Wednesday, 28 October 2009
A "lunatic consensus" amongst Tory bloggers
This has been linked and re-tweeted a fair bit today, but in case anyone hasn't seen it, a tidy piece of analysis of the views on climate change expressed by the top ten Tory bloggers. Tory Central Office will no doubt say that they aren't representative of the views of the leadership and the parliamentary party, in which case perhaps the CCO control freaks need to loosen the reins a little and let their front-benchers go online?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I (Working Class Tory) am not a climate changer denier, but them I'm only number 16!
I'm definitely a denier. When I see reasoned debate on the the subject then maybe I'll recant and accept the new religion. All I see a hysterical acceptance. How can the science be accepted? Computer models based on poor data is not science to me. Oh, and I believe in fairies as well.
We have had global warming AND new ice age warnings alternating every 25 years now for at least 150 years. Even this week there have been reports of a new ice age coming. Give me a break !
Why should I believe EITHER one ? Or, why should I believe the one currently fashionable ?
I am able to read stuff and evaluate it for myself, therefore I read both sides and THINK.
Not something, if you will forgive me saying so, that many lefties can manage - they are more into emoting than thinking.
Useful idiots, as your great socialist leader once described you. He knew that getting people to emote is much easier than to get them to think.
Alan Douglas
I don't deny the climate is changing, but nobody yet has done the slightest bit to convince me that it's all our fault.
Interestingly, all the people who push the AGW side of things seem to understand precisely NOTHING about the science behind it all. So why should I believe them? Add to this
1) The fact that the Scientific consensus isn't "decided", despite what Al Gore might tell you. The honest answer, and the one I believe, is that they simply don't know
2) The fact that nearly all studies from the IPCC supporting climate change get their data from the same couple of earlier studies
3) The fact that the data in these studies were seriously flawed, with temperature stations deliberately located by air conditioning exhaust vents, flawed data models, bizarre assumptions etc
4) There are many other "inconvenient truths" about the "proof" of AGW
5) The fact that there is a large scope for financial gain for governments around the world from this through green taxes
6) The fact that meteorologists can barely tell us what the weather is going to be like next week, let alone in 10 years time
and you end up with, essentially, a mess.
As I said, nobody has convinced me. All that we've really seen in the mainstream media is "it's happening, it's your fault, and oh yes, we're going to charge you 4 times as much to tax your car because of it." Where's the proof? Nobody pushing this agenda seems to be able to explain even the most basic science behind it. So how do we know they even understand it?
I'm not denying the possibility of AGW at all, I'm just saying I'd like some proof other than some shouty environmentalist please.
Nice unbiased source there Kerry, by the way. Interesting they label any opinion different to their own as "lunatic" - how typical of the left. Maybe Tory bloggers are just more likely question what they're told if they don't believe it?
"Tory Central Office will no doubt say that they aren't representative of the views of the leadership"
Well, duh. We're not representative of the views of the leadership.
Presumably you think Gordon Brown should be held to account to the views of Labour bloggers too?
Dave, the phrase "lunatic consensus" was lifted from one of the Tory bloggers (Douglas Carswell if my memory serves me correctly) who said there was a "lunatic consensus" on climate change.
Fair point Kerry. However, Douglas Carswell used the phrase "lunatic consensus" to describe the BBC and others reporting the impact of human CO2 emissions on the climate as if it was fact without really providing any proof to back it up.
The post you linked describes people who DON'T accept without question the impact of human CO2 emissions on the climate as fact, despite not being provided with any proof, as having a lunatic consensus.
Who do you think is more justified in their use of the phrase?
If you agree with the post, and therefore are firmly convinced that we're all to blame for climate change, maybe you could provide some links to some proof in order to persuade all the top ten Tory bloggers how wrong they are? And none of this "Look on the web, everyone agrees with us" malarky usually trundled out by the AGW-supporters, if you please.
Unless somebody, somewhere, can provide me with some conclusive proof, I will continue to be sceptical. And what's wrong with that? It's more scientific than unquestioning acceptance, that's for sure.
At least there is some debate then, you wouldn't think so from newsnight.
Anyways arn't hockey sticks made from Yamal tress rather than AGW?
----
"in which case perhaps the CCO control freaks need to loosen the reins a little"
And this coming from an MP of the most authoritarian government in British history. Who use public money to pay lobby groups to produce junk science/scare stories to justify legislation that was otherwise unwanted, unneeded,and designed to satisfy the champagne socialist addiction to proscribing lifestyles.
Love it. how many Independent (non government funded) scientists are in agreement and how many opposed?
This is how you people do business. You set up funded "independents".
Post a Comment