Remember the outcry when Micheal Tobis merely asked the question ‘is unfairly criticizing those pushing for action on climate change and thus delaying action morally equivalent to killing people’? And then answered only by saying “It’s not all that obvious to me that it isn’t.”
Deniers like Marc Morano instantly claimed that: “Scientists claim that criticizing Al Gore is equal to killing 1000 people!” Of course anyone looking at the issue honestly would realize that saying ‘it’s not obvious that it isn’t” isn’t remotely close to answering in the affirmative. But we know Morano and his ilk aren’t looking at this issue honestly.
But just in case you weren’t convinced, take a look at the response (or rather lack thereof) when one of their own unequivocally sates that those pushing for action on climate change are already killing millions, and will kill tens of millions if we are not stopped.
Now the very same soi-disant “Greens” are killing millions by starvation in a dozen of the world’s poorest regions. Their biofuel scam, a nasty by-product of their shoddy, senseless, failed, falsified, fraudulent “global warming” bugaboo, has turned millions of acres of agricultural land from growing food for humans to growing fuel for automobiles. If we let them, they will carelessly kill tens of millions more by pursuing Osamabamarama’s stated ambition of shutting down nine-tenths of the economies of the West and flinging us back to the Stone Age without even the right to light fires in our caves. -Monckton
One of Monckton’s lesser known colleagues Art Robinson, even gave a talk called Nobel Prize for Death. And anyone familiar with the denialsphere knows that there are countless more examples.
So what is the response from Morano? Not a peep. What about the others in the denialsphere? Nothing. But I guess It’s OK if you are a climate change denier.
I’m not convinced that the claims of the IPCC are, in fact substantiated. I am aware that Al Gore mislead the public in his (ironically titled) “Incovenient Truth” documentary.. I am aware that an external audit of the IPCC reports has established that they have over-stated the potential risk of climate change and under-stated the potential benefits, including benefits of increased agricultural productivity..
But that being said – I don’t have much time for extremists of any ilk, who feel it’s fair game to scare the public if it helps them get their point across. They have a word for people that do that – they’re called fascists, and they can come from any side.. people who convince the population using fear and anger, and they utilize that fear and anger to turn “their team” against the other.
It’s shameless – and I don’t really care what political ideology it comes from.
sigh…
Which IPCC claims aren’t substantiated? How are the claims made exaggerated? How do you explain the fact that much of the recent research in climate change has shown the IPCC to be rather conservative?
What errors did Al Gore make in his movie? I hope you aren’t referring to the trail in the UK, because the judge clearly stated in his judgement that Al Gore’s movie was supported by a vast quantity of published research.
I would love to see this external audit of the IPCC you speak of. I hope it isn’t the NIPCC though, because all that report is verifiably dishonest (See the discussion here). You want an audit of the IPCC? Why not look at the position statements of any respected scientific society (see here).
RobH: and if I can add, in looking at the benefits of CO2 to agriculture, did the research separate out the effects of C3 and C4 plants? Did it comment on nutritional density? How about insect preference for different plants?
If you could provide a link I would appreciate it.
Thanks,
John
I guess your not getting your link John.
One thing I find lacking in most ‘CO2 will be good for agriculture‘ are the effects of the change in climate caused by the increase CO2 on agriculture.
Dan: I guess your not getting your link John.
Wow, first time that happened!! /sarcasm
Best,
John
Here’s a link for CO2 & agriculture – not sure if it’s one Rob H. would have posted though…
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080324173612.htm
No I don’t imagine it is what he would have posted. Still it underscores the considerable complexity (which many are happy to ignore) of this issue. Thanks for that.
Chris S: I will also add my thanks to Dan’s. My comment was made on a paper put out in 2004 IIRC. Good to see the same conclusion in a recent paper.
John