are there still any climate sceptics out there??? It's only 5mins...

[JohnL]

Governments haven't exactly endeared themselves for their truth telling. Are we really sure they're not just in it for a quick profit somehow.

I have a suspicion that because the powers that be believe in Global Warming caused by man then they feel they are justified in going to any length to demonstrate it. That doesn't mean it's not true, but if they get rumbled ....

[willow]

John L - Governments and leaders worldwide have flown in the face of overwhelming, independent scientific advice and comprehensively failed reach a meaningful, legally binding deal that would advert catastrophic climate change. They've hardly shown themselves to go to any lengths to keep up the global warming myth.

"Are we really sure they're not just in it for a quick profit somehow" - again it's not really been governments pushing on this agenda over the past two decades. They've been so slow to act I'm not really sure you could accuse them of making a "quick" profit

Besides the cost of mitigating the effects of climate change will be far greater that the costs of trying to avert it in the first place. It would be less costly for us to do something now.

[katie1997]

'the past two decades'....I wish people would look at the temperature of the planet over the 4.5billion years of its existence rather than what has happened in the last century.

The global carbon market and low carbon 'agenda' is huge in today's politics...people in developing countries such as Bangladesh that suffer from severe flooding would rather that people DO something to help them today rather than contributing to the hype and trying to create policies and agreements and global deals for 2015, 2020 and 2050 ad nauseum.. Arguing over whether climate change is happening...or whether its an inter-glacial....man-made...caused by Western industrialised nations...and so on...does not really help the people in poorer countries who are concerned about where their next meal or shelter is coming from.

[vinceayre]

Yeah I often remember back to the old days pre global warming when winters were cold and we had snow and summers were just mild but wet.

[mockney piers]

Most amusing I'm sure, though in all fairness I do remeber not being able to feel

my fingers and toes on firework night and it's been a good decade since that happened. In 2003 I wore a t-shirt!!

But it's not the little events it's the big trends and of course global warming could certainly mean some places get colder, climates weird like that.

Toronto's on the same latitude as Cannes or N California for instance yet regularly plummets into the minus teens and usually expects snow in the feet not inches. Weird huh.

[????]

Continental versus Oceanic climate innit

[mockney piers]

Indeed. But all of it subject to change. These snowflakes may go down as well as up.

[EDOldie]

It seems that the life of Akmal Shaikh is currently held in the balance because of British complaints that China were obstructive at Copenhagen. Should we apologise?

[SeanMacGabhann]

What has that got to do with climate change scepticism?

[Huguenot]

No, that's ridiculous - conspiracy theorists gone crazy.

It's a convenient (and racist) was of sustaining the stereotype of the Chinese as both corrupt and murderous.

The reality is that they don't have a particularly liberal outlook on subjects that attack social cohesion (such as drugs), and that has allowed them to sustain and develop a nation of 1.3 billion people and 40 different ethnic minorities.

Don't expect them to make indulgences for societies that go to war for oil ;-)

[EDOldie]

Well, even in their statement, which was on the official Chinese website yesterday, the Chinese said "This case has been undergoing for more than two years, it is absurd to link it with the issue of Climate Change."

Which, conspiricy theorist that I am, suggests it is about nothing else.

The Chinese last year carried out some 70% of the worlds executions, at about 5 a day. Indeed, hardly the action of a murderous state.

Finally to suggest my comment is in any way racist is to stupidly miss the point entirely. This is, very sadly for the late Akmal Shaikh, all about politics.

[Timster]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> It's a convenient (and racist) was of sustaining

> the stereotype of the Chinese as both corrupt and

> murderous.

>

>

Er, the Chinese government is corrupt and murderous.

[Huguenot]

This rthread's about climate change, not the Chinese.

I take it you're joking Timster - any state that authorises either the death penalty or warfare is by your definition murderous including our own. Check out the expenses claims before you start tossing accusations of corruption about.

It becomes racist stereotyping when hypocrites start singling them out.

EDOldie's suggestion that the Chinese government's refutation implies guilt is plain silly. It's far more likely an example of their naivety when countering slugs who maliciously attack them online by promoting unfounded rumours.

The clear implication beeing made was that the half-witted drugs smuggler was killed in revenge as their reaction to an unfair proposition at the climate change conference that benefitted the US to the disdvantage of China.

I'm aware that EDOldie is a climate change denialist, and this accusation is yet another sordid attempt to distract and diminsh arguments aimed at preserving the future of our society.

[????]

So presumably Amnesty are 'racist hypocrites' then?

[EDOldie]

The one thing you cannot accuse the Chinese of is 'naivety' they are, as we have seen, ruthless and highly skilled diplomats. I think you could accuse our Govt of naivety in the way this whole sordid business has played out.

But getting back to climate change you seem to be missing my point that the whole argument has been hijacked by politicians to further their cause both in the pro and anti camps. No wonder we are all so confused about what is true and what is not.

[Huguenot]

I don't know what you're confused about EDOldie, all the science is out there.

There's only greedy people and the petrochemical industry out there in the denialist corner. If you allow yourself to be confused it's because you find their arguments attractive, and you'll have to question your own motivation for that.

I support and fund Amnesty's position because they don't discriminate against people based on their race or nationality in their fight for human rights. In particular they don't persist petty slurs claiming that the execution of criminals is linked to an otherwise reasonable position on climate change negotiations.

If you want to talk about human rights in China, feel free to on another thread - but this is a thread about climate change and denialism, and the attempt to conflate human rights in China and climate change is deliberate obfuscation.

[EDOldie]

So your argument is that the scientists are always right because they are scientists? Anyone who dares to oppose them or disagree with them is greedy and/or an evil businessperson? Seeing a connection, denied by the Chinese, between different political agendas is at best 'deliberate obfuscation' and at worst racism. Oh and do you mean the Chinese (I'll just qualify this, as a country a very undemocratic one at that, rather than a race) are taking a reasonable stand on climate change?

Er, these are the arguments of the kindergarten. The point is, once again, the scientists may be right but the politicians are using this in a cynical way to promote their ideology.

[mockney piers]

Blimey that's a very advanced kindergarten!! In my experience arguments there involve potato prints and poopoo.

I would agree that given the scale of the issues, climate change is an inherently political problem. I would say that politics isn't deliberately abusing climate change in order to further an agenda (though occasionally this may happen, or just as likely a solution and a poliocal approach may coincide).

I would say tha politicians struggle to make the more stnadard political/economic goals such as industry protection, jb creation and growth, with the needs of adjustment, and sometimes misrepresent climate chage in order to make them meet.

The third runway for starters would spring to mind.

[EDOldie]

It was a carefully chosen word. But the principle of 'I am right therefore you are wrong' is one designed to stifle discussion and free speech.

The third runway is a prime example of politicians spinning climate change to suit their lobbyists.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Care to expand on that point EdOldie? My impression from your posts is that you are a sceptic on climate change and that you think the government are spinning to promote "pro climate change" policy.

But by allowing the third runway, the government went against the wishes of all pro-climate-change adherents? This seems to be a contradiction to me or have I missed a point ?

[EDOldie]

Sean, not sure I understand you, do you mean by 'pro-climate-change adherents' those who are sceptics of, or believers in man made change of climate?

This is waht worries me by spin The Times I realise they are not impartial.

I am more worried about what govts mean than what the say.

[Huguenot]

EDOldie I'm certainly not saying that scientists are right, nor do I stifle debate when there is one. You have offered no 'debate' on either climate change or the Chinese that has borne up under scrutiny.

I do observe that the science position is based on empricial evidence, and that the denialist set has generated no evidence for their contrary position. It is the denialists who stick their fingers in their ears saying 'I'm not listening' when the evidence is provided, and then irritatingly claim to be confused when challenged.

As for kindergarten logic - you claim that the Chinese have executed a man to get revenge for being undermined in climate change negotiations. You provide absolutely NO evidence to support this, and then claim that denying the link proves that it's right?

I should point out that a natural extension of your fatuous logic would 'prove' man-made climate change simply because you deny it.

'Hoist by your own logic bomb petulance' doesn't even half sniff at the whimsy of your reasoning.

[????]

It's still not racism is it though...

[EDOldie]

Thanks Quids, I am certainly not a racist as I?m sure anyone who knows me will testify.

I have not taken any offence at Huguenot?s comments as I am now quite sure he didn?t understand where I was coming from or what he, or I for that matter, meant.

I didn?t think this thread was about whether or not there is climate change caused by man. I don?t know, although it would seem blinding obvious that it is. But it?s not proven by any means. Lets face it, the leading scientists need to ?sex it up?. Is climate change another weapon of mass destruction?

?

The question was ?are there still any climate sceptics out there??? It's only 5mins...

Well, hello, yes there are, for all the reasons I?ve been putting forward. Is it any wonder I and a lot of others are confused when the govt takes the stand it does. If it pollutes (third runway), and it suits them, it?s saving the environment. But if you use the wrong light bulb !!!!

It is hypocrisy on a massive scale. The Chinese are the worlds biggest polluters by volume but not by head of population. That dubious distinction lays with the Americans. Both of these very large (1 & 3 in terms of GDP I think) economies have dug in over climate change and we Brits have slavishly followed behind desperate for the crumbs from either table. They are both governed by self interest ultimately and I?d very surprised if there are many in either govt, or in ours, who really give a toss about climate change. But the Chinese and the Americans don?t like being lectured by us for all sorts of historic reasons we don?t need to go into here. I happen to think, and nobody can ever prove I am right or wrong, that that dreadful execution went ahead to teach our govt a lesson, which was to treat the Chinese with a bit more respect. As I said before the Chinese are very sophisticated when it comes to foreign affairs and completely ruthless. The fact they drew attention to it in their own statement is a very strong indication this was the case. If Huguenots correct however, I could just have solved the global warming problem.

In the meantime the politicos have had a field day. They can dictate almost anything to us behind the mantra of the environment. And its not party specific either, they have all latched onto it.

It?s a conspiracy I tell you ?NuttyOldie?

[JustinSmith]

All of science involves the basic process of generating a hypothesis and then challenging that hypothesis.

The climate sceptics (as they are called) have challenged the hypothesis that CO2 causes the major part of global warming. Some experts also have the opinion that the warming has already (or will soon) turn to cooling. These arguments are based on sound scientific argument, however they have not been answered.

We hear a lot about the melting Arctic, but only recently have people been talking about Antartica and Antartica is not melting. Antarctica is at least 10 times bigger than the Arctic ice cap and Antarctica contains about 90% of the worlds ice.

The famous IPCC report on climate change has been presented to us as a consensus but hundreds of scientists who have been listed have actually said that they do not agree with this so called 'consensus'.

Whenever sound scientific argument is ignored and people are criticised for challenging a hypothesis we should be very worried.

The BBC report that around half of the people in the UK are 'sceptical'. However, rather than discussing these legitimate scientific questions they talk down to us as if we are stupid for not accepting their side of the argument.