http://www.ambitgambit.com/2003/11/04/the-anti-greens/ Ambit Gambit Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:01:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.ambitgambit.com/2003/11/04/the-anti-greens/comment-page-1/#comment-7 Kingsley Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:24:50 +0000 http://localhost/ambit/?p=10#comment-7 Yes it is true that the science used to promote the Greenhouse Effect is based on not just bad science but very bad science. We can argue about it all we like but it is not so long ago that we were told that global warming will lead to increased temperatures and more rain. Now we get told by Greens, Senator Brown that the drought here in Australia is also an effect of global warming. It seems that whatever extreme of climate presents itself it is an indication of man induced climate change. THe sooner we have a real scientifically based debate on climate, free from the usual fascist like invective so favoured by the Greens the better we will all be. Yes it is true that the science used to promote the Greenhouse Effect is based on not just bad science but very bad science. We can argue about it all we like but it is not so long ago that we were told that global warming will lead to increased temperatures and more rain. Now we get told by Greens, Senator Brown that the drought here in Australia is also an effect of global warming. It seems that whatever extreme of climate presents itself it is an indication of man induced climate change.
THe sooner we have a real scientifically based debate on climate, free from the usual fascist like invective so favoured by the Greens the better we will all be.

]]> http://www.ambitgambit.com/2003/11/04/the-anti-greens/comment-page-1/#comment-8 Graham Young Thu, 06 Nov 2003 16:08:42 +0000 http://localhost/ambit/?p=10#comment-8 Peter, I don't think that the serious issue is whether Greenhouse exists, but what, if anything, to do about it. When it comes to Greenhouse, I'm a believer, but when it comes to Kyoto, I'm atheistic. What's the point of an agreement which doesn't involve the Chinese or the Indians and which only delays, but does not prevent, the onset of Carbon-Dioxide Summer? And it's an agreement that lets the Europeans off virtually scott-free. They get to keep the material benefits of having felled most of their forests, extirminated most of their wildlife, and putting in as much nuclear power as they are likely to need while the rest of us in the deveoped world have to wear hair shirts. It seems to me that there is more than a little irrationality on both sides of the argument. Peter,
I don’t think that the serious issue is whether Greenhouse exists, but what, if anything, to do about it. When it comes to Greenhouse, I’m a believer, but when it comes to Kyoto, I’m atheistic. What’s the point of an agreement which doesn’t involve the Chinese or the Indians and which only delays, but does not prevent, the onset of Carbon-Dioxide Summer? And it’s an agreement that lets the Europeans off virtually scott-free. They get to keep the material benefits of having felled most of their forests, extirminated most of their wildlife, and putting in as much nuclear power as they are likely to need while the rest of us in the deveoped world have to wear hair shirts.
It seems to me that there is more than a little irrationality on both sides of the argument.

]]>