??? INFORMATION BLACKOUT ???

So the 97% canard becomes 99%?* As a judge said yesterday

“When Mann’s lawyer sneered that the defendants did not believe in “climate change”, Judge Easterly interjected, “Man-made climate change”. It was interesting that she thought it an important distinction to draw.”

http://www.steynonline.com/6680/where-steyn-goes-no-mann-goes

I think FoE may be suprised that Climate Realists believe very much in ‘climate change’, it is the man made quotient that is unquantifiable and very much up for debate.

* Notably when Cook’s less than rigorous ‘peer reviewed’ tome was subject to scientific rigour 99% is correct for ‘climate change’ affecting temps but less than 1% view this change as dangerous – the lower end of IPCC ‘projections’ being far more ‘likely’ than the nightmarish visions of rent seekers and idealogues. Presumably in the age old tradition of self preservation FoE will ignore the rather apparent elephant in the room. This is a tremendous shame as green groups should not be coattailing officialdom for existence but making a clear cut case that pollution is not acceptable – something I would say from being aware of both sides of the debate, is a point of common cause between sceptics and warmists.

Instead by an unswerving ability to avoid debate we lead to a sheepish acceptance of totalitarianism in the name of ‘saving the planet’. Beware greens of the monster you are trying to unleash. Inconsequential bugs have a habit of being squished by larger beings.

truthexcites

Craig Bennett, Director of Policy for “Friends of the Earth”, has described a possible Climate Change TV debate as potentially “misleading” for the public.

This is despite his ALREADY having taken part in one, against Cambridge educated scientist The Rev Philip Foster — in private Brentwood School, for the benefit of their Sixth Formers.

Speaking to WeatherAction and TruthExcites on Wednesday the 26th November, he referred to a “99%” consensus amongst climate scientists supporting the notion of Man Made Climate Change — and the rise in CO2 levels.

Yet, he didn’t answer the need to discuss the SCIENCE, not just OPINIONS of it.

Nor did he deal with World Cooling, now concurrent with CO2’s rise to 0.04%.

He spoke of his NOT being a professional scientist, working in science on a daily basis — yet he WOULD NOT confirm that he thought a climate debate with SCIENTISTS ON BOTH SIDES…

View original post 242 more words

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.