Comments on: Don’t Blame Collapse of Credibility on the IPCC’s Wobbly Chair

By: George Carty

George Carty — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:54:13 +0000

And another point — wouldn’t it be impossible to support our current planetary population without modern technology — specifically chemical fertilizers (which vastly increase the productivity of a given area of land) and motorized farm machinery (which eliminates the need to keep — and feed — working animals)?

Does this not mean that reactionary environmentalism is an inherently genocidal ideology?

By: Rich

Rich — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:41:15 +0000

“So climate activists of all flavours argue that “climate change will be worse for the poor”. The logic of this is that because life in poorer regions is that much closer to ‘nature’, its changes produce a greater human cost than they do here in the more industrialised world.”

I understood that environmentalists – at least the extreme ones – were clamouring for a return to a life-style “closer to nature”. Doesn’t it follow, then, that that’s a return to times when humanity is more at risk from ‘nature’? Wouldn’t that include humanity’s children that we’re supposed to be doing this all for?

By: George Carty

George Carty — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 17:21:59 +0000

I’ve sometimes likened the big green NGOs like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth to the corrupt Catholic priests of medieval times who made big money by selling indulgences. The businesses which stand to profit from cap-and-trade could also be placed in the same category…

By: gus steen

gus steen — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:38:38 +0000

As a left-footer myself (you may have guessed) I have to point out that the Catholic Church never had a Witchfinder, either General, Colonel, or even Private. Otherwise, I agree with Geoff.
What I would like to know is, when they say that the science is still sound, what are they refering to? Of course I’ve been wondering about that ever since the Hockey Stick was debunked. As far as I can tell (and believe me I have looked) there is precious little evidence of unusual warming, none at all that it is human generated, and now even the evidence that there has been warming at all in the last century is looking shaky.
Where exactly do the Guardianistas place their faith? The evidence of things unseen, indeed…

By: geoffchambers

geoffchambers — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:28:18 +0000

Congratulations on the article in the Guardian. Good work for five minutes. Any idea why they chose to contact you? The Guardian is playing a complex game, but the fact that it is a game, and not a disinterested journalistic search for the truth, is demonstrated by the bizarre mixture of articles on Guardian Environment over the past week.
Fred Pearce, the New Scientist journalist whose reported telephone conversation with an Indian scientist started the melting glaciers story which has been so damaging to the IPCC, is now writing “scoops” for the Guardian at the rate of one every few hours, making ludicrous claims of exclusivity for stories which have been circulating on the net for years. Any one of a dozen Guardian regular science or environment correspondents could write the same articles, and claim the same scoops, by simply trawling Wattsupwiththat, yet they are silent. Why? Monbiot could do it, and salvage his reputation as a defender of honesty in science. Instead, he is at Pearce’s side, pushing his protégé, (“the brilliant reporter … has spent decades explaining and championing climate science ..”) and claiming that the heads of the IPCC and the CRU are a disgrace to their profession and must go, and yet the science is sound. Why?
Many welcome the Guardian’s new apparent openness and return to normal journalistic practice. But, as Scientistfortruth noted in a comment at Bishop Hill, a commenter’s query as to why all these articles by Pearce were suddenly appearing was answered by Guardian Environment correspondent James Randersen as follows: “The Guardian’s editorial line is that global warming is happening and caused by human actions…”
The science is the editorial line, and the editorial line is the science. A perfect example of your central point about the politics being prior to the science.
Now go to the Guardian’s latest scoop, and note how, for the first time, they have mentioned the names of McIntyre, Watts, and co., not in the context of their revelations, which Pearce is now daily claiming for himself as his personal scoops, but in the context of the investigations into the criminal hacking of CRU emails.
In the Catholic church, only the Witchfinder General mentions Beelzebub.