I completely accept THAT - CO2 has been rising - CO2 is a greenhouse gas - the climate has been warming - man is very likely to be at least partly responsible where I DISAGREE is that 1. Global warming will be vast & dangerous 2. Renewable energy will be cheap, safe & clean rather 1. increasing evidence that Global Warming is slow & mild 2. renewable energy is expensive & damaging - The cure is worse than the disease - It's taking chemotherapy for a cold - He tackles the fake 97% claim that believers take at facevalue There's "science" that's sounds rational AND science that actually works in that the models correctly predict reality. - CAGW, Catastrophic, Anthropogenic Global Warming is not actually Catastrophic or Anthropogenic (caused by man) - Normally it takes hours to explain properly the Global warming case, but I would completely agree with Matt Ridley's SUPERB 18 min, podcast Summary recorded at the warmest "Tipping Points" gathering in Newcastle (listen online ) Compare that against Monbiot's case made in podcast called the Interrogator ... - He said "Look it's about the evidence" Yep, good start "The overwhelming number of scientist agree" ..err no they don't & anyway that's the Fallacy of argument of authority "97% of scientists agree" - both those studies were fundamentally flawed -check your facts - So his entire argument rests not on evidence, but on "Argument of authority" from 2 studies well known to be flawed...kerplunk George Monbiot's argument has fallen apart. There are Skeptical Professors if you check - Monbiot does the normal thing of accepting a "fact" if it confirms his dogma ..if he did just a bit of fact checking he'd find there are plenty of heads of University Climate Science Depts who have come out as skeptical - & there are plenty of scientists who have doubted the CAGW line from the start.

1. It's complex stupid - Humans like to have issues summed up very simply. It's good science to find the simplest solution, but it's not always possible; sometimes things are genuinely complex. ... I am always saying we don't live in a black & white simple world we live in a full colour complex world. However the human brain is so locked into the "pattern recognition" , like finding faces in the wallpaper; often when we find a simple solution we stop thinking & just accept it. I call this COMPLEXITY DENIAL. Ancient scientists have said "Beware CERTAINTY" ... it shows the speaker doesn't really understand the complex issue - Doubt is not a pleasant mental state, but certainty is a ridiculous one ..Voltaire - If we begin with certainties, we shall end in doubts; but if we begin with doubts, and are patient in them, we shall end in certainties. - Experiment is the sole source of truth. It alone can teach us something new; it alone can give us certainty. - Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies. : Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) - 'A man who is certain he is right is almost sure to be wrong.' : Michael Faraday Dealing With Activist Commentors in Blogs - They think they are being smart & clever by diverting the topic in the comment section of people's blogs - However they are just making their case weaker & weaker - when faults with believer arguments are exposed it's their common tactic to ATTACK to get skeptics on the backfoot rather than defend themselves with logic - (Skeptics should beware of this & stick to the original issue) Everytime I spot TROLL TRICKS 1. - another lie/ misrepresentation of the facts e.g. "97%", 2. - unsubstatiated hype 3. - predictions that don’t come true "It will never rain properly in Oz again" 4. - name calling "denier" 5. - bullying .. including bullying by taking offense when no offense was meant 6. - emotional tone to manipulate 7. - trolling that doesn’t address the point of the argument in question, 8. - shouting "who funds you BIG OIL" before you can get a word in. Whereas the truth is the funding of Multinational Eco-charities like Greenpeace & WWF is 1000 times bigger than skeptics get. And the truth that Big Oil spends much more funding warmist NGOs & has given billions to US university projects and the world. No skeptic organisation ever got anything like the $26 million the Sierra Club got from a gas company. Governments also pour billions into a global warming scare machine. Secondly if you have the evidence & the argumentsit doesn't matter who funds you. The skeptics argue the climate is not changing out of control towards to catastrophe. The warmest IPCC produced projected with steep temperature graphs going up & up & ice-free Arctics we haven't come true so depsite their huge funding they haven't proved themselves correct. 9. - confusing "Peer Reviewed with Scientifically proven" ..saying "doesn't count not peer reviewed !", despite the reality that PAL REVIEW papers have often proven to be wrong & so is marginally better than just publishing the paper yourself. Again the scientific proof is in whether you can predict reality. Everytime I spot those TROLL TRICKS .. I lose more respect for warmists

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

<-- PREVIOUS PC

HOME

BLOG INDEX

note/comments

NEXT -->