73 1 min 15 yrs

From the Ottawa Citizen:

bike.jpgOttawa residents and  snow removal crews continue to dig out from a record-breaking snowfall.

"You can brag to the grandchildren that you lived through the biggest snowfall ever ever in Ottawa," said Environment Canada meteorologist David Phillips.

In total, 37 cms was reported to have fallen in the weekend storm. That sets a record for the most snow in a single December day since Environment Canada started keeping  records in 1938.  

 

Most snow since 1938 !?!?  Making a mockery of "Global Warming" is like shooting fish in a barrel.  Don’t worry, I’ll stop soon. It’s getting too easy.

 

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

73 thoughts on “Raise Your Hand if You Don’t Believe in Global Warming

  1. Don’t forget Patty, it’s not ‘global warming’ it’s ‘climate change’. This won’t phase them one bit.

  2. Guardian: I don’t see how the "believers" can keep believing the poor little polar bears will be stranded without an ice float if record snow keeps falling…

    Interesting to note that it was only 1938 when the first temperatures were recorded in Ottowa.

    What hubris the believers have to make the assumption that they can recognize a global trend with less than 100 years of record keeping available.

  3. Er, isn’t there a difference between "global" and "regional"? Or do the North Americans still see themselves as "the world"?

  4. Yes Dawkins – we do. The rest of ya’ll are superfluous, we just talk about you once in a while so you don’t feel completely marginalized. 🙂

  5. Is it the belief of global warming deniers that snowfall, even record snowfall in certain areas, means that there is no such thing as global warming?

  6. Neal: It’s the selectivity of the whole shennanigans that gets me. So ice is melting somewhere…somewhere else it’s record freezing.

    Mahons: Yes.

  7. Patty: First let me say that Canadians are more beset by French Canadians than snow.

    Second, Ok, just wanted to make sure that you thought global warming wasn’t just exaggerated, but that it actually is a full blown falsehood.

  8. Most snow since 1938 !?!? Making a mockery of "Global Warming" is like shooting fish in a barrel. Don’t worry, I’ll stop soon. It’s getting too easy.

    Only to a deluded fool who refuses to read about AGW but simply recycles the weather reports as if they were enough to disprove the theory.

    Patty, are you a creationist by any chance?

  9. Peter

    If it is wrong to cite local climate conditions in the debate why do you do it?

    On Aug 22 2006 you posted this. It took a few seconds to find this example and I doubt it was the only one. So by your own definition you are a deluded fool.

    More straw-clutching. Ignore the melting ice-caps, the string of hottest ever years, the record temperatures in the UK only last month, the earlier springs, shorter winters, use of the Thames flood barrier (once every two years in the 80s, twice a year in the 00s).

    Say it ain’t so!

    Sorry, I’m afraid it is so and getting more so. An inconvenient truth, to be sure.

    Posted by: Peter | August 22, 2006 at 09:40 AM

  10. Henry94

    Record snowfall does not equate to record low temperatures, even if Patty thinks so. Her ignorance just gets more amazing by the day and gives the lie to her claims to have read anything on the subject, apart from the rantings of other right-wing bloggers.

    Maybe you should try a little reading yourself.

  11. Peter

    I have read enough and I have an open mind on the issue. I’m going to make up my mind on the basis of the accuracy of the predictions made by both sides. If your side is right we’ll know soon enough.

    Then the debate will be about what to do about it. Innovation incentive and enterprise are the things that have solved most of our other problems.

    In my country we have the Green Party in power and they won’t support an ending of the state monopoly on bus services. that is a frankly bizarre position given their alleged concerns.

    So those who make the most noise about a problem are not always the people to look to for a solution. Otherwise communism would have had the solution to poverty.

  12. Patty, are you a creationist by any chance?

    Tuesday, December 18, 2007 at 09:49AM | Peter

    Peter, did you not put that same question to me? Is this part of your debating armoury on MMGW?

  13. Allan

    I have found that creationists are generally impervious to any scientific message that does not fit with their sky-god worldview. Hence their refusal to believe thath the earth is more than 10,000 years old. Also, many creationists believe that the "final days" are approaching and that whatever we do to the earth now is of no account. So it seems a fair question to ask of someone who is so obviously blinkered that she continually repeats the same canards, such as her ludicrous claim that recent snowfalls prove that AGW is a crock.

  14. As a Canadian I can tell you that in Canada snow does not fall because it is colder snow falls because it is warmer. If it is -40 it never snows if it 0 it almost always snows with in a day or two! Infact the record snowfall in Ottawa is an indication that it is warmer because if it was colder or even average that snow would have fallen before it got to Ottawa.

  15. EP

    The same applies in Antarctica where higher temperatures are leading to higher snowfalls in the interior.

    But don’t tell Patty….

  16. Peter: "Global climate" is comprised of many local climates. Discussion of local climates is therefore necessary.

    I come from a medical/scientific research family. Debate is de rigeur in these circles.

    Snow falls in the winter when it’s cold not the summer when it’s warm.

    I’m not a creationist. Not even sure what that is. Sounds like a religious slur?

    Don’t be afraid to question your own assumptions. That is what scientific inquiry is all about.

  17. LOL patty of course snow falls in the winter because its cold enough to freeze thats an effect

    The cause is warmer weather that allows water vapour to accumulate in greater volumes and cause record snowfalls

  18. How can 37cms be a record for Ottawa? I don’t know, but I guess I would have thought it would be higher. I’m pretty sure Albany, NY (near where I grew up) has recorded more than 50cms in one day. Syracuse (150 miles west) had over 85cms in one day during the blizzard of 1993.

    Can’t record snows be a sign of global warming? If bodies of water that used to freeze don’t freeze in winter then you end up with more snow. When those big lakes are frozen you have a dry cold, but little snow.

  19. A wonderful comment quoted below from Conservative Home today:

    "Run away global warming has more than just a computer model to show it can happen, it has an example – Venus."

  20. Runaway gullibility has more than a computer program to show it can happen – the Y2K scam!

  21. "…the record temperatures in the UK only last month (ie, July 2007)"

    -Huh? I Must have hibernated through that glorious summer. Far as I recall it was the coolest summer for a good long while, the temp did not exceed 28C on any single day in the UK this summer, and it only got even that warm on a few brief occasions. Otherwise, it stayed in the low to mid 20’s all the way from May to September.

  22. Anyway, as the title of this post suggests, I hereby raise my hand.
    The "science" of global warming (ie, people sticking unknown variables into computers and seeing what the output looks like) can be understood by nobody at all. Therefore it’s not a question of "understanding" but of faith, just like a religion. You don’t "know" about global warming; you either believe it on faith or you don’t. Well, I don’t.
    Ooops, I’d better go – there’s a group of very serious looking Spanish bishops knocking on my door, muttering something about heresy….

  23. On faith, Tom is correct. Whenever one has to be asked whether one ‘believes in’ something, then there’s a serious credibility gap in that something which requires faith to bridge the gap. As with religion, theory requires faith and belief: I require proof. That’s why I’m agnostic, but not atheist (there could be God, and the morality espoused by Christianity is a sound basis) and supportive of taxes on fuel because I oppose waste and foolish consumption: and MMGW might be true but the case isn’t made by shouting.

  24. The politics of the situation is that our "leaders" will happily sign up to anything in Bali because it’s popular but they also need economic growth and will do nothing to restrict that.

    A country serious about global warming would not allow immigration for example. It would no be building new runways. It would not be bending over backwards to attract foreign investment in manufacturing. None of what happened in Bali is related to reality.

    Take air travel. The public are sufficiently conditioned that they will allow it to be taxed. But the number of flights will continue to increase because nobody in power would be crazy enough to push the airline business into crisis or piss off millions of workers who look forward to their holiday every year.

    And the money they do take from airlines will be spent elsewhere in the economy to buy votes with no consideration at all given to its environmental impact.

    We are living through the biggest political con-job in history irrespective of the rights or wrongs of the scientific debate.

  25. Tom Tyler posted

    You don’t "know" about global warming; you either believe it on faith or you don’t.

    Bullshit. There’s loads of evidence to support it, including a run of record hot years and a theory which accurately predicted the result of rising C02 as long ago as 1890. There is no evidence whatever for any sky-god that is worshipped.

  26. Henry94

    Your point about political hypocrisy is well made. The new runway at Heathrow is an excellent example, as is the projected growth in the GB population from 63 million to as high as 90 million by 2100, fuelled by mass immigration.

  27. Peter

    There is no evidence whatever for any sky-god that is worshipped.

    Then why all the fuss about saving the earth? It’s not a major planet. If life itself is essentially random and meaningless there is no basis for telling anyone to live the way you say you want them to and what happens to the world in 100 years time is not something we need concern ourselves with.

    What, without God, is the moral or rational basis for any kind of sacrifice or altruism.

    Alan made a good point earlier about the usefulness of Christian morality even without certainty of belief. But without belief that morality could not survive. I think we already have enough evidence for that.

    But you appear to believe that scoffing at and insulting believers is a reasonable basis for dialogue while at the same time trying to persuade us to support your beliefs on the necessity for collective action.

    As well as having no qualificationsin science it appears sales isn’t you line either?

  28. H94

    The earth is worth saving for the benefit of future generations, irrespective of whether a deity exists. Anyone who denies that is profoundly selfish, because they are basically saying that they don’t care that the mess they leave may greatly affect their own descendants for the worse.

    You say that morality is impossible without religion. To which I say: Nonsense.

  29. Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner accuses the IPCC of falsifying and destroying data. Dr Mörner’s accusations include: surreptitious substitution of datasets, selective use of data, presenting computer model simulations as physical data, and even the destruction of physical markers which fail to demonstrate sea level rise.

    Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner has been studying sea level change for 35 years. He is the former head of Stockholm University’s department of Paleodeophysics and Geodynamics. Dr. Mörner is and an expert reviewer for the IPCC, leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project, and past president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes.

    Mörner says it’s becoming increasingly hard to perform objective climate research. In the European Community, a prerequisite for research grants is that the focus must be on global warming. Papers which don’t support global warming aren’t funded. "That’s what dictatorships did, autocracies." He added, "They demanded that scientists produce what they wanted."

    http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_20-29/2007-25/pdf/33-37_725.pdf

  30. As previously posted, there is a good chance that the much-mocked IPCC consensus is in fact too conservative in its future predictions:

    "The world’s sea levels could rise twice as high this century as UN climate scientists have previously predicted, according to a study. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change proposes a maximum sea level rise of 81cm (32in) this century. But in the journal Nature Geoscience, researchers say the true maximum could be about twice that: 163cm (64in). They looked at what happened more than 100,000 years ago – the last time Earth was this warm."

    See full story here

  31. Henry,

    "What, without God, is the moral or rational basis for any kind of sacrifice or altruism."

    If you really believe the answer is ‘none’ then in what way would the presence of God improve things?

    You will behave morally only if threatened with hell or bribed with heaven? Is that what you are telling us?

  32. Well, Peter. If one (mis)uses data in the manner stated by Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner then figures such as those which you quote are to be expected. And as I suspected, the good doctor confirms that only research which will provide apparent support to the MMGW theory will receive funding from government sources. Of course, the figures will require more ‘research’, and there enough people from within the ‘consensus’ (that really is now a sinister word) to be funded. But the ‘consensus’ is a self-contained group because anyone who disagrees with the theory cannot be part of the consensus – is that correct, Peter?

  33. Allan

    Obviously someone who disputes that AGW is essentially correct cannot be part of the AGW consensus.

    But my point is that the denialist position is that the AGW consensus is either a scam at worst or alarmist at best. They totally ignore the possibility that it could be too conservative.

  34. Peter, my opinion is that MMGW could be correct, but the accusations of falsifying data and funding only those inclined to support the theory is not the best way to persuade. Of course, some people will argue that because the ends justifies the means etc. but, if they’re wrong, then £/$ billions will have been wasted and huge amounts of damage done to economies and the environment throughout the world. One example is the ethanol from plants scheme which threatens huge increases in the prices of staple foods and de-forestation on a greater scale than seen to date.

  35. >There is no evidence whatever for any sky-god that is worshipped.

    I agree. Who says there is a sky-god ? Never heard of that one.

  36. Allan

    I agree with the risks of taking action on the basis of falsified data. But there is no evidence that whatever may have been falsified is sufficient to debunk the whole theory.

    If the theory is essentially correct then the forecasts could still either understate or overstate the future rise in temperature if no action is taken. But the risks of doing nothing are completely ignored by the denialists.

  37. Allan,

    "Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner accuses the IPCC of falsifying and destroying data. "

    Is that the same Dr Mörner who misrepresented his own position in relation to INQUA?

    "Mörner says it’s becoming increasingly hard to perform objective climate research."

    That would be Mörner, the dowsing expert.

    I’ve described here previously how a pompous-assed "dowsing expert"
    named Nils-Axel Morner, associate professor of geology from Stockholm
    University, has consistently refused to be tested for the Pigasus
    Prize. A helpful correspondent in Sweden referred me to
    http://www.tdb.uu.se/~karl/dowsing/ where I found that Morner was
    tested — amateurishly — on a prominent Swedish TV show, "The Plain &
    Simple Truth," on TV2 on February 27th. Morner was first provided the
    opportunity to brag about anecdotal successes, then he was tested. A
    local celebrity — a singer — was involved, as is usual with these
    drearily predictable affairs. The singer chose one of ten cups under
    which to conceal a packet of sugar. He chose number seven; are we
    surprised? Morner had designed this test, saying that it was
    especially difficult for him to do. (???) He said that water or
    metal could be located "right away," but not sugar. Morner blathered
    on about "interference" and mumbled about "influences" and "might be
    here" and the usual alibis, then chose number eight. Wrong. But,
    said Morner, it was "in the right sector!" But no cigar.

    There were 3 serious errors in what could have been a good test: One,
    the target was not selected by a random means. (3 and 7 are the
    most-often-chosen positions in a line-up of 10.) Two, an audience
    member could have secretly signaled Morner. Three, Morner was allowed
    to do a test of his own choice, one that he said in advance was
    difficult and strange for him, instead of doing one which he’d done
    before, for which he has claimed 100% success. Why were water and/or
    metal not used? This is ridiculous!

    Did Morner mention that I’ve offered him the million-dollar prize if
    he can do his usual, familiar dowsing trick? No.

    – James Randi http://www.randi.org/hotline/1998/0012.html

  38. From Frank’s link:

    "Further, INQUA, which is an umbrella organization for hundreds of researchers knowledgeable about past climate, does not subscribe to Mörner’s position on climate change. Nearly all of these researchers agree that humans are modifying Earth’s climate, a position diametrically opposed to Dr. Mörner’s point of view."

    Of course these researchers agree that humans are modifying Earth’s climate. Those who do not don’t get funds.

    Anything about that tree Frank, or anything on what Dr Morner actually says about sea levels?

  39. Indeed Peter. A very interesting angle of attack. The academic’s credentials are impeccable so find something a little offbase and attack that because the argument which Morner puts is a bit hard to beat.

    Now, about that tree in the Maldives – is it still there or have some Aussie ‘environmentalists’ ripped it out?

  40. Peter,

    "Dowsing. LOL!"

    Guten Morgen, Herr Mörner. Is that a dowsing rod in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?"

  41. This is another interesting link:

    http://www.john-daly.com/ges/msl-rept.htm

    from which:

    "Another school of thought, first postulated by British meteorologist, Sir George Simpson in 1938 [40], and confirmed by several studies since [30] [41] [31] [26], suggests that a warming ocean will result in more evaporation and thus more cloudiness. The `Simpson Effect’ as it has been called [13], would increase precipitation over the polar regions in the form of snowfall, building up the ice mass, and thus become frozen water permanently lost from the oceans. Yet more moisture will precipitate over internal land catchments such as the Caspian Sea and Lake Victoria in east Africa, again removing water from the ocean mass. These latter processes are believed to be sufficient not only to offset the rise in sea level predicted from ocean warming, but could result in a fall in sea level of up to 7 mm/yr [30].

    Prof S. Fred Singer demonstrated that not only does warming not raise sea levels, but there is also an observed inverse relation between global temperature and sea levels due mainly to the increased removal of water from the oceans to the ice caps cancelling out the sea level effect of any thermal expansion of the oceans during periods of climatic warming. [41]. "

  42. Peter

    I have a question for you. Why are you such a bigot and hatemonger?

    I ask this seriously, your latest tact to anyone that disagrees with Fantasy Man Made Warming is to ask if they are Creationalists. You then say that creationalists don’t believe in science.

    This is a tactic of a bigot.

    First of all a belief in God does not demand a lack of belief in science. I explained to you before that Einstein believed in god even pointing you to reference sources to back that up, but you weren’t interested in facts. Gee what a surprise.

    You need to come to grips with the fact that YOUR SIDE has NO mathmatical data to substantiate

    A) that MAN has had anything to do with the less than one degree that the planet has warmed,

    B) That the fluctuation in the planets temperature is going to leed to the disasters that your side claim

    More and more profesional scientists are stating over and over that the CLAIMS of your side don’t add up. There are just as many on that side of the argument as there are on your side. Trying to label them all as kooks does NOT strengthen your case for the things that your side states will happen or what the causes are. Only hard numbers can do that and yourside can’t produce them.

    But just as the inquisition murdered and tortured disbelievers so is the direction that you and your ilk are taking

    the tactics your side are imploying are the same tactics that every facist regime has implemented

    You need to look at your motivation as you attack people in the name of the common good

  43. The Troll,

    "I explained to you before that Einstein believed in god even pointing you to reference sources to back that up…"

    You are shitting me! In her book Doubt: A History, Jennifer Michael Hecht quotes Einstein (p.447) as stating:

    It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

    … and also on p.39 of Albert Einstein, the Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, his correspondence reads:

    I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.

    Any contemporary of Albert’s who claimed he was even in the slightest religious was a liar. The great man knew better.

  44. Dawkins

    Be assured that your comment at 7.33pm will not stop Troll repeating the lie about Einstein. This was pointed out to him several weeks ago.

  45. Allan,

    "Of course these researchers agree that humans are modifying Earth’s climate. Those who do not don’t get funds."

    Then who is funding the list of ‘scientists’ you always tell us have broken ranks with the consensus on MMGW? Are they independently wealthy or do they just do no research?

    On the one hand, if they do no research then where do they come by their opinions? Why should we believe them ahead of any random loser who does no research?

    On the other hand, if they do research then we know that Morner (and you) are lying.

    Which is it, Allan?

  46. Dawkins you make my point "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

    This is the rewording of a partial quote. Einstein was raised by NON following scripture jewish Parents at one point in his life he became devoutly jewish to piss his parents off then he later lost all holds with any ORGINIZED religion because he believed his awe in the achievments of God could not be contained in the confines of any "religion"

    Lack of a belief in religion is NOT the lack of belief in a God

    Yes Peter nor will things like your lack of FACTS stop you in your bigoted attacks on those that you call deniers

    Just let us know when your ilk will start the actual burning of us heritics that actually believe in laughable idea that science is proven with numbers not a "consensus"

  47. Troll posted:

    You then say that creationalists don’t believe in science.
    That is correct. They pick and choose what science to accept and reject the bits that conflict with their religious beliefs. So they accept that Gallileo was right but not that Darwin was right. And they are overwhelmingly anti AGW. The more extreme of them believe that the earth is only 10,000 years old and that we are close to "the final days" when Armageddon will be unleashed.

    The rest of your comment is a general attack on AGW. To which I will reply that the Bali summit shows that your side have already lost this argument. The AGW scientists have convinced the politicians, including Dubya, that action is necessary to avoid disaster.

    Of course, whether sufficient action is actually taken in time is another matter entirely. On that I remain sceptical on a good day, pessimistic on a bad one.

  48. Clearly, Einstein’s "God" is not at all like the God that most people think of when they hear the word. Neither is the "God" of the famous cosmologist and mathematician, Stephen Hawking, whose talk of "the mind of God" has given comfort to many religious believers. Hawking also is a pantheist. When asked by CNN’s Larry King whether he believed in God, Hawking answered:

    Yes, if by God is meant the embodiment of the laws of the universe.

    We began by asking "Did Einstein believe in God?" The answer, as Hawking pointed out, depends on what you mean by "God". In one sense (the Pantheist sense), Einstein did believe in God. But in another sense he didn’t. Indeed, except for his deciding to use the term "God" in a way that is unfamiliar to most people, his views are indistinguishable from those of someone who is an unabashed atheist.

    Thus the false belief that Einstein had no belief in God

  49. convincing politicians to steal money in the name of ANY cause is NOT proof of anything other than the greed of politicians

    and you are still not responding to the charge that you are an inquisitionist with your hissing of the word "denier" we only await your building of the pyres to burn the denialists on Peter

    we know you won’t address the facts because you have non

  50. Troll

    Einstein did not believe in any form of supernatural being. End of.

    I am not an "inquistionist". I have posted earlier on this thread (I think) that I would be delighted to be proved wrong on AGW and the scientific research must obviously continue until the matter is 100% settled in the way that evolution is settled.

    If anti-AGW researchers are not being funded, surely the likes of Exxon should put their money where their mouth is and fund them.

  51. Peter,

    "Einstein did not believe in any form of supernatural being. End of."

    Unfortunately, it’s not the "end of." They’ll keep at it—being all too willing to believe the lies, obfuscations and half truths, frenetically seeking support, from whatever quarter, of their belief in the existence of the celestial teapot, or any other pie in ze sky.

    They can’t quite come to terms with the fact that one of the greatest intellects ever born of woman, Herr A. Einstein, regarded their infantile beliefs as, well, infantile beliefs.

    Evidently, as was the case with the train-drivers’ belief in the wrong kind of snow, we are dealing with the wrong kind of Einsteinsian god.

  52. The Troll,

    Before I forget:

    "Stephen Hawking, whose talk of "the mind of God" has given comfort to many religious believers."

    Poor Stephen has had to explain on numerous occasions that he meant that in a metaphorical sense. Do you honestly think that a mind of that stature could believe in the Easter Bunny God?

  53. I see new Lib-Dem leader Nick Clegg has kicked off by announcing he does not believe in God.

  54. Good for him. He’s a free man, I’m happy for him to believe or disbelieve in whatever he wants.

  55. Noel,

    "I see new Lib-Dem leader Nick Clegg has kicked off by announcing he does not believe in God."

    Silly bugger. Doesn’t he realize he’s just thrown away half the British vote?

    He should have lied, or ducked the question—as all godfree peeps have had to do in order to attain or hold a position in public life.

  56. Frank, you have already called Patty a liar, and now you write this:

    On the other hand, if they do research then we know that Morner (and you) are lying.

    Which is it, Allan?

    Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 08:12PM | Frank O’Dwyer

    It would appear that you consider people who disagree with you to be liars. Most immature.

    I have asked you before on other threads how old you are. I’m 46 – how old are you?

  57. Frank wrote:

    "Then who is funding the list of ‘scientists’ you always tell us have broken ranks with the consensus on MMGW? Are they independently wealthy or do they just do no research?

    On the one hand, if they do no research then where do they come by their opinions? Why should we believe them ahead of any random loser who does no research?

    On the other hand, if they do research then we know that Morner (and you) are lying.

    Which is it, Allan?

    Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 08:12PM | Frank O’Dwyer

    It’s very simple , Frank. The large numbers of scientists who oppose the ‘consensus’ are those who have either carried out funded research and came to the ‘wrong’ conclusions or are those who reviewed in detail the research and conclusions of the pro-MMGW research papers and found the details to be incorrect, wrongly interpreted, or fiddled.

    The data are in the public domain and are subject to independent review. For example, the sixty Canadian scientists who advised the PM that the case for MMGW does not withstand review did not do research: they peer-reviewed the MMGW case from the same data and found it wanting.

    For European scientists to do likewise would mean an end to funding. But others review the pro-MMGW reports and find all sorts of nonsense. It doesn’t mean that MMGW is not real: but when data have to be manipulated to make the case, then the case is weakened.

  58. Allan

    Instead of crying that they are victimised by the wicked EU government(s) why don’t the anti-AGW scientists get off their butts and get funding from the oil and coal companies?

  59. It’s quite simple Peter. The oil companies cannot be seen to be opposed to the MMGW theory. I will give you a specific example. earlier this year when I was working for a very big oil company in Aberdeen, it was decided that Al Gore’s film was to be shown in the auditorium and that all staff and contractors were invited. After showing it, some questions were invited by the Health and Safety minion who was vocally favourable to Al Gore’s film. The same minion drives a 3.0litre Jaguar to work! I sent out an e:mail to all personnel suggesting that the Channel 4 counterview documentary should also be shown on order to "allow the adults to make up their own minds". I then received an e:mail directly from the big boss which stated that (oil company name) accepts the prevailing consensus about climate change etc. Now I’m not there any more.

    The oil companies will go with the flow and, at the moment the flow is for MMGW – but it is not necessarily sustainable if the case is found to be flawed.

  60. Allan@
    For example, the sixty Canadian scientists who advised the PM that the case for MMGW does not withstand review did not do research: they peer-reviewed the MMGW case from the same data and found it wanting.

    No allan what hapened is Harper didnt want to believe so he went and found 60 scientists willing to tell him what he wanted to hear. Harper is a first class fundamentalist idiot and its Canada’s shame he ever became prime minister

  61. Allan

    It beggars belief that the oil companies would go along with AGW if they were not convinced that the science was basically correct.

    Exxon in particular have been vocal in their scepticism in the past – have they been won round?

  62. Peter: it wasn’t Exxon. It was Shell, and the policy as I perceive it is to flow with the tide.

    EP, do you have anything to support your claim?

  63. yes their is no god except man himself who else but god can destroy a planet mearly with the breath he exhales…..

  64. Dawkins.

    Very funny last comment, and true.
    Back in the mid 70s Harold Wilson (PM) was interviewed on radio. The very last question to him was "do you believe in God?"
    There was then the longest silence I’ve ever heard as he was clearly weighing up the pros and cons.
    Eventually he said simply, yes.

    As it happens, he resigned not long after, so in his case he was’nt thinking of the electorate but hedging his bets with the Almighty himself!

  65. Alan
    just a familiarity with Canadian politics and in particular the conservative party of Canada. Its such a pleasure to watch them get a roasting about one of the worst primeministers they ever supplied to Canada.

  66. Allan,

    "those who reviewed in detail the research and conclusions of the pro-MMGW research papers and found the details to be incorrect, wrongly interpreted, or fiddled."

    Prove it.

    By the way has what you described ever happened with "anti-MMGW" research papers (or what we will laughingly call research papers)? Can you provide a few posts from your fellow ‘sceptics’ pointing that out?

    The reason I ask is of course that a real sceptic would be equally sceptical of both sides of the argument. But your ilk are not real sceptics, as I just proved.

  67. Scientists, supporting a theory of global warming, suggest reducing activities that raise CO2 levels, such as burning fossil fuels. Assume, for a moment, that they’ve colluded to get us to believe that the Earth’s increasing temperature is a problem. What’s in it for them? How do they benefit from lying? What’s the downside of reducing our dependence on petroleum for energy production? How do they profit?
    Opponents of global warming argue that the planet’s climate is beyond the control of humans. They claim we’re in a warming cycle and that it has happened before. They don’t think we need to be concerned with rising temperatures or the associated causes. What’s their motivation? Would they benefit from lying? What’s the upside of continuing our dependence on petroleum for energy production? How do they profit?
    Just a few things to ponder as we enter the New Year.
    Be well,
    John

Comments are closed.