9 ms·

Beware the church of climate alarm

46 points by dpatru 18y ago

pedalpete 18y ago
Though I agree that bad science and sensationalism do much harm to the case of climate change, there are many reasons to make the drastic changes to how humans operate on the planet. For any of the people who don't believe in climate change, I say to tell yourself the story of how the rainforests disappeared and thousands (scientists say millions) of species were lots for ever, and why. Go look at a strip mine, and try not to feel like what we are doing is wrong. This summer a small plot of trees across from where I have coffee was mowed down for an olympic ceremonies park. Now I have no qualms about actually taking down that small plot of trees (it's maybe 1.5-2 acres), in a prime retail spot, and I live in a rain forest so loosing an acre to us isn't a big deal, we're surrounded by trees. But the sound of those trees coming down, we were all in shock, and really when you see all the dead trees lying there on the ground, you feel ashamed to have supported it. I also say to tell yourself the story of how your car runs, from the first bit of oil being drilled to the moment that your tires spin, and if you can honestly convince yourself that that is an efficient energy system, then you're an amazing debater. I honestly believe there are huge errors in the science which is spread publicly, but it is the sensationalism of this science which is grabbing attention and causing people to take notice. The negative effect is the backlash of non-believers have ammunition.
- pedalpete 18y ago
  surprised to see this down-voted. Insight and rebuttle or reasoning please?
  - Brushfire 18y ago
    You are appealing to emotional arguments instead of rational ones. Just a thought.
    - pedalpete 18y ago
      I appreciate that, and thanks for the feedback. I thought the 'emotional arguments' where easy to make it apparent that maybe we are doing something wrong, climate change or not. The rational/scientific arguments can be argued. Tough to stand in a clearcut and say 'damn happy we got rid of those trees!'. ;)
- thwarted 18y ago
  Other scientists have said that more species are created and go extinct than we've ever cataloged and that this has been going on for millions of years. And I don't have a reference either. Statistics are like standards: there so many to choose from.
swombat 18y ago
"Climate change has always happened." Sure, supernovas too, but if there was one on the way and we had a chance to stop it we'd be damned fools not to pay attention. "There's nothing we can do about it." Bullshit.
- huhtenberg 18y ago
  > Bullshit Facts please.
  - justindz 18y ago
    Not defending or refuting this, really, but thought I'd point to a compelling argument I saw on TED by a "climate engineer." The summary is that he claims if things continue and there are problems and we haven't done anything about them, people like him will step up and say stuff like "we can set off a few volcanoes, put some ash in the air and cool things down." And he thinks you're better off working on the problem now so that people like him don't get to try things which could have unintended consequences. Or at the very least, be a band-aid without neosporin. It was an interesting talk. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_climate_change.html http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_...
    - rbanffy 18y ago
      Climate engineering is a very interesting idea, but since we don't understand the climate very well, I would start with small steps and leave setting off volcanoes or dumping iron into the seas for a future moment. We have one planet to experiment with and we will have to live in it for the foreseeable future. Until that changes, I will favor lower-energy experiments. And, BTW, the whole idea of reducing carbon footprint, building more efficient cities, transportation and generally living consuming less resources is a great idea in itself. Remember, by the next 100 years, we will have a whole lot more people hanging around.
      - mseebach 18y ago
        > ...but since we don't understand the climate very well But, wait. Apparently we DO understand the climate well enough to know that global warming is happening because of the small percentage of CO2 emissions caused by humans, and that by cutting our emissions, we can stop the warming. Based on that, we must have an extremely thorough understanding of our climate, and it should be trivial to simulate a vulcano going off and see if it cools the climate.
jsmcgd 18y ago
Implicit straw man: "Climates have always changed and they always will". Who is refuting this? "There is no relationship between CO2 and temperature". Please. The real shame is that although I believe that global warming is man-made I am genuinely open to being persuaded otherwise. But I've yet to hear a counter argument that isn't self contradicting, dishonest or full of cherry-picked data and ad hominems. It suggests the 'climate-skeptic' camp is dominated by people who have (perhaps involuntary) ulterior motives.
- oldgregg 18y ago
  I see your point, but I'd say there is cherrypicking data on both sides. In terms of motives, certanily Gore and many scientists have been personally enriched by promoting global warming. Sure humans have affected the climate, but I'm scared by the level of religious language and fanaticism: "Repent of your carbon emissions!" "The world will be destroyed in ten years!" It used to be like 75 years but I guess people didn't really care so now they employ all these fear tactics. New York will be under water in our lifetime? Seriously? Many alarmists employ the same language that Pat Robertson does about the second coming and that Bush does about the terrorists. As soon as I think I'm being manipulated by fear I get really skeptical. Al Gore IS a politician and his messianic message is demagogy as much as anything.
  - gaius 18y ago
    Question: If Al Gore believed it himself, would he live in a 12-bedroom mansion with a heated swimming pool? Would he jump on a plane at the drop of a hat? Would he sell carbon credits to himself? Regardless of the merits of the climate change argument, Al Gore is in it for the political mileage and that's all. I'm old enough to remember when the Green lobby was worried about global cooling, a new Ice Age. The things they prescribed - massively increase regulation and taxation - strangely are exactly the same despite the problem being the opposite! Doesn't that seem odd too? Almost as if it was never anything to do with the environment...
    - mechanical_fish 18y ago
Tichy 18y ago
From the article: "Plimer says creationists and climate alarmists are quite similar in that "we're dealing with dogma and people who, when challenged, become quite vicious and irrational"." Strange thing is, I only ever see this kind of article from the "no-global-warming" camp. I don't recall reading any articles bashing the "no-global-warming" people's personalities. Could be my selective memory, could be something else...
- pfedor 18y ago
  From the second paragraph of the article: 'The New York Times opened a profile of Klaus, 67, this week with a quote from a 1980s communist secret agent's report, claiming he behaves like a "rejected genius" [...]' So yeah, I would conclude it is your selective memory.
  - Tichy 18y ago
    Hm, true...
pfedor 18y ago
My hypothesis: global warming hype will decline, not because the global financial crisis but because of the new administration. The main reason global warming was such a popular meme in the recent years is by the power of association. So many people had a grudge with president Bush and the republicans were perceived as global warming skeptics, therefore everyone felt that preaching the global warming doom was a way to emphasise their hatred for the president. Now that there's no one to hate in the White House the global warming preaching will lose its cathartic power. (This of course is totally unrelated to any actual reasons to believe whether the climate change is man made or what actions should be undertaken to control it.)
- Devilboy 18y ago
  This is probably true. Most people in EU countries (excluding the UK) are pretty sure that man-made global warming is a fact. Only in the USA, Australia and the UK do you find this strong contingent of people who think that it's all a conspiracy and lies. You have to conclude that the governments of these countries have a hand in this public feeling.
  - Brushfire 18y ago
    Although I Clearly cant speak for UK, Australia, or other Americans, I know people that believe in man made global warming, they just dont see it as a big deal. There is a difference between people who irrationally disagree with relatively conclusive evidence and those who are skeptical about outcome.
- tomsaffell 18y ago
  Very interesting hypothesis. This reminds me of when I did my pool lifeguard training. We were taught that whenever someone in the pool complained about the temperature of the water, we should visibly walk into a room that has 'Staff Only' on the door, wait 30 seconds, walk back out, and then smile at the person who complained about the water temperature. Being seen to care can often 'alleviate' the problem.
yters 18y ago
What we need is for both sides in these kinds of controversies to nominate their best spokesperson and have them participate in publicized debates. Not just in global warming, but in all areas of public controversy. Hopefully this would lead to much less balkanized discourse. Plus, it would help both sides respond to the other much more civilly and tolerantly since people would no longer feel so much at war with each other.
- mseebach 18y ago
  Good luck finding few enough sides. There are easily about eight sides in the global warming argument. Is global warming even happening? Is man-made CO2 causing it? Will reducing man-made CO2 help? Is the best way to mitigate this to stop emitting CO2, to research green tech, nuclear or to look into measures allowing us to live in a hotter world? And why? How is "best" defined? Then you'll need impartical referees. When side D claims that no recent study shows that X is true, and side G says there is, who's right? What exhibits are allowed, and how? But never the less, this form of debate exists and thrives, it's called peer-reviewed journals. Too bad that the climate debate is too much in a hurry to use them.
  - yters 18y ago
    True, but does the public generally have access to these journals? Maybe issues like this would be alleviated some if the journals were opened up.
    - lutorm 18y ago
      Sure they do, it's not like they are secret. But most people don't want to take the time to understand scientific articles that aren't written for the general public, if even those.
    - mseebach 18y ago
      As lutorm said.. also, if this is condensed into a 45-minute townhall format, you get "My friend Joe the Eskimo thinks icebears are cute" and while it's great TV, no-one is more clever for it.
yters 18y ago
Btw, has anyone else here read James Hogan's "Kicking the Sacred Cow?" I read it, and it is very eye opening just how many of the major scientific "facts" and causes rest on pretty shaky, if not outright false, foundations.
- yters 18y ago
  Upvoter, did you read it? What did you think?
DanielBMarkham 18y ago
I, for one, love pseudo-science. I dig UFO studies (what better way to learn about the process of learning?), world religions (what drives people to vary their beliefs so widely yet cling to each detail?), reincarnation (are those strange stories true or just crap?) and all sorts of things that involve reason, creativity, and some sort of evidential and symbolic modeling process. But I know it ain't science. It's fun, it's speculative, and it's entertaining. It ain't science. What I don't like is when religion joins with theories that can not be reliably tested and scare-mongering under the rubric of science. Then they deny being the pseudo science that they are. Seems like it combines the worst of everything: end-of-days, a call for repentance, smearing the critics, and smarmy self-righteousness. That's just my opinion, mind you. I really think if you've only got one earth, a hugely complex environment and some kind of computer modeling system that a little degree of humility probably is a good idea. I'm happy with saying "I don't know." Seems like even (or especially) if you take a large grant that should be a fine response. Global warming may be true and deadly. But that still doesn't make it science. I'm looking forward to the new Czech pol. Discussion and skepticism is a good thing, especially when it comes to science.
- dejb 18y ago
  > Global warming may be true and deadly. But that still doesn't make it science. What is science but the study of physical truth? Isn't the ultimate aim of science to be able understand the way the things work so that it is possible to project the conseqences of different actions into the future? Your position is irrational and stupid.
  - emmett 18y ago
    I agree with you, but "Your position is irrational and stupid" is abusive, and likely to cause people to believe that you are in the wrong. Which is unfortunate, because in this instance you are right.
    - dejb 18y ago
      I think it is an unfortunate situation where insulting a stupid proposition is seen as worse than proposing it in the first place. My belief is that thinking people should take a tougher line on ignorance, irrationality and stupidity. By choosing to engage with these type of opinions with a 'neutral stance' you are giving strength and legitimacy to their arguments. You are essentially saying 'Although your argument seems reasonable, I disagree for the following reasons'. So maybe I went too far. But I do think there should be a cost for making spurious arguments. Also I feel the casual viewer of arguments shyould be left in no doubt as to the validity of the original statement.
sh1mmer 18y ago
One of the most interesting quotes I heard recently on NPR was someone from Obama's transitional team explaining that a green energy industry is win-win. Developing and deploying green energy will boost the U.S economy while reducing carbon emissions. Whichever side of the argument you fall on, fossil fuels won't last forever and greener tech tends to be applicable in a much wider range of circumstances making it convenient for the modern lifestyle.
- cturner 18y ago
  There's an opportunity cost to everything you do. So if you prioritise carbon emissions and the result of that is that poor people can't keep their families warm, you lose. Most of the evils of politics in the first world happens as opportunity-cost theft, because it's easy to hide. For example - force people to pay taxes, enlarge government in the process, and then fund something stupid and thereby prevent the original person from putting it to better use. > Whichever side of the argument you fall [..] Be that as it may, if it develops as a result to market impetus you can be generally confident that it will be a response to actual demand. Whereas as soon as the government gets involved we lose our valuing mechanisms and get locked into what the geniuses in the capital think is going to happen. Also, it depends which fuels you pour your energy into and whether this is actually a good choice. If you invest in a bad route there for political reasons (e.g. ethanol) you'll have the effect of increasing world hunger as a side-effect. Nuclear is another option which is difficult to separate from political concerns.
guyupstairs 18y ago
Some of Professor Plimer's arguments have been countered elsewhere previously. Please see http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/01/spot-the-recycled-denial-iii-%E2%80%93-prof-ian-plimer/ http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/01/spot-the-recycled-deni... More generally, I would offer http://www.realclimate.org http://www.realclimate.org as a blog which offers excellent scientific discussion of climate change.
paul9290 18y ago
The green movement is big business making tons rich in the name of a better world! Im on this train! Are you?

46 points by dpatru 18y ago

Though I agree that bad science and sensationalism do much harm to the case of climate change, there are many reasons to make the drastic changes to how humans operate on the planet. For any of the people who don't believe in climate change, I say to tell yourself the story of how the rainforests disappeared and thousands (scientists say millions) of species were lots for ever, and why. Go look at a strip mine, and try not to feel like what we are doing is wrong. This summer a small plot of trees across from where I have coffee was mowed down for an olympic ceremonies park. Now I have no qualms about actually taking down that small plot of trees (it's maybe 1.5-2 acres), in a prime retail spot, and I live in a rain forest so loosing an acre to us isn't a big deal, we're surrounded by trees. But the sound of those trees coming down, we were all in shock, and really when you see all the dead trees lying there on the ground, you feel ashamed to have supported it. I also say to tell yourself the story of how your car runs, from the first bit of oil being drilled to the moment that your tires spin, and if you can honestly convince yourself that that is an efficient energy system, then you're an amazing debater. I honestly believe there are huge errors in the science which is spread publicly, but it is the sensationalism of this science which is grabbing attention and causing people to take notice. The negative effect is the backlash of non-believers have ammunition.

pedalpete 18y ago
surprised to see this down-voted. Insight and rebuttle or reasoning please?
- Brushfire 18y ago
  You are appealing to emotional arguments instead of rational ones. Just a thought.
  - pedalpete 18y ago
    I appreciate that, and thanks for the feedback. I thought the 'emotional arguments' where easy to make it apparent that maybe we are doing something wrong, climate change or not. The rational/scientific arguments can be argued. Tough to stand in a clearcut and say 'damn happy we got rid of those trees!'. ;)
thwarted 18y ago
Other scientists have said that more species are created and go extinct than we've ever cataloged and that this has been going on for millions of years. And I don't have a reference either. Statistics are like standards: there so many to choose from.

swombat 18y ago

"Climate change has always happened." Sure, supernovas too, but if there was one on the way and we had a chance to stop it we'd be damned fools not to pay attention. "There's nothing we can do about it." Bullshit.

huhtenberg 18y ago
> Bullshit Facts please.
- justindz 18y ago
  Not defending or refuting this, really, but thought I'd point to a compelling argument I saw on TED by a "climate engineer." The summary is that he claims if things continue and there are problems and we haven't done anything about them, people like him will step up and say stuff like "we can set off a few volcanoes, put some ash in the air and cool things down." And he thinks you're better off working on the problem now so that people like him don't get to try things which could have unintended consequences. Or at the very least, be a band-aid without neosporin. It was an interesting talk. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_climate_change.html http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_...
  - rbanffy 18y ago
    Climate engineering is a very interesting idea, but since we don't understand the climate very well, I would start with small steps and leave setting off volcanoes or dumping iron into the seas for a future moment. We have one planet to experiment with and we will have to live in it for the foreseeable future. Until that changes, I will favor lower-energy experiments. And, BTW, the whole idea of reducing carbon footprint, building more efficient cities, transportation and generally living consuming less resources is a great idea in itself. Remember, by the next 100 years, we will have a whole lot more people hanging around.
    - mseebach 18y ago
      > ...but since we don't understand the climate very well But, wait. Apparently we DO understand the climate well enough to know that global warming is happening because of the small percentage of CO2 emissions caused by humans, and that by cutting our emissions, we can stop the warming. Based on that, we must have an extremely thorough understanding of our climate, and it should be trivial to simulate a vulcano going off and see if it cools the climate.

jsmcgd 18y ago

Implicit straw man: "Climates have always changed and they always will". Who is refuting this? "There is no relationship between CO2 and temperature". Please. The real shame is that although I believe that global warming is man-made I am genuinely open to being persuaded otherwise. But I've yet to hear a counter argument that isn't self contradicting, dishonest or full of cherry-picked data and ad hominems. It suggests the 'climate-skeptic' camp is dominated by people who have (perhaps involuntary) ulterior motives.

oldgregg 18y ago
I see your point, but I'd say there is cherrypicking data on both sides. In terms of motives, certanily Gore and many scientists have been personally enriched by promoting global warming. Sure humans have affected the climate, but I'm scared by the level of religious language and fanaticism: "Repent of your carbon emissions!" "The world will be destroyed in ten years!" It used to be like 75 years but I guess people didn't really care so now they employ all these fear tactics. New York will be under water in our lifetime? Seriously? Many alarmists employ the same language that Pat Robertson does about the second coming and that Bush does about the terrorists. As soon as I think I'm being manipulated by fear I get really skeptical. Al Gore IS a politician and his messianic message is demagogy as much as anything.
- gaius 18y ago
  Question: If Al Gore believed it himself, would he live in a 12-bedroom mansion with a heated swimming pool? Would he jump on a plane at the drop of a hat? Would he sell carbon credits to himself? Regardless of the merits of the climate change argument, Al Gore is in it for the political mileage and that's all. I'm old enough to remember when the Green lobby was worried about global cooling, a new Ice Age. The things they prescribed - massively increase regulation and taxation - strangely are exactly the same despite the problem being the opposite! Doesn't that seem odd too? Almost as if it was never anything to do with the environment...
  - mechanical_fish 18y ago

Tichy 18y ago

From the article: "Plimer says creationists and climate alarmists are quite similar in that "we're dealing with dogma and people who, when challenged, become quite vicious and irrational"." Strange thing is, I only ever see this kind of article from the "no-global-warming" camp. I don't recall reading any articles bashing the "no-global-warming" people's personalities. Could be my selective memory, could be something else...

pfedor 18y ago
From the second paragraph of the article: 'The New York Times opened a profile of Klaus, 67, this week with a quote from a 1980s communist secret agent's report, claiming he behaves like a "rejected genius" [...]' So yeah, I would conclude it is your selective memory.
- Tichy 18y ago
  Hm, true...

pfedor 18y ago

My hypothesis: global warming hype will decline, not because the global financial crisis but because of the new administration. The main reason global warming was such a popular meme in the recent years is by the power of association. So many people had a grudge with president Bush and the republicans were perceived as global warming skeptics, therefore everyone felt that preaching the global warming doom was a way to emphasise their hatred for the president. Now that there's no one to hate in the White House the global warming preaching will lose its cathartic power. (This of course is totally unrelated to any actual reasons to believe whether the climate change is man made or what actions should be undertaken to control it.)

Devilboy 18y ago
This is probably true. Most people in EU countries (excluding the UK) are pretty sure that man-made global warming is a fact. Only in the USA, Australia and the UK do you find this strong contingent of people who think that it's all a conspiracy and lies. You have to conclude that the governments of these countries have a hand in this public feeling.
- Brushfire 18y ago
  Although I Clearly cant speak for UK, Australia, or other Americans, I know people that believe in man made global warming, they just dont see it as a big deal. There is a difference between people who irrationally disagree with relatively conclusive evidence and those who are skeptical about outcome.
tomsaffell 18y ago
Very interesting hypothesis. This reminds me of when I did my pool lifeguard training. We were taught that whenever someone in the pool complained about the temperature of the water, we should visibly walk into a room that has 'Staff Only' on the door, wait 30 seconds, walk back out, and then smile at the person who complained about the water temperature. Being seen to care can often 'alleviate' the problem.

yters 18y ago

What we need is for both sides in these kinds of controversies to nominate their best spokesperson and have them participate in publicized debates. Not just in global warming, but in all areas of public controversy. Hopefully this would lead to much less balkanized discourse. Plus, it would help both sides respond to the other much more civilly and tolerantly since people would no longer feel so much at war with each other.

mseebach 18y ago
Good luck finding few enough sides. There are easily about eight sides in the global warming argument. Is global warming even happening? Is man-made CO2 causing it? Will reducing man-made CO2 help? Is the best way to mitigate this to stop emitting CO2, to research green tech, nuclear or to look into measures allowing us to live in a hotter world? And why? How is "best" defined? Then you'll need impartical referees. When side D claims that no recent study shows that X is true, and side G says there is, who's right? What exhibits are allowed, and how? But never the less, this form of debate exists and thrives, it's called peer-reviewed journals. Too bad that the climate debate is too much in a hurry to use them.
- yters 18y ago
  True, but does the public generally have access to these journals? Maybe issues like this would be alleviated some if the journals were opened up.
  - lutorm 18y ago
    Sure they do, it's not like they are secret. But most people don't want to take the time to understand scientific articles that aren't written for the general public, if even those.
  - mseebach 18y ago
    As lutorm said.. also, if this is condensed into a 45-minute townhall format, you get "My friend Joe the Eskimo thinks icebears are cute" and while it's great TV, no-one is more clever for it.

yters 18y ago

Btw, has anyone else here read James Hogan's "Kicking the Sacred Cow?" I read it, and it is very eye opening just how many of the major scientific "facts" and causes rest on pretty shaky, if not outright false, foundations.

yters 18y ago
Upvoter, did you read it? What did you think?

DanielBMarkham 18y ago

I, for one, love pseudo-science. I dig UFO studies (what better way to learn about the process of learning?), world religions (what drives people to vary their beliefs so widely yet cling to each detail?), reincarnation (are those strange stories true or just crap?) and all sorts of things that involve reason, creativity, and some sort of evidential and symbolic modeling process. But I know it ain't science. It's fun, it's speculative, and it's entertaining. It ain't science. What I don't like is when religion joins with theories that can not be reliably tested and scare-mongering under the rubric of science. Then they deny being the pseudo science that they are. Seems like it combines the worst of everything: end-of-days, a call for repentance, smearing the critics, and smarmy self-righteousness. That's just my opinion, mind you. I really think if you've only got one earth, a hugely complex environment and some kind of computer modeling system that a little degree of humility probably is a good idea. I'm happy with saying "I don't know." Seems like even (or especially) if you take a large grant that should be a fine response. Global warming may be true and deadly. But that still doesn't make it science. I'm looking forward to the new Czech pol. Discussion and skepticism is a good thing, especially when it comes to science.

dejb 18y ago
> Global warming may be true and deadly. But that still doesn't make it science. What is science but the study of physical truth? Isn't the ultimate aim of science to be able understand the way the things work so that it is possible to project the conseqences of different actions into the future? Your position is irrational and stupid.
- emmett 18y ago
  I agree with you, but "Your position is irrational and stupid" is abusive, and likely to cause people to believe that you are in the wrong. Which is unfortunate, because in this instance you are right.
  - dejb 18y ago
    I think it is an unfortunate situation where insulting a stupid proposition is seen as worse than proposing it in the first place. My belief is that thinking people should take a tougher line on ignorance, irrationality and stupidity. By choosing to engage with these type of opinions with a 'neutral stance' you are giving strength and legitimacy to their arguments. You are essentially saying 'Although your argument seems reasonable, I disagree for the following reasons'. So maybe I went too far. But I do think there should be a cost for making spurious arguments. Also I feel the casual viewer of arguments shyould be left in no doubt as to the validity of the original statement.

sh1mmer 18y ago

One of the most interesting quotes I heard recently on NPR was someone from Obama's transitional team explaining that a green energy industry is win-win. Developing and deploying green energy will boost the U.S economy while reducing carbon emissions. Whichever side of the argument you fall on, fossil fuels won't last forever and greener tech tends to be applicable in a much wider range of circumstances making it convenient for the modern lifestyle.

cturner 18y ago
There's an opportunity cost to everything you do. So if you prioritise carbon emissions and the result of that is that poor people can't keep their families warm, you lose. Most of the evils of politics in the first world happens as opportunity-cost theft, because it's easy to hide. For example - force people to pay taxes, enlarge government in the process, and then fund something stupid and thereby prevent the original person from putting it to better use. > Whichever side of the argument you fall [..] Be that as it may, if it develops as a result to market impetus you can be generally confident that it will be a response to actual demand. Whereas as soon as the government gets involved we lose our valuing mechanisms and get locked into what the geniuses in the capital think is going to happen. Also, it depends which fuels you pour your energy into and whether this is actually a good choice. If you invest in a bad route there for political reasons (e.g. ethanol) you'll have the effect of increasing world hunger as a side-effect. Nuclear is another option which is difficult to separate from political concerns.

guyupstairs 18y ago

Some of Professor Plimer's arguments have been countered elsewhere previously. Please see http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/01/spot-the-recycled-denial-iii-%E2%80%93-prof-ian-plimer/ http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/01/spot-the-recycled-deni... More generally, I would offer http://www.realclimate.org http://www.realclimate.org as a blog which offers excellent scientific discussion of climate change.

paul9290 18y ago

The green movement is big business making tons rich in the name of a better world! Im on this train! Are you?