Climate change activists scale the gates of Buckingham Palace

[Redmonton_Rebel]

So there is no real debate then? No questioning? You're either with us or against us?
Lovelock still endorses AGW...but at a slower pace, & is turned against by the
"movement" including yourself. Kind'a spooky, don't'cha think?

Don't question the "movement" you heretics! Don't question the "settled science" unless
you are in the employ of industry that profits from the denial of AGW! If you do, you are
a phycopath! Denier! Bought by the Oil Companies!

Where there's smoke, there's usually fire....& I agree with you in that both sides don't
seem to be equal.

That's not what I'm saying.

All science is open to examination...except aparently that behind climate change denial if you look at the energy policies of many developed nations.

If you can get around the implications of significantly altering the Earth's radiative balance without rapidly driving the global climate into a new more energetic state then please explain how. Based on the Quantum Electrodynamics, thermodynamics, climatics, glaciology and paleo-climatic evidence what we're doing as far as energy sourcing is extremely stupid, and we're not even realy talking about that in an effective way. Often because the industry most closely involved doesn't want us to.

 

[lone wolf]

Theoretically, a bumblebee can't fly either....

 

[Ron in Regina]

That's not what I'm saying.

All science is open to examination...except aparently that behind climate change denial if you look at the energy policies of many developed nations.

If you can get around the implications of significantly altering the Earth's radiative balance without rapidly driving the global climate into a new more energetic state then please explain how. Based on the Quantum Electrodynamics, thermodynamics, climatics, glaciology and paleo-climatic evidence what we're doing as far as energy sourcing is extremely stupid, and we're not even realy talking about that in an effective way. Often because the industry most closely involved doesn't want us to.

Examination would be questioning, wouldn't it? God forbid it's
examined, & you don't like the findings...would that make
the Examiner a Sociopath?

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

Examination would be questioning, wouldn't it? God forbid it's
examined, & you don't like the findings...would that make
the Examiner a Sociopath?

Examination based on the scientific method, not politics, economics or even religion.

Joseph Fourier didn't start out by deciding he was going to prove the greenhouse theory almost two hundred years ago, he found from examining the facts that the Earth was about 30C warmer than it should be and theorized that something in the atmosphere was repsonsible.

Joseph Fourier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Tyndall didn't start out to prove that CO2 and water vapour were the main gases in the atmosphere responsible for the greenhouse effect 150 years ago, he established that they were opaque to light in the wavelengths the Earth emits.

John Tyndall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Svente Arrhenius didn't set out to prove his theory that by doubling atmospheric concentration of CO2 you'd get an average increase of global temperature of 6C(still within margins of error) he actually did the laborious thousands of hand calculations and got that result. Same for the work of Guy Calendar, Gilbert Plass, Charles Keeling and many others, they arrived at their results based on the best science of the time backed up by extensive observations and calculations. And the results have become more and more certain over time not less, but the uncertainty cannot and never will reach zero, that's not how science works and a situation the climate change denial industry counts on.

Whereas on the other "side" of the debate we have the industry backed "scientists", like Fred Singer and Fred Seitz who'd already made a lot of money working with the tobacco industry, starting off with the premise that dramatically increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 doesn't result in significant and possibly catastrophic climate changeand then go about determining the best way to cast doubt on the peer-reviewed science on climate change. Little or no research has been carried out that supports climate change denial or down scaling of effects, but a huge amount of money has been spent on slick mainstream media campaigns.

That's not science, that's PR.

And knowingly distorting the facts in an issue that can eventually costs the lives of millions or possibly billions of people for profit does make you a sociopath IMO.