My family and me.
An astute (?) reader points me towards Even greener than he thinks by Melanie Phillips. Apart from starting off with a few good points (why is it "green" to fly by private jet to the Arctic for a photo-op) we are down to the usual tedium (the Hockey stick *isn't* fatally flawed; GW isn't based on it anyway (and in a feat of self-contradiction she declares in the next sentence that its also all based on computer modelling, which isn't true either); the world wasn't 2 oC warmer in the MWP; feedbacks are as likely +ve as -ve... and so on.
Errr, which is why I didn;t bother to write a post about it :-)))
Comments
William, instead of telling us what is *not* the smoking gun of anthropogenic global warming, would you please go into what *is* a sign of it?
Posted by: Rufus | April 25, 2006 8:39 AM
Surely Rufus it goes like this: The Greenhouse effect exists; carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; carbon dioxide levels have increased; this increase is due to burning of fossil fuel; from this we would expect the climate to warm; all the evidence (glaciers, instrumental data, models etc) shows warming. I think we can invoke Occam's Razor here.
The sceptics have to show why increased carbon dioxide DOESN'T warm the climate, and THEN explain what is causing the warming we see.
I look forward to seeing their arguments in the peer-reviewed literature.
[Also http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/just-what-is-this-consensus-anyway/ refers, and many other places besides - W]
Posted by: stephan harrison | April 25, 2006 8:51 AM
From someone who's publicly lambasted Melanie Philips in the past, I'm a little worried by George Monbiot's latest article. Apparently he's been doing a lot of research into cutting CO2 emissions recently (I think he's got a book coming out). I'm not sure that putting so much extra infrastructure and reliance onto natural gas is a great idea (finite resource, loaction of supplies, only mitigation against short term cut-offs etc.):
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/04/25/my-new-fondness-for-fossil-fuels/
Posted by: Adam | April 25, 2006 10:47 AM
Actually I realise that was a tad OT and I apologise for the convoluted way I brought it into the thread. :)
Posted by: Adam | April 25, 2006 10:50 AM
The woman is a complete fool; see her views on evolution:
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/001664.html
getPC :: (WAMData a) -> ST a WAMRef
getPC wd = readSTRef $ pc wd
Posted by: Patrick Caldon | April 25, 2006 11:35 AM
Bah - sorry about my code escaping in there! I proofread that twice as well!
Posted by: Patrick Caldon | April 25, 2006 11:36 AM
Everyone should go to vote to
http://motls.blogspot.com/
Find a poll about the best way to spend 6 billion dollars. Choose the fight against the climate change! Right now, the war in Iraq is ahead of the Kyoto protocol.
We need all good people to fight against the imperialists and against global warming!!! If the septics beat us in this poll, we will be completely screwed.
Posted by: Steve | April 29, 2006 6:03 PM
Try looking at the big picture and this time include Astro-Physics. Check and cross link the following - solar flare activity, Australian bushfires and Australia's ten worst climactic events, you might want to throw in Australia's temperatures and rainfall, when you compare the peaks and troughs on the graphs your cozy little world will move. We live on a dry continent and 2006 was the seventh year of a devestating drought, however the average temperature for the year was in line with our average long term temperature and our average rainfall was slightly higher than our long term average rainfall. We have lived through what you describe as as the comming Armageddon since white settlement so stop moaning like a pack of wankers and get your clobber together so you can fight this bitch called mother nature 'cause she only wants the strongest to survive and if you're not the strongest you're Buggered.
Posted by: Paul | January 8, 2007 10:24 PM