P M Gordon Brown called climate change doubters a "flat Earth group"

[Hotspring 44]

The problem with your excerpt above is that the agrument that small warming is occuring says nothing to validate that it is CAUSED by manmade Co2, or that there is a significant danger of the predicteed consequences.

Of course the total input of GW is not CO2. Who ever said that it was? That is not what I got from the scientific evidence that is publicly available.
Mass human suffering, political instability & military conflict caused by flooding of land as examples of the “predicted consequences” are not a “significant danger”, you say? Well to each his (or her) own on that one. But I think it is. Check this out:

Global Climate Change National Security Implications Free Downloadable text Edited by Dr. Carolyn Pumphrey. Global Climate Change National Security Implications or mp3 audio National Security and the Threat of Climate Change (Audio) - Council on Foreign Relations

That being said, the Secret Service does have contingency “plans” (established protocols) for specifically just that. Remember what happened with the response to Hurricane Katrina?

][/size]From what I've seen so far, these are the biggest weaknesses. Most of the predictions come from these computer models they are throwing millions at, rarely if ever from historical precedents. And there ARE historical precedents of warming (and cooling) which did NOT produce the dire consequences we are hearing about

Computer models have the “historical precedents” as input with variances that compensate to some extent. Of course they are not totally accurate, but they crunch the numbers faster than anyone can do on a chalkboard with so many inputs that do have complexities that reach into 3 or more dimensions that is just as a practical matter impossible to accomplish with a chalkboard. IOW, use the best suited tools available & keep making improvements as you go along.

Summary (found here: Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation ) The Southern Oscillation and the solar cycle have significant effects on year-to-year global temperature change. Because both of these natural effects were in their cool phases in 2007, the unusual warmth of 2007 is all the more notable. It is apparent that there is no letup in the steep global warming trend of the past 30 years (see 5-year mean curve in Figure 1a). "Global warming stopped in 1998," has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Niño of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend.

Also another point some here on waccobb have stated that water vapor is more a heat absorbing component than CO2. That is to some extent by itself true. But CO2 according to NASA; does “exacerbate” G/W. Here are a few lines from the NASA website… (NASA Outlines Recent Breakthroughs in Greenhouse Gas Research - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory ) …that I am using as example:

"AIRS temperature and water vapor observations have corroborated climate model predictions that the warming of our climate produced as carbon dioxide levels rise will be greatly exacerbated -- in fact, more than doubled -- by water vapor," said Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. Dessler explained that most of the warming caused by carbon dioxide does not come directly from carbon dioxide, but from effects known as feedbacks. Water vapor is a particularly important feedback. As the climate warms, the atmosphere becomes more humid. Since water is a greenhouse gas, it serves as a powerful positive feedback to the climate system, amplifying the initial warming. AIRS measurements of water vapor reveal that water greatly amplifies warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide. Comparisons of AIRS data with models and re-analyses are in excellent agreement. "The implication of these studies is that, should greenhouse gas emissions continue on their current course of increase, we are virtually certain to see Earth's climate warm by several degrees Celsius in the next century, unless some strong negative feedback mechanism emerges elsewhere in Earth's climate system," Dessler said.”

So to say that water vapor is a stronger greenhouse “gas” than CO2 in an “argument” against human emissions of CO2 (that is the topic here), (and) then to claim that that global warming because of human generated CO2 emissions is a “hoax”; in my view is not taking the science into account at best. IMHO, it has been politicized using word & numbers games.

First, and not insignificantly, I find the term "denier" EXTERMELY offensive, and dangerous.

I don’t.
I think to call people that are concerned about G/W “alarmists” and say that “they are somehow unaware enough that they can’t figure out who may (or may not) have an agenda” to take over the world with a “1 world government” is far more corrosive, offensive, and “dangerous”.

And to cap the word “extremely” is in my thinking somewhat duplicitous considering you said “you people” having the apparent implication in the context you wrote it in, appears to me to be “extremely” disrespectful, pejorative and derogatory. But that is still OK with me personally. However, I thought I should mention that just to make that point anyway.

BTW, when I think of G/W “deniers” I see the arguments like the Arctic ice caps are “growing”, or the overall global temp is “colder” than it was in some recent year in the last 20 years or so & the snow in the Eastern USA “proves” that G/W is a “hoax” spawned by “liberal extremists”.

I remain more suspicious of the power structures that have jumped on board with this, than I do of the scientists and professors who lose research money, tenure, and peace of mind by pointing to holes in the official science.

Those “power structures” (For example, Bush Admin) were not giving it (G/W) enough consideration other than to stonewall (and censor; {Note NASA scientist James Hanson}) the science because of certain “interest groups”; so as to say that in terms such as, “jumped on board with this” pertaining to your stated suspiciousness, is not in my view taking into consideration the 8 years of GW (pun intended) Bush Et al.

[someguy]

I can't be sure that nobody has said this already in this thread (as there is a lot to read here) but has anyone thought about how the policies of Climate Change will make life in third world countries incredibly hard(er)?

I just moved back to Sonoma County about eight months ago from Argentina. I made friends with many small scale agricultural families (homesteaders) who are very very poor in comparison to our standards. And yet my friends are not even in the lowest class. Heck they have a couple dozen hectares of land, some cows, some crops, and a small convenient store. Also, they drive shitty old cars from the 50's and 60's (poor mpg's) like most Argentines. I adore my friends and the homesteading lifestyle, I find it to be extremely rich and fulfilling. But does anyone realize that when Climate Change policies are enacted, my friends and possibly billions of people around the world living in extreme poverty will suffer greatly due to the increase in fuel prices? How about the increase in food prices as a result of biofuel crops diminishing the food supply? How are these people going to be able to cope with these extreme increases on necessities that we take for granted? I'll tell you that many will suffer, and more will die. These policies will destroy third world countries, make them even more polluted than they already are, and create massive social problems (because of poverty). I'd like someone to think about that.

[Hotspring 44]

I can't be sure that nobody has said this already in this thread (as there is a lot to read here) but has anyone thought about how the policies of Climate Change will make life in third world countries incredibly hard(er)?

Yes I have.
Example: the people in low laying delta areas that are vulnerable to sea level rise and the suffering on a scale that dwarfs the whole population of Argentina in comparison.

Land underwater As sea level rises - partly as a response to climate change - two islands have vanished from the map. Professor Sugata Hazra, a stocky dynamo of a man, discovered their disappearance when he compared maps from the Raj with satellite images. He says 6,000 people have had to be relocated here because their land is underwater. Map People like Bashunto Janna. He is 81 now and says he has not got long to live. His family used to farm 85 acres on the vanished island of Lochachara. Now they have one acre in a village for displaced people on a nearby island, which itself is under threat from the waves. The Sundarbans straddle India and Bangladesh. Here on the Indian side, the Indian government is just about coping with the slowly unfolding crisis. Bashunto's adult children may hanker for life on the farm but at least they have homes and paid work. But Professor Hazra warns that the way the sea is rising, by the end of the century there will not be thousands on the move along this coastline - there will be millions. The problem is compounded by rapid population growth in the Sundarbans islands at the great delta in the Bay of Bengal.

But does anyone realize that when Climate Change policies are enacted, my friends and possibly billions of people around the world living in extreme poverty will suffer greatly due to the increase in fuel prices? How about the increase in food prices as a result of biofuel crops diminishing the food supply?

That is precisely why well thought-out and enforced energy policies (including foreign aid) must be done; contrary to what some so-called G/W “deniers” claim would be bad for American “business” (as usual).

I'll tell you that many will suffer, and more will die. These policies will destroy third world countries, make them even more polluted than they already are, and create massive social problems (because of poverty). I'd like someone to think about that.

Yes I have thought about it. IMHO, If republicans gain too many more seats in the House & Congress in 2010 that is inevitable; including here in USA.

[someguy]

Your boxed article? or whatever it is, who wrote that, and where did it come from? Why doesn't it say the name of the two vanishing islands? And is it really saying that a 2 inch rise in sea level (I say two inches because that is what the UN scientists speculate) will displace or kill millions?

Also I'm not just talking about Argentina, I'm talking all world countries. You can't tell me that the sea rising two inches is going to have a bigger and harsher effect on the world's population than the policies that will create substantially higher food and gas prices for the world's most poor. (Which is a lot of people!!!)

"That is precisely why well thought-out and enforced energy policies (including foreign aid) must be done; contrary to what some so-called G/W “deniers” claim would be bad for American “business” (as usual)."

Well it's definitely not going to get done. Obama and Clinton made that very clear. So now what? ???? What happens to these people???

Also G/W "deniers" don't just claim it to be bad for American "business" but humanity as a whole. G/W "deniers" (maybe to your surprise) are not all republican, pro-pollution, conspiracy theorist, capitalists. Some of us are farmers, liberals, true scientists, environmentalists, and some of us want to clean up our planet, but would rather use the truth as a tool, rather than a myth perpetrated by people who stand to gain immensely from it. Why is it that humans lack the motivation to take a stand in the absence of a crisis? Only now that G/W looms with its death and destruction do people begin to care. And the problem with that is, these "believers" are uninformed robots, like Hitler youth, spouting propaganda and interrupting all opposition, demanding the debate is over. But that is all emotion and no substance. And that is what we will get, a bunch of nonsensical policies that create more harm than good because everyone is blinded with emotion, just like when we elected Obama.

Let's all take a deep breath and ask ourselves, why did Al Gore lie so many times in his film "An Inconvenient Truth"? If the truth were on his side, why would he lie? What kind of person does that? Why did he say in his film that the sea levels would rise by 20 ft. and submerse San Fransisco, yet shortly after buy a condo right in SF? He doesn't seem too worried about it. Unless he just doesn't care about money because he has almost a billion $$$, so he can just buy as many condos as he wants and create a bigger carbon footprint for himself. Al Gore's Move to San Francisco Generates Real Estate Buzz

This is basic stuff here that I can't really see anyone rationalizing.

[Hotspring 44]

Your boxed article? or whatever it is, who wrote that, and where did it come from?

Did you even try to use the link in the “boxed article”?
The link goes to the whole article.

Why doesn't it say the name of the two vanishing islands? And is it really saying that a 2 inch rise in sea level (I say two inches because that is what the UN scientists speculate) will displace or kill millions?

Use the link and read the article.
Here is a Wikipedia link that explains why there is more than 1 island in that (Sundarbans) delta region:
Sundarbans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

…Well it's definitely not going to get done. Obama and Clinton made that very clear. So now what? ???? What happens to these people???

I am not psychic.
That being said, being overly dependant on fossil fertilizers is a limited option that has its own separate negative potential consequence.
BTW I do agree that “cap & trade” is a wrong way to deal with the fossil fuel over-dependencies, G/W and so on.
I agree that C&T will hurt the people in “developing” countries far more than it will hurt the big energy and fuel companies or the large developed countries.

Also G/W "deniers" don't just claim it to be bad for American "business" but humanity as a whole. G/W "deniers" (maybe to your surprise) are not all republican, pro-pollution, conspiracy theorist, capitalists. Some of us are farmers, liberals, true scientists, environmentalists, and some of us want to clean up our planet, but would rather use the truth as a tool, rather than a myth perpetrated by people who stand to gain immensely from it.

No one knows exactly what will happen, however the current trend of above statistical historical average (of) G/W is not a “myth”. , although I agree some of the dire “predictions” are in all likelihood, over-stated.
Just like some of the G/WDer’s ascertain; the climate changes, and has changed for ever and will continue to change for ever. I think everyone that is paying attention agrees on at least that much.

My other concern is what appears to be a mass extinction event that is happening. That is a clue that something is going on that is quite likely beyond simply sea level rise, which is quite likely a human exacerbated situation. Here is some info from NASA.

A massive and unusually abrupt rise in sea level about 14,200 years ago was caused by the partial collapse of ice sheets in Antarctica, a new study has shown, in research that solves a mystery scientists have been heatedly debating for more than a decade. In less than 500 years at the end of the last Ice Age, this event caused the Earth's sea level to rise about 70 feet. That's about four times faster than sea levels were rising most of the time during this period, and at least 20 times faster than the sea level is currently rising. The whole article can be found here: Antarctic Ice Sheet Key to Sudden Sea Level Rise in the Past : News

I do realize that some people (including well credentialed scientists) have legitimate reasons to disbelieve in the “tipping point” hypothesis regarding G/W.
That kind of “Theory” is “mythical” until it actually occurs (if and/or when it occurs).

[“mythical 3. often mythic Of, relating to, or having the nature of a myth: a novel of profound, almost mythic consequence.”] mythical - definition of mythical by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Here are some other links from the Wikipedia article on “tipping point (climatology):”

Lenton et al. highlights a number of tipping points,[2] including: Boreal forest dieback Amazon rainforest dieback Loss of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice and melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets Disruption to Indian and West African monsoon Formation of Atlantic deep water near the Arctic ocean, which is a component process of the thermohaline circulation. Loss of permafrost, leading to potential Arctic methane release[3] and Clathrate gun effect ↓References in the Wikipedia article ↓ 1 ^ Earth in crisis, warns NASA's top climate scientistPhysOrg.com , April 07, 2008 . Accessed August 2008. 2 ^ Lenton, T. M.; Held, H.; Kriegler, E.; Hall, J. W.; Lucht, W.; Rahmstorf, S.; Schellnhuber, H. J. (Feb 2008). "Tipping elements in the Earth's climate system" (Free full text). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (6): 1786–1793. doi:10.1073/pnas.0705414105. PMID 18258748. PMC 2538841. Tipping elements in the Earth's climate system ? PNAS. edit 3 ^ Ian Sample (11 August 2005). "Warming hits 'tipping point'". The Guardian. Warming hits 'tipping point' | Environment | The Guardian. Retrieved 21 September 2009.

The real estate thing you mentioned;

… “so he can just buy as many condos as he wants and create a bigger carbon footprint for himself. Al Gore's Move to San Francisco Generates Real Estate Buzz”

(I am traveling out of town, so I will not be on net for a couple of weeks or so) I don't right now have anymore time to read or write, so I may read-up on the link later and comment on that.

Everyone have happy and safe holidays.

[lynn]

Ah yes...It's the old, "you are just a 'flat earther' if you don't agree with me and what I think is true"...

It's so convenient, and easy to throw out silly names like that...

And there's identical frustration, and insult from both sides of this debate how trying to talk to 'the other'...is like bashing your head against the wall...

It's pretty humorous really...Both sides accusing each other of the same thing...'it's-useless-trying-to-reason-with-you-because-you-refuse-to"...........blah, blah, blah...

So, I guess people on both sides of this debate will just have to keep bashing their heads against the walls...

[David8]

Here's one of the best refutations of "climate consensus" science I've seen.

YouTube - Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1 of 4

This first part is very easy to understand and clearly explained. The later parts get more technical, but are worth hanging in for for those so inclined.

This fellow uses broad data sets to expose how interpretations of "is it warming or cooling" have been manipulated by choosing the timeframe carefully, and ignoring how the charts look over other timeframes. He shows how the conclusions look different depending on which timeframe you choose - and he shows all the timeframes COMPARATIVELY, which is very illuminating. Later he shows evidence of how the raw data collection has been falsified, and much more. Recommended.

Again, and always worth repeating: of course it is well that we address and minimize man made pollution, and it's impacts. However - what is going on publicly today is a classic case of a "Hegelian Dynamic". A "problem" is identified, and alarmingly publicized - then "solutions" are provided, which conform to pre-determined political agendas - the "crisis" has provided the public "justification" for implementing policies which would otherwise not be possible. If you need obvious evidence of how this is done, (and how routine it is to these forces) just look at the recent financial "crisis" - which was engineered by the banks to create predictable results, which are being exploited to the max in the "solution" of the massive bailout.

Just follow the money - look at who gains and who loses. Carbon taxes and cap & trade will be a global nightmare, massively benefiting wall street, government, and large corporations exclusively. Carbon "criminalization" will lead to much broader "monsanto-esque" abuses. (carbon is the basis of all life, and all animals emit Co2 in respiration and other greenhouse gasses in flatulence. This will provide more justifications for controlling humans and our food supply) The debt of third world nations will increase, not decrease - providing further leverage for a "one world government" which will NOT have the protections of what's left of our constitution.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to overstate how unreliable and easily manipulated computer models are - and it is astounding how many people have no idea how virtually all of the "projected results" of the few degrees of hypothesized global warming predicted (even if it is real) are based on these enormously expensive computer models - and the very industry that generates them is fueled by the massive funding that they themselves provide a pseudo-scientific justification for. Credible scientists who are relatively free of economic servitude do not give climate computer models of any kind much credence.

Am I paranoid? Only the science provides a way out of the labyrinth.

Are you REALLY, PERSONALLY sure "climate consensus" science is more accurate than "climate skeptic" science? Do you understand the statements and issues raised on either side, FOR YOURSELF? Have you looked at the data skeptically, or just been swept up in the emotional tide of the "obviously environmental" party line, as they have demographically calculated you would...

[stuartdole]

I hope this link is readable without a membership in AAAS:

Reflections On: Our Planet and Its Life, Origins, and Futures -- McCarthy 326 (5960): 1646 -- Science

Otherwise check out the print version at your local library:

Science 18 December 2009:
Vol. 326. no. 5960, pp. 1646 - 1655
DOI: 10.1126/science.1184937

This is a good, high level overview of the actual science - not "dumbed down" for mass media.

Happy trails,
Stuart

[lynn]

Gawd...I sure get tired of this kind of preachy, holier-than-thou arrogance too...It's this kind of attitude by certain 'environmentalist' types...That really turns people off...

---
"Telling you something that may raise your taxes or ask you to change your polluting behavior for the betterment of the environment or humanity or help clean-up a mess that you and the society you live in and have benefited from that is major contributor to the "mess", is like . It's like
you are saying to species of life, and lowlanders so you can have the same old "Privileges" that you have been accustomed to.
"...

[John Omaha]

Denial of Global Warming is a manifestation of a much deeper human phenomenon, the denial of death. We humans have never been able to accept our own mortality, and our history as a species over the last 40,000 years is the record of our failed immortality projects.
Climate change deniers would have to accept their oneness with the planet and its processes and evolved species in order to accept global warming, and they cannot do that because it entails acceptance of their own mortality. Every thing on the planet is born and dies. Deniers of global warming also deny their own mortality. Science entails acceptance of one's mortality, while many religions deny it.
Most climate changer deniers come from a religious tradition that is itself a manifestation of the denial of death. The Christian tradition in particular gives humans dominion over the earth and promises an afterlife. The Christian tradition is a death denying belief system. The belief system is threatened by empirical facts that indicate the belief system is false. The syllogism goes something like this: God created the earth and heaven and hell and promised an eternal afterlife; if the earth is subject to human forces, then God could not have created it; if God did not create the earth, then He did not create heaven and hell; therefore if the planet can warm due to human activity, there is no eternal life.
The tragedy is that because we deny our own mortality, we are killing ourselves and the planet we inhabit.

[lynn]

John..."Denial of Global Warming is a manifestation of a much deeper human phenomenon, the denial of death. We humans have never been able to accept our own mortality, and our history as a species over the last 40,000 years is the record of our failed immortality projects."...

John...One thing I'm attempting to convey...Is that it is not the same to be a 'denier', 'skeptic', 'flat-earther'....

Many 'skeptic's' have been scientists questioning how much humans have a role in this 'climate change', and the armageddon scenarios some people believe in...None of the one's I've come across have ever stated humans have no influence whatsoever...

The 'skeptics' I know of...Certainly do not have a problem facing their own mortality...and they aren't religious people either...

[David8]

Denial of Global Warming is a manifestation of a much deeper human phenomenon, the denial of death. We humans have never been able to accept our own mortality...

I just can't let this go - it's the worst thing I've seen here.

I suppose there are those who said this to Galileo about his denial that the Earth is the center of the universe, just as similar things are said to all who challenge the official version of events promoted by vested interests, whether those views are correct, incorrect, or partially correct but distorted and exaggerated for gain.

This exact same mud can and does get slung freely by both sides. This is still a genuine controversy! This is clearly not settled in the minds of many, including many who are well equipped to have a credible opinion. How many of us are really so well equipped to be that certain, when so many legitimate sincere professional scientists are still in disagreement (though increasingly scared to speak their minds in this hysterical atmosphere)

If you care a whit for respecting people, please reflect on how arrogant the term "denier" is - and how obviously chosen as an attack word for it's evocation of "Holocaust Denier". It is little better than "Flat Earther". Skeptic is a neutral term.

I am a skeptic, not because I am denying death , but because I have seen very good scientific defenses of both positions, and ample evidence of believable political and economic interpretations which suggest enormous motives for climate change to be hyped, exaggerated, and sold to us - as well as ample evidence that if this is the case it would not be an anomaly, but rather just another in a never ending stream of deceptions of this sort which are planned and executed by economic and political elites.

[Valley Oak]

Could you please explain, in your opinion, what exactly is the agenda (political or otherwise) of Climate Change theorists. What is it the they are trying to achieve by misinforming the public (telling them that there is CC)?
What kinds of public policy, both foreign and domestic, are Climate Change politicians (e.g. Al Gore, Obama, etc) are trying to push through if they were to get their way? Why are they trying to do this? What are their true interests?

Among many other observations, it sounds a lot like the accusations against Climate Change policy are similar to those hurled against the Bush administration when they lied to get the US into two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan).

Could you please express your views in your own words and not refer us to a Youtube video?

Thank you,

Edward

I just can't let this go - it's the worst thing I've seen here.

I suppose there are those who said this to Galileo about his denial that the Earth is the center of the universe, just as similar things are said to all who challenge the official version of events promoted by vested interests, whether those views are correct, incorrect, or partially correct but distorted and exaggerated for gain.

This exact same mud can and does get slung freely by both sides. This is still a genuine controversy! This is clearly not settled in the minds of many, including many who are well equipped to have a credible opinion. How many of us are really so well equipped to be that certain, when so many legitimate sincere professional scientists are still in disagreement (though increasingly scared to speak their minds in this hysterical atmosphere)

If you care a whit for respecting people, please reflect on how arrogant the term "denier" is - and how obviously chosen as an attack word for it's evocation of "Holocaust Denier". It is little better than "Flat Earther". Skeptic is a neutral term.

I am a skeptic, not because I am denying death , but because I have seen very good scientific defenses of both positions, and ample evidence of believable political and economic interpretations which suggest enormous motives for climate change to be hyped, exaggerated, and sold to us - as well as ample evidence that if this is the case it would not be an anomaly, but rather just another in a never ending stream of deceptions of this sort which are planned and executed by economic and political elites.

[Sciguy]

Yes Edward, that is the question, isn't it. I can't figure out what the skeptics of climate change think is happening. I am completely cynical myself. I believe that the government pulled off the greatest crime in American history when they mined the World Trade Center and pretended it came down because of some airplanes that they made sure were coming. But where is the conspiracy behind climate change? So far as I can see, there are thousands of ordinary scientists, devoting their lives to the minute details of the effects of greenhouse gases on climate, and there is nothing pulling them together for a giant conspiracy except their devotion to their science. I know scientists and they are bulldogs for the truth of what they have proven. They are not in this to create a world government or whatever the Palinists are claiming. Actually, the rightwing is doing fine along those lines with their international elite corporations cemented together with their trade organizations. So what are the skeptics so skeptical about? They like to shout and point at nothing that I can see. Youtube videos about the end of the world if we admit to anthropogenic climate change. Nutty stuff.

Paul Palmer

Could you please explain, in your opinion, what exactly is the agenda (political or otherwise) of Climate Change theorists. What is it the they are trying to achieve by misinforming the public (telling them that there is CC)?
What kinds of public policy, both foreign and domestic, are Climate Change politicians (e.g. Al Gore, Obama, etc) are trying to push through if they were to get their way? Why are they trying to do this? What are their true interests?

Among many other observations, it sounds a lot like the accusations against Climate Change policy are similar to those hurled against the Bush administration when they lied to get the US into two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan).

Could you please express your views in your own words and not refer us to a Youtube video?

Thank you,

Edward

[John Omaha]

I feel grateful to have posted the "worst thing" you've seen here. Thank you. I take it as a compliment.

Your argument against climate change is based on the idea that the facts of climate change are being "distorted . . . for gain."

The entities who have the most to gain by denying global warming are the corporations that contribute most to global warming. They have a history of fighting against smoke stack emissions, acid rain, peak oil, and now global warming.

The ecologists and environmentalists bringing global warming to our awareness have nothing to gain. What they are trying to do is RE-gain our pristine environment, to return Earth as close as possible to the Garden of Eden it was before humans started destroying it.

Those readers who want to hold on to the idea that they are "skeptics" and not "deniers," or who want to believe there is "disagreement" about the science are being influenced by the agents provocateurs (read, "lobbyists") acting on behalf of the polluting corporations who have placed false science in the public discourse where unthinking people can be influenced to believe a lie that is patently false. In 1980, it made sense to be a skeptic about global warming, because there were only a few dozen studies suggesting it existed. Thirty years later, there is a mountain of scientific evidence. Anyone who discounts that overwhelming evidence is a denier, not a skeptic.

The polluting corporations, the governments who promote and support them, and the citizens who believe in them and what they say are all driven by a deeper denial, the denial of death. The denial of death is the most fundamental process operating in our global civilization. It manifests as corporations, bureaucracies, governments, religions, and political parties. The reason that climate change deniers deny climate change is because their treasured Immortality Projects are threatened by the fact that humans are responsible for global warming.

I just can't let this go - it's the worst thing I've seen here.

I suppose there are those who said this to Galileo about his denial that the Earth is the center of the universe, just as similar things are said to all who challenge the official version of events promoted by vested interests, whether those views are correct, incorrect, or partially correct but distorted and exaggerated for gain.

This exact same mud can and does get slung freely by both sides. This is still a genuine controversy! This is clearly not settled in the minds of many, including many who are well equipped to have a credible opinion. How many of us are really so well equipped to be that certain, when so many legitimate sincere professional scientists are still in disagreement (though increasingly scared to speak their minds in this hysterical atmosphere)

If you care a whit for respecting people, please reflect on how arrogant the term "denier" is - and how obviously chosen as an attack word for it's evocation of "Holocaust Denier". It is little better than "Flat Earther". Skeptic is a neutral term.

I am a skeptic, not because I am denying death , but because I have seen very good scientific defenses of both positions, and ample evidence of believable political and economic interpretations which suggest enormous motives for climate change to be hyped, exaggerated, and sold to us - as well as ample evidence that if this is the case it would not be an anomaly, but rather just another in a never ending stream of deceptions of this sort which are planned and executed by economic and political elites.

[lynn]

..."Those readers who want to hold on to the idea that they are "skeptics" and not "deniers," or who want to believe there is "disagreement" about the science are being influenced by the agents provocateurs (read, "lobbyists") acting on behalf of the polluting corporations who have placed false science in the public discourse where unthinking people can be influenced to believe a lie that is patently false."...

Well, to address this kind of statement - since no-one else has...

This perception is not always true, and is pretty simplistic.
I sat there reading arguments - back and forth. And the debates are still there...
I know for a fact that the 'skeptical' scientists, and other 'skeptics' I 'knew' had no connections to any polluting corporations, and could care less what certain lobbyists think.
I've posted in the past, several links of the debate between scientists...

I've watched how some laypeople from both sides shake their heads, and can't imagine how stupid 'the others' are...

Now, apparently, according to smarty pants movie director James Cameron - 'skeptics' have 'piggish' DNA...
Well, I know at least one science teacher that will just go down to the holler, and try and forget such non-sense...
Hohum...Nothin' new in the world...

[Hotspring 44]

..."Those readers who want to hold on to the idea that they are "skeptics" and not "deniers," or who want to believe there is "disagreement" about the science are being influenced by the agents provocateurs (read, "lobbyists") acting on behalf of the polluting corporations who have placed false science in the public discourse where unthinking people can be influenced to believe a lie that is patently false."...

Just a reminder; that ( the title of this thread: P M Gordon Brown called climate change doubters a "flat Earth group") was a (News) article of which was about an opinion stated by P M Gordon Brown.

There are legitimate scientists that have legitimate concerns about accuracy of predictions of Global Warming, specifically; the influence human activities has on the overall Climate.

I think it would be (is) wrongful to shut them out of the loop because of politics.

There are some ("activists") from both sides (G/W Absolutists that insist humans are extremely close to causing an irreversible tipping point that will result in catastrophic events; particularly, CO2 emissions. Then there are also those that actually do deny there is even so much as a possibility of human influenced climate change in any way whatsoever; because for example, nature is so vast and we are so minuscule in comparison that it is impossible for us to have such an effect.) I believe neither of those are very open to actual rigorous science, each of which I believe have their mind made up in their own ways, and most of which are too stubborn to admit they were/are incorrect or, that their peer-reviewed science it's not complete enough to be as accurate as they say it is.

Then there is that term; “peer-reviewed”, which I believe can be inadequate at times and misused by either side of the so-called argument.

Sometimes one has to go outside one's peers to find related facts that those peers may not have taken into account or are not qualified or able to decipher, particularly when it comes to statistical analysis of very complex, compounding, multi-functional, discrete, historic systems that interrelate with each other; particularly, a 4 billion year old planet.

Now, apparently, according to smarty pants movie director James Cameron - 'skeptics' have 'piggish' DNA...
Well, I know at least one science teacher that will just go down to the holler, and try and forget such non-sense...

When I hear comments like that, I consider the source, then decide whether or not it's credible.

[Hotspring 44]

Tony Blair: 'Heavy price' for climate inaction

By Roger Harrabin Environment analyst, BBC News

World leaders may pay a heavy price in history if they fail to tackle global warming, Tony Blair has warned.
He said politicians did not have to wait for chaotic climate change in order for them to act.

The risks of not cutting emissions, given the potentially massive consequences, was enough to justify action, he told BBC Radio 4.
The former prime minister added that it had always been a struggle to explain the uncertainties in climate science.

He told Radio 4's Uncertain Climate documentary: "It's very hard to say 'this is the precise warming there's going to be, this is the maximum amount you can allow this (emissions) to continue'."

He took advice while in 10 Downing Street from the government chief scientist at the time, Professor David King and the President of the Royal Society, Lord May.

"They were very rightly and properly saying there's areas of uncertainty here but if you want a judgement from us as government scientists, then our judgement is this is a serious problem that needs global action to deal with it," he added.

"I was never in the situation of total certainty here and indeed I always used to say to the NGO people (pressure groups) and others (to) be careful you don't end up in a situation where you are claiming that something is certain when it isn't absolutely certain.

"But it doesn't need to be certain for us to act. It just needs to be likely, probable or actually even - if you look at the consequences possible because if you find out 2030 or 2040 'that was a real problem, we should have dealt with that', you're going to pay a pretty heavy price in history."

In the first part of the documentary, broadcast last week, Mr Blair said he did not agree with Gordon Brown or Ed Miliband who called climate sceptics "flat earthers" and "deniers".
He said these were the wrong terms as the science contained uncertainties. He said it was far better to express the issue as one of risk.[COLOR=rgb(0, 0, 0)] [/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(0, 0, 0)] [/COLOR]

The documentary points out that under Mr Blair's tenure as prime minister, emissions in the UK actually rose if embedded emissions from goods imported into the UK were included in the national figures.

The second part of Uncertain Climate will be broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on Monday, 6 September 2010 at 0900 BST and 2130 BST...

Those BBC Radio Broadcasts are over at this point in time; here are the audio links below: ↓

...Episode 1: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tj525 Roger Harribin asks how climate policy decisions can be taken amid scientific uncertainty.

Episode 2: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tmcz3 Roger Harrabin asks whether the arguments surrounding climate change can ever be won.