Josh writes on Twitter::
A riposte to hilarious letter in Graun from intolerant alarmists. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/26/climate-change-is-real-we-must-not-offer-credibility-to-those-who-deny-it … … Even funnier, @Jonathan__Leake says Porrit works for Palm Oil industry clearing forests.
https://twitter.com/Jonathan__Leake/status/507516086905229312
Here is an excerpt of the letter in the Guardian:
We are no longer willing to lend our credibility to debates over whether or not climate change is real. It is real. We need to act now or the consequences will be catastrophic. In the interests of “balance”, the media often feels the need to include those who outright deny the reality of human-triggered climate change.
Balance implies equal weight. But this then creates a false equivalence between an overwhelming scientific consensus and a lobby, heavily funded by vested interests, that exists simply to sow doubt to serve those interests. Yes, of course scientific consensus should be open to challenge – but with better science, not with spin and nonsense. We urgently need to move the debate on to how we address the causes and effects of dangerous climate change – because that’s where common sense demands our attention and efforts should be.
Fringe voices will protest about “free speech”. No one should prevent them from expressing their views, whether held cynically or misguidedly. However, no one is obliged to provide them with a platform, much less to appear alongside them to give the misleading impression that there is something substantive to debate.
What they seem to miss is that few if any sceptics disbelieve that climate change is real; the real question is what portion of it is caused by man’s activities. Even 30 years later, scientists still have not nailed down the absolute value of climate sensitivity, and it remains quite uncertain.
Happy to oblige:
Hence the famous T-Shirt; The Guardian. Wrong about everything. All the Time.
The real question – or point – is that no governmental policy (or UN policy) will have any effect whatsoever on what the climate does. This should be the message. All this debate about what is “real” is just hand waving.
The gruan also says that women found to be making false rape accusations (like the one found to be visiting a sex shop with the “rapist” after the “rape”) should not have to bear any legal consequences. (muh reporting rape is so hard)
It isn’t even the usual sickos “liberals” at that point. They just need help.
Pretty funny. “We are no longer willing to lend our credibility…” They say that like they have some.
Beat me to it. As if they have any credibility after all the scurrilous promotion of AGW.
As for Porritt, the saddest thing about him is his access to the UK’s future King(s). (Lucas should concentrate more on her failed constituency in Brighton).
I believe the real question is not only what portion of global warming, climate change or climate disruption (or whatever other term you prefer) is manmade; The biggest, and probably the most important, question is what will be the consequences?
It seems every time someone says “climate change is real” they include ‘climate catastrophe is therefore also real’. That is what is making debate impossible. We, the sceptics, are people who manage to see shades of grey while they, the alamists have only two options: You’re either in or out.
No way you can debate on those grounds.
Those least tolerant of an opposing position are least secure about their own.
Interesting that the Times article about Jonathon Porritt does NOT allow comments.
The Times is subscription only so that comments tend to be sane and quite a contrast to the Guardian, with 70% of comments against metropolitan-lib-bubbleworld,
However the Times has taken to not allowing comments on articles about Islam, whereas they do allow comments on articles sneering at Tommy Robinson and then the article does get a kicking by the commenters.
So it’s a bad trend that the Times has this creeping closure of debate.
@Josh ..how do you spell Jonathon Porritt ?
(he spells it my way in his twitter account)
*heavily funded by vested interests,* I find that interesting.
*but with better science, not with spin and nonsense.* Didn’t I see tonight on WUWT that a guy who had submitted a paper that was refuted in the same journal was not allowed to reply to his detractors.
I am sick of hypocrites.
In other UK Green party news
Their equalities spokeswoman a trans activists Aimee Challenor worked with her father to make a TERF blocker app
\\ What about the fact that both father and daughter developed ‘terf blocker’ and bragged about silencing 50,000 women across social media !!//
But it’ just come out that she’s been using him as her election agent, even though he has been on trial for child detainment and rape
A case where h has just been convicted and sentenced to 22 years
\\ Coventry Green Party HQ was officially listed as the Challenor’s home. The crime scene. The SAME home where a ten year old girl was raped and tortured in a “torture chamber” attic. How is @TheGreenParty statement in any way adequate? //
Times adds more
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rising-greens-star-aimee-challenor-will-not-quit-over-rapist-father-kngjwc8l5
\\ Challenor’s father, who used the Twitter name An Old Arch Devil, also carried out design work for the Green Party’s national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender campaign.//
The Times is starting a trend of not allowing comments on certain news articles.
This is the second one I have seen today
*heavily funded by vested interests,*
For a list of 20-plus things that would be happening (but aren’t) if climate contrarians were actually well-organized and well-funded, see my WUWT guest-thread, “Notes from Skull Island” at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/notes-from-skull-island-why-skeptics-arent-well-funded-and-well-organized/
We are no longer willing to lend our credibility to debates
what credibility? you have none. You lost all credibility when you asserted without reason that the science was settled.
It is real. We need to act now or the consequences will be catastrophic.
If you really believe that, than you should be not only be willing but also extremely eager to debate in order to show to all and sundry how real it is and how catastrophic it will be. But you aren’t willing because you know you’d lose any such debate because the facts just don’t support your hyperbole.
. Yes, of course scientific consensus should be open to challenge – but with better science, not with spin and nonsense.
Spin and nonsense is all alarmist ever bring to the table. the science is settles. 97% consensus. deniers. All spin and nonsense.
We urgently need to move the debate…
wait a minute, I thought you didn’t want to “lend your credibility to debates?” now you do want debates, but only on your terms. That’s another reason why you have no credibility anymore, you don’t get to dictate the terms of debate.
We urgently need to move the debate on to how we address the causes and effects of dangerous climate change
You need to actually prove that dangerous climate change 1) exists and 2) is something that man can do something about. only you refuse to have the debates that would allow you to do that. Instead you want to jump straight to “do what I say and how dare you question the basis for what I say”. Sorry but that dog doesn’t bark.
– because that’s where common sense demands our attention and efforts should be.
No common sense demands that we actually determine if your supposed problem is an actual problem rather than take it on faith that your assertion about it being a problem is true.
Josh: Wonderful cartoon! :>)))!!!