"Lawrence13" wrote in message
...
Before I start am I allowed to take an anti panic view on this topic
without upsetting anyone and being called a right wing fascist? Just
want to get that clear.
Dear All,
Perhaps I should make it clear to everyone that the "debate" is not between
rival scientists, or between rival bloggers slagging each other off. It is
between sober respected scientists such as Stefan Rahmstorf
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/
and American right wing "think tanks" funded by bilionaires.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ktanks-network
The think tanks are using the same tactics, and in some cases the same
personnel, that were used by the tobacco industry. Just as it was not
possible to disprove that smoking caused cancer, it is also not possible to
disprove that CO2 is causing global warming. So their tactic is to rubbish
the scientists and throw doubt on the science. As long as the public do not
trust the scientists then the politicians cannot take action for fear of
losing office.
The point to realise is that the think tanks can use every dirty trick in
the book. The scientists must follow their unwritten code or find themselves
excluded from their profession.
One of the dirty tricks played by the sceptic bloggers is to insult the
science bloggers with abusive language hoping to inspire retaliation. (This
tactic is now common in football where slagging is used with the hope of
having an opponent sent off for retaliation.) In the climate debate this
works, resulting in posters here complaining about the debate being just a
boring slanging match, exactly the reaction that the sceptic think tanks
want.
And that is the impression that Lawrence's opening gambit reinforces - that
I am going to descend into political name calling. I posted a video about a
scientific fact. The ice sheets are melting and it will soon be impossible
to save them. I am not going to be dragged into a debate about whether
global warming is happening or about my or Lawrence's politics.
Cheers, Alastair.