3 Cheers for Pat Kenny

[bogmanjoe]

birthday wrote:
No mention of the science.
You seem like another right wing nutter to me!

I did mention the science.
computer model projections. He really wants us to believe
that the sun has no impact on temperature.

You are avoiding the science and attacking me personally.
A tactic which failed miserably this morning and will fail again
here now on this website. You,ve just lost the debate/argument
before it even bagan. Well done. Gibbons would be proud.
Taking a page from Gibbons book step one is to attack me
personaly. Step two is to question my credentials. Go ahead.

[Supermanpolitician]

In fairness to Gibbon- he was right to question Kenny's lack of objectivity-

but your right- Gibbon is not helping his case by clucthing at arguments left right and centre-

obviously though he is passionate that a minority view is getting 50/50 weighting in the debate-

As did the no side in Lisbon.

In fact he just said 98% of scientists beleive in Manmade climate change. The 2% disbelievers are getting too much time on air to be honest

Gibbons was rude at best. Judging books before you read them is something I'd associate with 1950's Ireland.

[sharper]

He really wants us to believe that the sun has no impact on temperature.

This is a ridiculous strawman.

Nonody anywhere proposes "the sun has no impact on temperature". The issue is whether changes in solar output are responsible for the climate change we have seen so far. The answer to that question is between 10 and 30% of warming can be attributed to the sun with almost none of that being after 1980.

[Grant Dole]

Three cheers for Pat Kenny because he finally copped on how to deal with an arrogant interviewee?? Are you serious? I mean, isn't it part of his job which he gets paid for quite generously??

It's a pity Pat generally fails to conduct an interview in similar fashion when he has an arrogant Fianna Failer in the seat!!

[birthday]

birthday wrote:
No mention of the science.
You seem like another right wing nutter to me!

I did mention the science.
computer model projections. He really wants us to believe
that the sun has no impact on temperature.

You are avoiding the science and attacking me personally.
A tactic which failed miserably this morning and will fail again
here now on this website. You,ve just lost the debate/argument
before it even bagan. Well done. Gibbons would be proud.
Taking a page from Gibbons book step one is to attack me
personaly. Step two is to question my credentials. Go ahead.

You lost the 'debate' when you started attacking Gibbons!
''I did mention science''''computer predictions''
Is that really the best that you can come up with on the serious topic of how solar variation may influence the temperature of the Earth!

You are likely to be happier with your Aussie miner guy- go crack a few tinnies while watching Fox News!

[former wesleyan]

Can someone explain the value of NOT believing in climate change ?

In America denial is driven by oil and coal with back-up from religious people

who -largely - believe in predestination.

But since oil production is at best plateau-ing, and at worst declining, what's to lose by

greening technology ?

[Tombo]

You lost the 'debate' when you started attacking Gibbons!
''I did mention science''''computer predictions''
Is that really the best that you can come up with on the serious topic of how solar variation may influence the temperature of the Earth!

You are likely to be happier with your Aussie miner guy- go crack a few tinnies while watching Fox News!

I think that Gibbons is simply getting what he gives. Here is a typical quote:

The ranks of climate deniers are now largely filled by stooges and dupes

This is one dupe who requires someone of higher intellect that one J Gibbon Esq. to fall for nonsense.

Just a point of clarification. "Aussie miner guy" is in fact Professor of Geology (you know. Like in that "science" stuff)

[Mitsui2]

Judging books before you read them is something I'd associate with 1950's Ireland.

The very same comparison struck me. Gibbons whole tone sounded like a priest in 1955 - "It's an evil book and no I haven't read it because it's an evil book!"

[birthday]

Can someone explain the value of NOT believing in climate change ?

In America denial is driven by oil and coal with back-up from religious people

who -largely - believe in predestination.

But since oil production is at best plateau-ing, and at worst declining, what's to lose by

greening technology ?

Indeed. There is another industry involved in peak oil denial. Some even contend that oil reserves were formed abiotically and that oil wells are replenished from the earth's core.

[loaf]

Like the vast majority of people, I don't 'know' that Climate change is a fact. I have no first hand access to the 'facts'. So it comes down to assessing who is more likely to be acting in the name of self-interest, and who is more likely to be acting in the name of disinterested 'truth'.

Maybe vaste swathes of scientists around the world do want to propegate the CC myth. Maybe there is an element of self-interest in this. Doubtful, but possible I suppose.

The chance, however, that certain rich, self-satisfied consumers wish to continue unhampered in a way of life that has been very good to them, and thus proclaim themselves 'sceptical' of a scientific view that would indeed hamper this way of life...

...well, this seem less doubtful.