I’ve often noted how the right wing blogs have an extremely low threshold for what they will accept as “evidence” that the scientific consensus on global warming is incorrect. Their desperation is really seen in the number of blogs are citing the ruling in Great Britain that there are nine inaccuracies in An Inconvenient Truth. The primary problem remains that climate change is a scientific matter, not something which comes from Al Gore. Even if Al Gore really made numerous errors, it would have no impact upon the science.
In actuality, An Inconvenient Truth has stood up quite well with most of the criticism of it turning out to be disputed or over minor points. Media Matters has a good summary of the criticism against the documentary.
Being a matter of science, rulings from a court have little bearing. However, as conservatives are widely quoting this decision, let’s look at what they really said. While the conservative Times of London stresses the errors which the court believed were present, note the significant areas where they agreed with Gore:
Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.
In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”
The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.
Update: Deltoid has a far more comprehensive review of what the court really said, and how this differers from the spin on the conservative blogs.
How do you have “consensus” with science?
Further, didn’t “scientific consensus” hold that Whooping Cough was iradicated, the Earth is the center of the galaxy, blacks were inferior to whites, the Earth was flat, eggs are bad for you, then they’re good, then they’re bad, then they’re good etc? And wasn’t there “scientific consensus”, not long ago, that there was going to be global cooling?
I don’t discount science and I believe that there’s global warming. However, I haven’t seen much to prove beyond a doubt that it’s “man made”. I think that there’s a desperate need to push global warmism, and it is an -ism, in an effort to control people and levy higher taxes on the poor and middle class.
The main thing is that they believe in it, don’t know what to do about it, but they’re hell bent on confiscating more of our income and control our lives to give the illusion that something’s being done. There’s supposedly “consensus” on global warmism, but there isn’t consensus on what to do about it or even if anything can be done.
Also, one would think that if global warmism were true, Algore would have no problem debating the issue, but he won’t. He declard the debate over which means he has no interest in dissenting opinion.
Consensus is the absence of leadership Margaret Thatcher
“How do you have “consensus” with science?”
You have the scientists working on an issue review the scientific evidence and agree on an issue.
“Further, didn’t “scientific consensus” hold that …”
You are confusing two different meanings of consensus. Opinions, especially non-scientific ones, are not the same as a consensus statement based upon such overwhelming scientific evidence.
“I don’t discount science”
Actually you do. Either you accept the scientific method or you don’t. If you reject scientific findings when you don’t like them you are discounting science.
“and it is an -ism, ”
No, you have it backwards. It is the opposition to global warming which is based upon non-scientific grounds and is therefore the -ism here
“The main thing is that they believe in it, don’t know what to do about it, but they’re hell bent on confiscating more of our income and control our lives”
No, that’s just right wing hysteria. You give away your bias here. You buy the conservative line on the consequences of the science, so you reject the science for non-scientific reasons.
“but there isn’t consensus on what to do about it or even if anything can be done.”
Correct, and that contradicts the previous statement I quoted.from you. While there is no consensus scare tactics are used by many conservatives who claim that one type of solution would be the result. This is also a mistake by conservatives. By denying the problem (and destroying their credibility) it takes them out of the process of working on solutions. They wold be far wiser to accept the science and then try to have an impact on what types of solutions are offered politically.
“Also, one would think that if global warmism were true, Algore would have no problem debating the issue, but he won’t”
Nonsense. You really believe Al Gore doesn’t believe it is true? Gore is speaking out on the subject, presenting the evidence, and frequently and answering the criticisms. There is no point in sharing a stage with those who are spreading misinformation and engaging in dishonest means to discredit the science and pass off their beliefs. Sharing the stage with such people in a debate only gives them the appearance of having more credibility than they have. Treating this as a debate also gives the false impression that there is still controversy over the science.
“which means he has no interest in dissenting opinion.”
No. Dissenting views over scientific issues should be presented in peer reviewed scientific journals if meaningful. Turning matters of science into something which is debated in the type of show that opponents of the science desire is not a meaningful way to evaluate legitimate dissenting views.
“Consensus is the absence of leadership Margaret Thatcher”
Again you are confusing different meanings of consensus. This doesn’t apply to consensus as used in science.
No, that’s just right wing hysteria. You give away your bias here. You buy the conservative line on the consequences of the science, so you reject the science for non-scientific reasons.
You mean there’s no carbon or “green taxes” anywhere? Not even being proposed? Nobody’s trying to tell us what to drive or what kind of fuel to use or how we get to work or complaining that we work too far from home?
Please. You give yourself away.
No, you’re changing the subject. You originally said, “but they’re hell bent on confiscating more of our income and control our lives.” This goes along with the conservative hysteria that responding to global warming will both mean the end of freedom and the end of our industrialized society. Measures such as a carbon tax do not fit into such descriptions.
Whatever, dude. This spin machine is making me dizzy.
Taxes are a confiscation of our freedom and is a way to control the populace.
But enjoy hiding under your bed.
Cheers.
That’s hardly an argument against global warming as it would apply to any government program. Taxes are raised for many other purposes. Keeping the planet habitable is a far better reason to pay taxes than for many other purposes, such as the Iraq war which most global warming deniers on the right support.
Ron:
“Actually you do. Either you accept the scientific method or you don’t. If you reject scientific findings when you don’t like them you are discounting science.”
Unfortunately you yourself seem to be discounting science. Scientific method in this case has on multiple fronts disagreed with An Inconvient Truth. Global warming can be agreed upon, but its cause cannot be proved to be caused by human fossil fuel consumption (in fact, something like half of 1% of planetary carbon emisions come from humans)
HOw then would you explain away the scientific fact the global warming is occuring on Mars in direct correlation with earth… where there are no cars.
So I’d like to chew on that. I’m not against protecting the environment. I am against the faulty scientific theories you claim to support.
“but its cause cannot be proved to be caused by human fossil fuel consumption”
This is the what virtually every scientist working in the field has found, so you are incorrect in claiming I am discounting science.
“HOw then would you explain away the scientific fact the global warming is occuring on Mars in direct correlation with earth… where there are no cars.”
The situation on Mars has nothing to do with Earth. This is just a nonsense claim being repeated by global warming deniers who are trying to distract from the actual science.
Democratic National Society Party
I have a new political party. It’s called the Democratic National Society Party. This will be a group that is both socially right wing. A party with true and just policies and is multi-ethnic, but has a firm idea of what we stands for and won’t change lightly. Because let’s face it, there’s a void on the right in Britain today. The Conservatives aren’t conservative these days, UKIP are merely trying to be “there”, and VERITAS are, let’s face it, a joke. If you want to be part of a new party that puts you first, contact me. It won’t take many people to get this off the ground, and once we get registered and get a few supporters, the skies the limit.
To give a basic idea of what we stand for-
PRESERVE AND PROTECT OUR NATION, PEOPLE AND OUR SOVEREIGNTY
Noll tolerance to any kind of racism
Support a military whose mission is to protect our nation, not police the world
Strengthen our borders and promote rational immigration policies
Protect our language as our common language
Strong police presence eliminate crime protect our people
Seek friendship with all nations, but avoid entangling alliances
Work to maintain our nation’s sovereignty and oppose all attempts to make our nation subservient to the precursors of global government
The common good of the citizens of the nation before that of self interest
Emphasise real multi-ethnic, multiculturalism in all areas and eradicate sexism
Steps must be taken to promote the Welsh, Gaelic and Cornish languages
PROMOTE ECONOMIC GROWTH AND INDEPENDENCE
Restore accountability and Constitutionality to budgets and taxes
Promote tax policies that adhere to the Constitution, enhance individual freedom, encourage savings and investment, and promote the family
Rebuild our manufacturing base and protect our workers
Protect our right to fair trade and oppose free trade
Help our businesses stay in our nation
Promote Buy from your own Nation/people policy
Support small businesses
Implement a self-sufficient energy policy
ENCOURAGE THE TRADITIONAL VALUES OF FAITH, FAMILY, AND RESPONSIBILITY
Protect and recognise the sanctity of all human life
Defend the traditional family unit based on one man and one woman
Promote the primacy of parents in the lives and education of their children
Respect the free exercise of religion
Recognise the Judeo-Christian heritage of our shared values
Animal rights ban acts such as Fox hunting and such
ENSURE EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW IN PROTECTING THOSE RIGHTS GRANTED BY THE CREATOR
Defend the self-evident truth, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”
Preserve and protect our Constitution
Merit and behaviour must prevail
End judicial tyranny and restore balance to our political system
Real Liberty and Justice for all the races and cultures of the Nation
CLEAN UP OUR CORRUPTED POLITICAL SYSTEM
Remove the primary source of corruption by sharply reducing the size and scope of the government to its powers under the Constitution, and return control over all other matters to the state
We will stop the corrupting parliamentary custom of filling posts merely in accordance with party considerations and special interests-without reference to character or abilities.
Implement clean election practices
Give power back to the Nations people
So, I need party officers, campaigners, and candidates. If you want to be one of them send me your info via email Also contact me if you have any questions.
Carter Michaels union.of.nation@gmail.com http://www.dnsp.co.uk
Thanks for reading.
I don’t think you’ll find many recruits for such a party here.