"Steve J" wrote in message
ups.com...
Well boys and girls, what a hornets'nest last week's channel 4
programme stirred up!

As a teacher, I have to try and put both sides of an argument, and in
this debate this is difficult because all texts, even at A2 level
support the argument for AGW without ant dissent. However, TV
programmes like this, books like "State of Fear", some articles posted
on the internet and in newspapers have offered the chance to at least
attempt a balanced presentation.

However, as the various threads on this learned NG domonstrate, there
*ARE* some entrenched views, and some of us do get "hot under the
collar at times in our exasperation at an alternative view. I hold my
hat up to Gianna for some spirited points of view however, and there
should be more room to debate natural cycles of GW.
Too many are afraid to stick their head above the parapet because of
potential abuse from the 'other side'.

Anyway, some things are undeniable IMHO;

1. Global warming is a fact.
2. Greenhouse gases heat the atmosphere and preserve life on earth.
3. Man has burnt fossil fuels almost to exhaustion, so there are more
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere today.
4 The climate has been warmer than this many times in the geologic
past.
5 Whether Man is responsible for GW or not, burning fossil fuels in
such profusion ia harmful and unsustainable.
6 The media have over-hyped the AGW scenarioa big time.
7 Governments are now driving energy policies into the 21st century
(like building more nuclear plants in the UK) to combat that overused
term 'climate change'.
8. Climate change is blamed for every "freak" natural atmospheric
hazard from flooding, to hurricanes, to heavy snowfall, to heatwaves,
to gales, to heavy rain, atcetera ad nauseam.
9. Global warming has forced us to implement energy conservation
measures and planning a sustainable future.
10. My last one, to give others a chance, neither side can yet offer
positive proof to the other that their arguments/
eveidence is incontravertible.

Personally, I'm getting sick to death of GW on TV and in the press,
but as an academic debate, this still has a lot of mileage in it just
yet.

Anyone else care to add to my 10 "undeniable points"?

Or will you take issue with my 10 points?

Steve Jackson
Bablake weather Station
Coventry UK
www.bablakeweather.co.uk

Just look at what happens when some scientists express an alternative view.







Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'


By Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph

Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have
received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the
scientific community.

They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a
powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who
have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of
carbon dioxide emissions.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of
Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since
raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate
change.
advertisement

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would
not live to see further global warming.

"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and
institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor.

"I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should
be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the
connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really
nasty and personal."

Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming
Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed
the theory of man-made global warming had become a "religion", forcing
alternative explanations to be ignored.

Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts
Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary -
recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen
their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as
industry stooges.

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they
fly in the face of the science."

Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: "The Green
movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to
suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro
managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to
do."

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are
trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees.
Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."