Comments on: A Big Fuss About Small Change

By: Bishop Hill

Bishop Hill — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 19:02:38 +0000

I understand that Bob W reviewed Ian Plimer’s book for the Times yesterday.

By: SJones

SJones — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 23:55:19 +0000

Giant Green Ngos! People dying as a result of climate change?? Big Oil dishing out a few quid!!

Surely Exxon isn´t in it for the profit?

“gives the impression that there’s actually an organised challenge to the increasing influence of environmental ideology,…”

Is there? No of course not. There isn´t any serious challenge to environmental ideology. Don´t think you guys are carrying much weight in the debate; increasing influence and all that… Sarcasm should never be confused with irony.

“Yet, arguably, Exxon are the ones doing the social good here, donating such sums that, if only in a small way, create the possibility of debate that has been so far dominated by the interests of the super-wealthy -…” that wouldn´t be anyone from Exxon would it?

Poor Exxon!! Only 45 million (allegedly)and those nasty greens are stealing all the limelight.How terribly unfair of them, and they have more money! Gosh.

It must be so frustrating for you to see the environmentalists gaining so much ground despite all your best efforts at “rational” argument.

Will you be presenting those “reasoned” arguments at the Copenhagen conference in December?

By: geoffchambers

geoffchambers — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:19:52 +0000

Pity you didn’t mention that you were commenting on the Ward article on CiF. If I’d known that discussion had flared up again, I would have joined in. (Not that I have anything to say, but I’m quite good at attracting fire away from the main force). Comments are now closed on Ward, but I have been discussing Ward and Exxon at the Hickman article with the relatively sensible Bioluminescence and now Jezebel is trying to continue the battle. It’s here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/jul/01/climate-change-denier-treason?commentpage=15
However appalling the level of debate, however despicable the tactics of your opponents, there’s an awful lot can be learnt from commenting on these CiF threads, about the psychology of your interlocutors, and about presenting arguments. Though you clearly won the argument in any logical sense, I’m afraid the nitpicking prosecuting attorney tactics of your opponents means that the thread may come across to a casual reader as too complex to bother about. Two things I’ve learned: never use irony, unless you’re absolutely sure of dealing a mortal blow; and minimise quotes, especially quotes within quotes. Now, back to the fray.

By: Vincent

Vincent — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:41:46 +0000

I wonder what “misinformation” they mean that is supposedly being financed by big oil. Could it be the finding that there has been no heat accumulated in the oceans since 2003 or that surface temperatures haven’t risen globally since 1998? Or is it the misinformation about ice accumulating in Antarctica?
Obviously they don’t say, because to do so would be to invite doubt about the reliability of predictions of thermageddon. So, all contrary evidence can be dismissively packaged as “disinformation”.
There is something deliciously contradictory about big insurance whipping up alarm in order to sell insurance against a non existing threat. If climate thermageddon was real then it would be uninsurable. This is just basic common sense. You can insure your home against an unexpected event, such as a fire or a plane falling out of the sky onto it, but not against destruction caused by war or some such event that effects most of the population. I wonder how long before people catch onto the scam.

By: Arn Riewe

Arn Riewe — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:30:56 +0000

As a resident of North Carolina, our local news did a short report on massive increases in property insurance for coastal residents due the predictions of higher hurricane damages from increasing and more powerful storms. I’m sure Munich Re thinks their money has been well spent.