If the graph below is right it wasn't actually that hot in 1850. Maybe it just means the hottest year since records began.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Ima...ture_Record.png
the concenus amongst scientists is that global change is happening. that we are going through a period in which our temprature are going up.
however there is increasing evidence to suggest that this has little to with human activites.
it is the odd scientist that will argue against the majority opinion, however this is how real discoveries are made, when people are prepared to go against the orthodox belief.
for example the last ice age had nothing to with human activities and had more to with the spooling motion of the earth axis.
though chris,
the media etc are correct to warn us.
cutting our consumption is to be welcomed and living in the wasteful way we are, displays the worse aspects of captialism.
check the number of cars in newry today for a fine example of over hyped consumption in what has become a capitalist festival.
irish xmas years ago were just as nice holy etc without the consumer madness associated it with today.
so any restriction in consumer madness is to be welcomed, especailly if it leads to a reduction in the amount of fossil fuels .
they are running out, regardless if carbon emissions are damaging the climate.
Bobby Chris isn't listening. I believe he is being far too influenced by his colleague at ATW. Our very own sceptic who calls the DUP appeasers. (Yes it's true i'VE NEVER forgiven him for that!) but thats all the influence that site has had on me. Chris is different though. In a round about way Chris is infuluenced by ATW.
Thus his scepticism of climate change with no justification for his views hardly at all.
So lets hear Chris' OWN reasons for being a doubting Thomas.
hannah,
do you support the moves the DUP have made going into power with SF?
...To be honest, i don't think i or anyone should be taking lectures about evidence based thinking from the church.
Hannah,
Chris and Vance actually agree on quite a number of things!
As for the climate change issue...
Because, obviously, most of us aren't scientists, people just believe whatever suits their general political orientation.
Ring-wingers are the doubters, left-wingers the believers. This is almost always the case.
Ring-wingers simply don't want to believe global warming is manmade because then they'd have to change their lifestyle, and they don't believe in community cooperation, they believe in individualism and unchecked capitalism. They want to go on consuming guilt-free so they believe it's all a hoax.
It is a political belief, not one based on objective appraisal of the scientific evidence. For a start, most people don't have the capacity to assess the evidence. I find most of the comment I see on the issue intellectually dishonest and almost funny at times.
So...no Christmas boxes, turkey and cranberry sauce for you Jonnie Scrouge
so JG, should be stick our heads in the sand and leave it up to people who know more us.
the intellectual elite???
the modern eqivalant of the 19th propertied aristocratic classes.
who are we to express an opinion on the affair of state. ???
JG Yes I know that. But Chris - in his infinite wisdom- is a member of a political party which claims to be on the left. Given your leftist analysis above (which saves me from doing it - so thank you!) I'm interested in where Chris stands.
I'm sure you watched the thread on slugger o'toole, as I did with great interest asto whether or not sf has lost its socialism or not.
Putting all of this together it would look as though Chris Gaskin is more a man of the rigt than the left. If he is in agreement with his colleague at ATW.
Is Chris a true socialist. Is he for big government for example? Is he behind all the social welfare programmes of big government. And where does he stand on global warming>?
Does he stand in solidarity with the left? Or take the view of the right. I believe for citizens to take a stand somewhere in there is fine, but for members of political parties, the view Chris is putting forward on his blog is a cop out.
Bobby,
You're some tulip!
That's not what I'm saying at all.
If you have the competence and the qualifications to make an assessment that has any value then go right ahead and make it. Most of what passes for debate on this issue is babbling nonsense because those discussing it don't know their arse from their elbow.
If a nuclear physicist tells me that gamma rays are produced by sub-atomic particle interactions, and I know there is a scientific consensus on this, I would be ill-equipped to argue with him don't you think? Just as you (I presume) aren't in the best position to convincingly challenge the consensus and evidence that has emerged from the IPCC and the Stern review, the unified view of thousands of scientists with God knows how many years experience between them.
I'm not saying global warming is definitely manmade or definitely not. Like any consensus it could turn out to be wrong. But, considering the vastness of it, I'll play it safe and try to live in as environmentally friendly a way as I can, within reason.
All that being said, I accept Chris' point that some environmental NGOs have over-egged the pudding on this issue. But that is another story.
Hannah
Calm yourself, my views on climate change have nothing to do with ATW.
I simply haven't been convinced by the arguments from the climate change lobby thus far. I have no axe to grind or position to be gained from my position.
I have already said that I remain free to be convinced; it's just that thus far I haven't been.
"Chris and Vance actually agree on quite a number of things!"
True, that tends to be on some social issues. On economic and Irish political issues we remain worlds apart.
I'm a leftie and I'm a doubter JG
"But Chris - in his infinite wisdom- is a member of a political party which claims to be on the left. Given your leftist analysis above (which saves me from doing it - so thank you!) I'm interested in where Chris stands."
I'm a member of a Socialist Republican party and I am a Socialist Republican.
"Putting all of this together it would look as though Chris Gaskin is more a man of the rigt than the left"
How do you work that out?
"If he is in agreement with his colleague at ATW."
How exactly is David Vance my "colleague"?
"Is Chris a true socialist"
What exactly is a true socialist?
"Is he for big government for example? Is he behind all the social welfare programmes of big government"
Big government is a yank term that means absolutely nothing! I support the vital industries of the country being in public ownership for the benefit of the people.
Aerlingus, Eircom, Irish Ferries, ESB, CIE etc
I remain 100% opposed to privatisation, PFI's and PPP's. I support higher taxes to help create better social services. I support a world class health system free at the point of delivery. I oppose co-location.
That said I also oppose any trade union that seeks to cripple the advancement of that public service. I have no time for pen pushers in the health service.
I oppose red tape and the nanny state.
I believe in free speech and a Republican form of Government. I oppose cronyism and gombeenism. I believe that politicians are there as public servants and not to feather their own nests e.g. Fianna Fail. I support the Palestinian and Basque people in their search for freedom and justice.
I oppose the established media and I oppose unchecked capitalism, I oppose inequality. I believe in a government that rewards workers and which seeks to raise the bar for all.
I support the establishment of a 32 county socialist republic.
Does that answer your questions?
I'm a leftie and I'm a doubter JG
Yeah, there are a few of you out there! I suppose I'm a doubter myself in the strict sense, as I wouldn't exactly bet my life on the issue.
How exactly is David Vance my "colleague"?
LOL! 
Hannah got a bit carried away there I think.
I don't believe anyone has the God-given right to decide who is a 'true' socialist or 'true' republican etc. People have different criteria and that's ok.
I would agree with what Chris said above but would completely disagree with him on some crime, social and religious issues. That said I don't think I'm a 'truer' socialist than he is, or vice versa.
''Hannah
Calm yourself,''
I'm calm.
''I'm a leftie and I'm a doubter JG''
Is that your party's position?
''"Chris and Vance actually agree on quite a number of things!"''
''I oppose red tape and the nanny state.''
''That said I also oppose any trade union that seeks to cripple the advancement of that public service. I have no time for pen pushers in the health service.''
I can see that JG.
''Does that answer your questions?''
No not really. I'd like to know what you'd do with the pen pushers in the health service. For example would you take a hatchet to their jobs and put workers out of work in the interests of the employer ie the British exchequer?
I think Chris suffers a little from the same thing as his party's education minister. He's awfully good at vision but no practical theory there at all.
''I believe that politicians are there as public servants and not to feather their own nests e.g. Fianna Fail.''
You'd prefer FG because it is more leftist? You think they'd not feather their own nests? You think SF don't feather their own nests because they recieve an 'industrial wage'. Or did they laugh too much at that one on RTE?
In Europe sf sit with parties of the hard left - but if you are representative of them then sf are not even left off centre. They have embraced a budget by a party I support - which seems to suit your analysis above of your political position. You may class yourself and your party as a leftist, but you're not really. SF is now backing capital along with the DUP. Dumbing down education by giving NI a one size fits all, is not proof of leftist credentials. They know, like the rest of us it won't get through.
Welcome to the right of centre.
I can see that JG.
You can see what?
You'd prefer FG because it is more leftist? You think they'd not feather their own nests?
FG are to the right of FF, Hannah.
I can see that JG.
You can see what
This comment that you posted.
"Chris and Vance actually agree on quite a number of things!"
---------------------------------
''FG are to the right of FF, Hannah''
Are they? Genuinely I'm asking. This quote is from
''The economically liberal Progressive Democrats, with whom Fianna Fáil have entered three coalitions, have had an impact on the economic policy of Fianna Fáil governments, drawing it more towards the centre-right in recent years.''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Lis...blic_of_Ireland
And wasn't FG in coalition with labour?
Are they? Genuinely I'm asking
Yeah they are. They're all more or less centrist parties but FG are certainly to the right of FF. One of the problems the Labour party has is that people who think labour vote FF. They actually get a working class vote.
I despise FF but would have them in government any day ahead of FG.
FG and Labour were in coalition which resulted in Labour taking a huge hit at the next election. Big sell-out, big price. Watch out SF.
Hannah,
Are you planning voting DUP at the next election, by the way?
I see, so even the ROI voters are a little confused.
'' Hannah,
Are you planning voting DUP at the next election, by the way?''
Definitely. I will always vote DUP. I always have done. The union is safe in their hands.
Yeah maybe they are!
Hasn't Paisley done a complete u-turn on everything he ever said he stood for?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d...h?
v=d9uHhLe6WE0
No. Paisley went into government with sf when the conditions for him to do so were right. The IRA gave up their guns, and only last week councillors in sf were leaving that party saying the structures of the assembly will never lead to a united ireland. And they won't. Anyone who believes they will are coding themselves.
There is a problem for some with the DUP going into government with terrorists, but in my view they are reconstructed terrorists, but should not be above the law for any crimes committed in their past. They have given support for the rule of law, and supported our police, sit on the policing boards, and even give the DUP the seats they cannot fill, due to problems still within that party.
The union jack still flies above Belfast city hall, after thirty years of a dirty terrorist campaign by the IRA.
Aren't you being a little dishonest, Hannah?
Paisley said he wanted to wreck the GFA. Now he is First Minister! He said the ROI could never have any input into norn iron affairs. Guess what? It has. He didn't negotiate Sunningdale or GFA or any other attempt to bring peace, because he was outside ranting and raving and handing in letters of protest at the gates.
"No surrender" has become "How are ya Marty, fancy a cup of tea?"
This dramatic turn around is to be warmly welcomed but it is just that, dramatic.
"OUR" police??? hannah??
is that not the type of nose rubbing language that got us into this situation in the first place??
"Our" RIC
B Men
RUC
UDR
its the unionist mistaken belief that they owned the institutions in the northern statlet that was one major cause of the conflict.
the police shoudl not belong to anybody. and should be...
unarmed
remove all symbols from uniform and barrack.
and uphold laws made by the people of ireland.
only when they are upholding laws made on this island by the people of it will they become "OUR" police
--The union jack still flies above Belfast city hall--
Indeed it does. The tricolor flies in a lot of places in the six counties too, the last time that I looked.
Good post, Chris. I quite agree. The whole climate business smacks of manipulating the masses (small M).
To me the worst thing about the Global Warming hysteria is that it frames the environmental debate in a questionable way.
I totally support
a) a "Manhattan Project" to develop new energy technology that world wan the world off oil ( and simultaneously prevent huge flows of money going to bad regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela )
b) concurrent, urgent research into developing ultra high efficient devices and motors
c) sharp reductions in air and water pollution, esp in places like China where the environment is being obliterated
d) protection and restoration of fisheries and forests, far beyond current efforts
We could be talking about these things. But instead, everything gets framed by Al Gore's bullshit. Makes you want to cry.
Chris
I sent you an email.
I got it, thanks for the heads up.
Why am I reading so many blog entries alluding to the "mounting evidence against manmade global warming"? Disagreeing with the concept of global warming seems almost to be a blogging craze at the moment, but I haven't in all honesty seen much weight in the arguments from that side. A scientific consensus is a scientific consensus. Those outside the area of specialty are ill equipped to comment on the technicalities. Being a naysayer for the sake of it just doesn't go anywhere. There is a concensus for a reason, not just because climate experts like to preach doom and gloom. This "debate" reminds me quite alot of the the Intelligent Design debate.
Those outside the area of specialty are ill equipped to comment on the technicalities. Being a naysayer for the sake of it just doesn't go anywhere. There is a concensus for a reason, not just because climate experts like to preach doom and gloom
Absolutely correct.
Shutr
I am by no means close-minded to the possibility of man made global warming, but--what I see, even in the blogs, is that any attempt to question the Al Gore Accepted wisdom tends to be shouted down.
In the recent past, the Toronto Globe and Mail printed a letter from 100 plus scientists and other academics questioning MMGW. I get the impression that it was howled down by those those who had already staked out an opposite opinion.
There are many who cannot concede that there are any fundamental issues left to debate on this. You either join in lock step, or you are shouted down as an idiot.
Al Gore Theory may be 100% true. But it also may be the new Lysenkoism.
Commenting by HaloScan
