen wrote lately in the Washington Post, the long-range predictions issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been made "using inherently untrustworthy climate models similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now".

"The current alarm," writes the professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Newsweek, "rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week."[/quote]

Ex-fucking-actly….he continues in much the same fashion. Garth George take a bow.

Brian Rudman, go to the back of the class. The Herald decided that Brian should post an opposing article the next day. Brian of course is a cloth-cap socialist and couldn't resist dismissing everything Garth George had to say by abusing him for being a Christian, he even used the "F" word. Apparently by being a Christian you are not entitled to an opinion in our blighted isles anymore.

  • Sam Finnemore

    Ah. Must have missed that one…

    We're not going to be able to prove climate change theory until we have another planet to run proper experiments with, so it's all a matter of working on projections. I think the case is pretty good – I know you disagree, it's right there in the name you've given (AGW), and I don't have a problem with that – but it's always going to be a projected case. It could be right, it could be dead wrong. Personally I'd rather that we got prepared for it anyway and be wrong, rather than simply saying we might not be causing the changes and then make the problem worse if the climate change theories are correct. There's a lot of other benefits to reducing pollution, just in terms of local environment and health, as long as it's done sensibly and businesses are given enough space to adapt – mind you, I think businesspeople are smart enough to adapt pretty quickly to changes in regulations. Even if it's just finding a way around them…

    In any event I find the climate change theory a bit more convincing than Garth's original biblical argument. At least he's using recognised authorities to argue a point now. He might be cherrypicking ones that support his argument, but I do that sometimes too… it's just that on climate change there are a lot more for me to cherrypick!

    Anyway, if the climate change scientists are just out to make money, why are they working in labs and universities for peanuts instead of going into the oil business? The pay would be better and they'd get less papercuts too… Doesn't make sense to me.

     

     

  • dw

    <i> it is a theory and presently has no basis in fact. </i>

     

    you guys sound more like creationists every day. Go learn what theory means, maybe starting here

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

     

  • Sam Finnemore

    Alright, I will.

    Whaleoil – can't believe I just realised what AGW stood for. I'd heard of 'anthropogenic' climate change before but didn't connect it with your acronym… I actually assumed it meant Alarmist Global Warming, which I don't personally agree with, but others might. Oops. :p

    Cheers,

    Sam.

  • Sam Finnemore

    I've read over Brian's column at the link you posted – several times – and I can't find the F-word anywhere … do you mind quoting the place where you found it? Otherwise I'm pretty sure it's not there.

     

    Brian wasn't that polite about Garth's religion, I'll grant you that, but you have to admit it's a bit rich putting climate change in the same box with flat-earth theories when much of your worldview is based on faith in the absence of evidence. Garth previously claimed that climate change was rubbish because it's in the Bible – God promised Noah never to flood the earth again – even though nobody has ever suggested that the whole earth will be drowned by rising sea levels. (According to climate change theory, we'll have plenty of other interesting problems to cope with.)

     

    I wonder why Garth abandoned the Biblical explanation in his latest column? We all know how little he trusts academics. Perhaps the ones he quotes are okay because they happen to agree with him. 

  • Whaleoil

    The "F" word is fundamentalist.

    Climate Change, the current description for AGW is without any substance and the "evidence" you speak of is coming under increasing suspicion. Climate Change Theory is just that, it is a theory and presently has no basis in fact. 

97%