SparkyOne says:

Why doesn’t this asshat stfu and go away like GW? I can not believe that anyone in the EU listens to his shit.

Wretched Gnu says:

quick question:

If it’s true that the scientific consensus on man-made global warming is a falsehood created by scientists’ greed and/or political investments…

… then it absolutely must be true that such falsehoods have achieved consensus in the past, because greed and political investment have always existed.

So the deniers have a simple task before them. They need only point out, say, half a dozen historical instances in which a global scientific consensus was subsequently shown to be a lie due to the greed and/or political investment of scientists.

Let’s make it easier for them. Can the deniers cite even *one* instance in history where a multi-national scientific consensus was later shown to be the false manufacture of greedy, politically-motivated scientists?

Just one…?

C’mon Dvorak, Cherman … give us just one example and prove you’re not merely intellectual dilettants…

qb says:

Oh lordy. When amateurs do science.

Benjamin says:

#4 “Let’s make it easier for them. Can the deniers cite even *one* instance in history where a multi-national scientific consensus was later shown to be the false manufacture of greedy, politically-motivated scientists?”

Galileo: The political system at the time, the Catholic Church, didn’t care for the man’s attitude and a geo-centric universe was scientific consensus. Although Copernicus was working on a solar centric universe theory under the Church’s patronage and Galileo was competing with him.

Wretched Gnu says:

#9 — pardon me, but are you now defining Church dogma as “scientific consensus”?

Your argument makes perfect sense if up=down and left=right.

Surely you don’t need a reminder that the Church itself found the very that we don’t already know all truths to be reprehensible. Never mind the idea that truth should be established by observation and the consensus of informed observers…

Wretched Gnu says:

#10 — Steve, you make an important point. As you yourself suggest, the denier argument requires us to believe that scientists are now, for the first time in human history, subject to the emotions of greed and political investment — and that these emotions have, for the first time in history, been so well coordinated and deployed that they have completely short circuited the normal peer-review protocols

— again, for the first time in human history!

Dallas says:

I’ll interpret for the black and white thinking conservatives….

(1) Climate change is happening. We can’t pray our way out of this mess. Well, you can but if it means you getting out of the way, I’m for it.

(2) We know man is contributing to climate change. How much is unknown. Wisdom suggests you can’t pollute at current rates and more importantly, accelerated rates and think this has no effect.

(3) If we’re wrong about climate change (ie everything is just dandy), then we end up creating clean energy sources for nothing. Oh, how awful.

(4) If we’re right about climate change (ie. it’s world catastrophe waiting to happen), then we took appropriate actions and allow climates to stabilize with low emissions. Also, we become energy independent. The conservatives can claim they prayed ourselves to salvation. ALL GOOD !!

So, what Blair is saying is that, we must act, no matter what. I agree.

Raff says:

#4 “Let’s make it easier for them. Can the deniers cite even *one* instance in history where a multi-national scientific consensus was later shown to be the false manufacture of greedy, politically-motivated scientists?”

How about reefer madness?

Mac Guy says:

While I’m no believer in global warming, I do believe that we need to be better stewards of our planet. What’s the harm in that?

Look, it’s like the human body. You may not understand every system your body has, but you understand clearly that you should exercise and not eat junk food.

Treating our planet is much the same thing, just on a much larger scale.

Wretched Gnu says:

#4 — That is a good example, but it doesn’t quite make it. As always in such cases, the government was only able to strong arm a relatively small number of scientists in the US to publish pseudo-science on the effects of marijuana. It was entirely a government-initiated propaganda campaign that had no real effect on nation-wide — and absolutely no effect on international — scientific consensus.

This is why it’s important to not conflate politicians with real scientists — as the poster above does who confuses scientists with “authority” in general, or the church.

So, sure, Al Gore might be a blowhard. But that has nothing to do with the thousands upon thousands of real scientists who have achieved a consensus on this matter.

And now we’re being told that, for the first time in human history, these scientists have discovered greed and the ability for a mass global conspiracy that somehow gets around the transparent peer-review process to which everyone in the world has complete access. (Those that know how to read and do basic research, that is.)

RBG says:

When you look at the natural historical temperature swings going back 500K years and as recent as the Viking age, as determined by ice cores, you can’t help but think of Blair as King Canute.

Next he’ll be asking for billions of $ to stop aggressive space aliens because the cost of being unprepared would also be catastrophic.

Personally I think we have trouble paying for the things where the science is correct.

RBG

The0ne says:

Wtf is DU cherry picking sentences to post as news/blogs? How fox-news low can you get trying to incite people into a pointless discussion.

The science is not accurate because there are dumbasses out there that skews things. Hubert J. Farnsworth explained it best for us. He had no shame in taking money to provide a false report to Amy’s father. Come on, we’re in the REAL world.

Stop with the Fox-News wannabe site. It’s shameful.

Wretched Gnu says:

I find it hard to believe that intelligent people don’t see the central irony behind the idea that scientists are somehow profiting off of the global-warming consensus — especially, as so many posts in this thread demonstrate, that the only reason libertarian non-scientists ever bother to pronounce on scientific matters is when they think they see higher taxes coming down the road.

Surely you understand that there is much, much *more* money available to scientists who are willing to deny global warming. If you only want to make a quick killing as a scientists, you would be stupid not to seek the buckets and buckets of money that industry holds out to any scientist that will plead the case against global warming. How is it that conservatives and libertarians so frequently forget where the money actually *is*?

So, in short: I have people whose only concern is for their own pocketbook telling me that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by “greedy” scientists who, confusingly, have shunned the easiest money they could possibly earn by denying global warming.

LibertyLover says:

#3,

the science says there is a diminishingly small chance that I will have a flood at my house. I guess I’m am just being foolish to retain flood insurance.

That’s your choice. I did not make it for you. I would be most upset if you forced me to buy flood insurance on MY house, though.

Never mind that the same actions that protect against global warming, also ease dependance on foreign oil, you know the thing that triggered the current recession.

Do you really think that if that foreign dependence is eliminated or reduced, we’ll start drilling here? You really think that?

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

I guess having a black man in the whorehouse triggered your racism circuit in that fatty tissue you call a brain,

He’s black? I thought he was half-white.

Thanks for pointing that out.

and made you forget that gasoline was pushing $5 a gallon just a year ago and was north of $3.50 since 2006.

Gas is $2.30/gal here.

It must blow your mind that there are multiple good reasons to stop using oil, and for you to stop driving that rusty pickup, that you never haul anything around in.

You think oil is only used for gas? How about that fancy plastic chair you are sitting on while you type on that plastic keyboard viewing your nonsense on a plastic-encased video screen?

I’ll get in line for a second year volt thankyou:)

I’ll probably buy one. But NOT because it will make YOUR life better, but because I want one.

You seem to think that what you want is right and therefore everyone else should be forced to do it. Where do you get that from?

Mr. Fusion says:

cherman / pedro said:

Blair: we must take action even if the science is not correct

Not quite. Blair said:

“It is said that the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege. It doesn’t need to be. What is beyond debate, however, is that there is a huge amount of scientific support for the view that the climate is changing and as a result of human activity,” he said.

That is a long way from saying the science is not correct. He merely acknowledged the deniers. At no time did he do more than that.

The typical procedure of the denier / right wing nut /tea bagger / birther / goat fornication crowd is to just invent crap and keep flinging it until some of it starts to stick.