Prince Charles On Climate Change: Global Warming Skeptics Are All Liars

Charles,_Prince_of_WalesBritain’s Prince Charles seems worried that decades of man-made global warming propaganda is being discredited… this report from the Daily Express:

Prince Charles rejected mounting evidence that climate change is a myth and insisted there is overwhelming proof of global warming today.

In his first riposte to the furore over claims that scientists have covered up research casting doubt on the greenhouse effect, Prince Charles voiced his dismay and alarm at those who question the science behind climate change.

The heir to the throne raised the controversy in a speech in Manchester, where he launched a new initiative, called Start, to provide the public with advice on how to lead more environmentally sustainable lives.

Charles, who has campaigned on global warming for more than 20 years, said: “I have watched with growing dismay and alarm the glee with which the sceptics have leapt upon the recent news stories that question the science that climate change is man-made and suggesting it is nothing more than a myth.

“Well, if it is but a myth, and the global scientific community is involved in some sort of conspiracy, why is it then that around the globe sea levels are more than six inches higher than they were 100 years ago? This isn’t an opinion – it is a fact.”…

[continues in the Daily Express]

majestic

Majestic is gadfly emeritus.

Latest posts by majestic (see all)

  • FergalR

    Thanks for finally linking something that completely discredits the global warming hypothesis. There's been a little more coverage of the CRU and IPCC controversies in Europe than in the US and coupled with the bad weather there's been a huge change of public opinion on AGW:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/85004

    The Prince arrived at the engagement on a coal-powered steam train of all things. He should know that sea-level rise has slowed in the last few years and ocean heat content has begun dropping.

  • SecretSteve

    Wait, Prince Charles calling global warming deniers liars (a claim not actually backed up in the article) proves global warming is a hoax? The IPCC letters' authors have been cleared of any wrondoing in terms of their scientific work.

    As for the weather…do you mean the melting ice caps or the warmest January (by several degrees) on record in the state of Washington? Global warming isn't going to make it hotter everywhere…it's going to add energy to the climate, making it more dynamic. Climate CHANGE at a rate that has not been recorded even in the geological record (outside of catastrophic events like meteor strikes and huge volcano eruptions) is the expected result and that's what we're seeing…not generalized warming all over the planet. The claim is a simple straw man and reflects an abject lack of understanding of the issue.

    • FergalR

      The climatological reconstructions of past temperatures are fraudulent. I understand well enough that every major claim made by the promoters of AGW has failed to come to pass. Even the huge Arctic melt failed to produce a positive feedback, the ice up there has since had a miraculous recovery. If glacier retreat is all you've got left then your cause is in serious trouble.
      Your claim that my argument is a straw man is itself a straw man. Unless you are ignorant of Prince Charles' beliefs and behaviour and you think that no increase in global temperature for 12 years is a sign of carbon dioxide generated global warming.

      • 5by5

        Oy. The climate change deniers are such suckers for oil industry propaganda it's pathetic.

        No melting?

        Tell that to the 1,500 people of Papau New Guinea who had to move, because Kilinailau Island is getting drowned by rising sea levels.

        Or take a journey to Iolasa Island in Carteret, which has been cut in half by rising waters.

        And did I also mention the 20 islands in the Maldives which have had to be abandoned because of rising sea levels?

        Then there are the 2,500 Polynesians of Takku who are facing a similar fate. Their forced evacuation would mean the loss of an entirely unique, previously isolated indigenous culture, not just a bunch of modern people having to move to a new apartment. The loss to ethnomusicology would be vast, as within that culture, each adult on that island is trained to sing 1,000 songs from memory, in much the same way as stories are passed down verbally among aborigines in Australia, and legends were passed among Native Americans. Catastrophic climate change directly threatens the heritage of that unique tribe.

        Then there's the nation of Tuvalu, which thanks to rising sea levels, may become the first nation to have a domain in cyberspace, but no actual LAND to live on in the real world. That shit's straight out of Neal Stephenson's sci-fi novel “Snow Crash”, which predicted virtual countries.

        Climate scientists haven't been proven wrong. They've been proven to have been too CONSERVATIVE in their predictions.

        The scientific reality is that the problem is accelerating on a curve more radical than expected. It's beginning to take on an exponential nature to it. And once that happens? YOU'RE SCREWED.

        But to the lame deniers, it's much better to stick your fingers in your ears, cover your eyes, and hum real loud, and pretend it's not happening.

        BUT. IT. IS.

        There's the Wilkins Ice shelf which covers 5.600 square miles that is hanging by a sliver of ice to the mainland. A chunk 7 times the size of Manhattan.

        And that doesn't even count the 6 OTHER major ice shelves (the Prince Gustav Channel, Larsen Inlet, Larsen B, Wordie, Muller and Jones) that have already been lost entirely. Larsen B alone was the size of RHODE ISLAND.

        The Wilkin's shelf is also further south than any of those other shelves where it's supposed to remain much colder, indicating that climate change is accelerating, just as the actually CLIMATE scientists (you know, the ones who DON'T get giant payoffs to product junk science from the oil companies or looney fringe rightwing “think”tanks) predicted.

        Then there's the Pine Island glacier (one of the largest) which is melting 4 times faster than expected. That section ALONE could raise sea levels by 3.3 meters.

        Antarctica is losing more than 200 GIGATONS of water per year, doofus. But hey, don't let the FACTS get in the way of those kooky rightwing theories there.

        Global sea level has ALREADY risen 17 centimeters greater than expected in the 20th Century and that too is, of course, accelerating as more ice melts. Add to that the factor of thermal expansion, and as I said, entire NATIONS are about to be drowned, while some people sitting around picking their noses like Neanderthals going, “Nope. Ogg knows Sky God will save me!! Man in shiny suit who smells like black goop told Ogg so. Me not worried.”

        Try reading from something other than propaganda produced by the corporate shills, and rightwing religious hacks who also don't believe in Evolution. Read the overwhelming science from around the world that all points in the same direction — Man has become a force of nature, rapidly increasing the pace of catastrophic climate change by pumping heretofore never before seen levels of CO2 into the atmosphere at a pace which nature cannot compensate for, without billions of people – and as much as 4/5ths of the species on the Earth – perishing first.

        When the water wars of the future begin happening, I think we should all agree that anyone who prevented us from taking action to correct the problem? Ought to have to go to the back of the line for their water rations.

        http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20010322pinei

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/antar

        http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327151….

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/

        http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227071….

        • ZSS

          “Try reading from something other than propaganda produced by the corporate shills, and rightwing religious hacks who also don't believe in Evolution.”

          and take the advice of Prince Charles, the Pope, and Osama Bin Laden instead?

        • FergalR

          Climate scientists are total scumbags. The UK Information Commissioner has stated publicly that the University of East Anglia broke the law by failing to comply with the Freedom of Information Act, the university's Climatic Research Unit's head, Phil Jones, conspired with others to destroy data subject to FOIA requests. Professor Jones also seems to finds it “oddly cheering” when people die. Not only that, prof. Jones still seems to believe that the urban heat effect adds a fraction of 1C to temperatures despite common sense and experience telling everyone that it's several degrees. When he believed that he might be forced to release data upon which he based research that affects everyone on this planet he said he'd destroy it. It looks likely that he did destroy irreplaceable scientific date. Climate scientists also gamed the peer review system. They conspired to discredit and destroy the careers of their legitimate critics and shared fantasies with each other about assaulting them. They dressed up bullshit like the tree-ring temperature proxy studies as science in order to vandalise the global temperature record. The IPCC knowingly lied by including figures they knew to be fraudulent in their report; even claiming there was a link between global warming and financial losses caused by AGW caused weather extremes when they knew there was no such link. Having been caught out in all of this they seem bemused that some people don't trust them. These actions have brought themselves, the subject they study and science in general into absolute disrepute.

          Long read here why they were so keen to keep the data their voodoo science is based on secret while they perverted science to con the world into thinking present warming is unusual:
          http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/1
          http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/2

          The Wilkins ice shelf was reported in newspapers as having been lost nearly 2 years ago. Turns out that story was propaganda lies since you're still harping on about it. 200 gigatonnes of ice sounds like a lot. In reality it's a drop in the 300 cubic miles of ocean that exists on this planet. If we assume that the untested gravity measurement method NASA uses to arrive at that figure is flawless you can look forward to the Antarctic still having plenty of ice 250,000 years from now.

          If you want to see where big oil spend their money, take a look at CRU's history in their own words.
          http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
          Read it. Before they fabricated their fraudulent temperature reconstructions to try to dump the Medieval Warming period down an Orwellian memory hole their jobs were exceedingly tenuous. Now they get millions a year from British Petroleum, Shell, numerous electrical generating companies and the fucking Sultan of Oman – all of whom are set to reap massive profits from carbon trading schemes. If the climate scientists weren't in the pay of big oil 90% of them would be on unemployment benefit. Soon they all will be as their scam unravels.

          Ocean heat content is dropping:
          http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
          Sea level rise has slowed:
          http://www.climate4you.com/SeaTemperatures.htm#
          Global tropical storm energy is at a 30-year low:
          http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
          There has been no statistically significant rise in global temperatures for 15 years and a substantial drop since 1998.

          And yet you say that “Climate scientists haven't been proven wrong. They've been proven to have been too CONSERVATIVE in their predictions.”! If the entire planet was covered in ice would you still believe the scam? SecretSteve up there seems to believe the this January has beaten the record temperature “by several degrees”, he hasn't got a clue like most of you indoctrinated catastrophists.

          Charming that you give 2 links for entertainment-purposes-only articles in the popular magazine “New Scientist” to back up your claims. It's one of the IPCC's major sources for “peer-reviewed” “science” for their amateurish 4th report. Not sure how you convince yourself that a warming planet is going to do anything but forestall “water wars” since increased rainfall is one of the major predictions of climate “science”. What a novelty to read a catastrophist talking out of their rear end

          Brainwashed cultists like you are a menace. In years to come your idealogical position will resemble that of those Japanese soldiers who were hiding out on Pacific islands in the 70's still convinced that WWII was raging. You can pop over for tea with His Royal Highness, ride around on his 300 ton effing steam train and reminisce about the time you managed to con 40% of the world with your anti-human Maoist scam. Before the arse fell out of the bag and everyone realised it was a confidence trick.

          Keep reading your science fiction, it'll wet your appetite for the IPCC's 5th report. Unless the incompetent organisation is disbanded as it should be.

          Particularly sickening is how you begin your post with “Oy” and then go on to downplay the suffering of the victims of the Holocaust by comparing those who doubt it with people who rage against the obvious AGW scam. Your use of that awful term and penchant for capitalising entire words just goes to show how morally bankrupt as well as intellectually vacuous your cause truly is. I'd advise you to go hug a polar bear, but since their burgeoning numbers are threatening the walrus population it would be unwise to give them any more food. Try hugging one of these instead:
          http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsi

          Don't want to end on a sour note though, so here's a review of IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri blockbuster new novel, in which the protagonist steals someone's handkerchief and then cracks one off into it. What a dirty old bastard.
          http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-

        • longpantslance

          not the back of the line. Killed. By then, the human gene pool will be a _very_ competetive place.

        • edward

          melting? hahahahaha……i wonder if you have been there to see it….but i predict you something u will indeed be able to see……your town being covered by a mountain of snow this year and more to come soon…..:P

          silly asshole

      • longpantslance

        yer kind of like a … a… moron, aren't you? here's a simple test, suitable for execution and comprehension by morons.

        drive your car into your garage and park it with a full tank of gas. require all other humans exit that garage, then shut all garage doors and windows. Start your car, get out of the car but stay in the garage, let it run at idle until it runs out of gas while you breathe normally. Pay no attention to any light-headedness or trouble breathing you may experience; it's fraudulent.

        in that long drawn out moment where your life flashes before you, consider that the Earth may be an enclosed system something like your garage, and that the sum total of human activity – both moronic and otherwise – is something like running your car.

        If you have a family, please consider paying up you life insurance prior to 'demonstrating the fraud of climate science,' yeah?

        • FergalR

          How thoughtful of you to have donated your brain before your death.

          Your “simple test” is poof positive of just how profoundly ignorant you are. Car fumes kill by carbon monoxide poisoning. Being diatomic, carbon monoxide is lacking the dipole moment necessary to function as a so-called “greenhouse gas.” There will be a considerable amount of carbon dioxide also produced, luckily that gas is a relatively harmless plant food which has no ill effect even at concentrations over 10,000 ppm which it would be impossible for humanity to produce in the Earth's atmosphere even if we burned every molecule of fossil fuel we have.

          You suggest that I “consider that the Earth may be an enclosed system”. No, thanks. The Earth is not an enclosed system. It is open to space, unlike a greenhouse which is covered in glass. I have no doubt that increased carbon dioxide levels will raise the planet's temperature, unfortunately for ignoramuses like you and the bullshit climatology industry 4.5 billion years of history prove that there are negative feedbacks which will keep this planet's temperature from rising much above what it is now. Clear evidence of this are the facts that:global temperatures haven't changed to any statistically significant degree for 15 years. And they have fallen considerably since 1998.

          You have no fucking idea what you are talking about and yet you suggest that I am a moron. Keep believing the lies you're told you fuckwit.

  • http://theeffectsofglobalwarming.net/ The Effects Of Global Warming

    So ok, there is no global warming. So what happens to all the pollution from the factories and vehicles? Absorbed by trees and turn into apples?

    • ZSS

      Pollution is real and detrimental to our health and the planet's ecosystem. No one is denying that. The problem lies in the politicizing of the issue and leaving its resolution in the hands of very evil men.
      I think we ought to be more concerned with the rising cancer rates than billion dollar-budget tidal waves.

    • FergalR

      Yeah, seems like a lot of what you call pollution is absorbed by trees:
      http://sercblog.si.edu/?p=466

      And by crops and grass to feed the hungry. And cows that I can eat. Yum.

  • hunter349

    How about this, forget the water rising (regardless of how slowly or quickly it does from year to year-Still going up), forget the ocean temps dropping (because all that ice is melting into the oceans).

    How about just using our current technology to the best advantage of the planet and not corporate shills. Why not use wind, solar, wave, and other clean energy sources? Why not? because some people will make a lot of money building the infrastructure? Because some people will have to change their job specializations from digging coal to maintaining and installing a clean energy grid?

    How about all the people who die from coal every year? whether it's the mining collapses, health problems from the good old “black lung” or millions of tons of coal ash that are put in giant pits right next to many neighborhoods and shipped into others just to get rid of it. This coal ash contaminates ground water and makes it undrinkable. How about the hundreds of mountains that are deforested and don't even have tops anymore?
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/01/60min

    We have to worry about acid in our rain…..man made acid falling from the sky right back on to us. From burning fuels.
    http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0215471/acid_ra

    What about all the biodiversity that is vanishing from the planet every day because of the waste we dump into our waters, skies, and fields.
    http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0215471/acid_ra

    Why not use our technology and wisdom to make a cleaner planet. We have the technology right now. We have the knowledge right now. Not like “clean coal” which is just some made up term for a system that doesn't even exist.
    Why not do it now? Why not?

    The wealthy always find a way to get the ignorant to do what they want. The right and left both have their sheep.
    unfortunately the sheep on the right are usually the ones who are dooped into waving the red white and blue stripes and screem and rail against their own interest. I dont want health care, I don't want a clean environment, please oh please put as many guns on the streets as possible, let's have as many ignorant children as we can so they are forced in to de-unioned cheep labor with no benefits.

    • FergalR

      How about the 2.2 skilled and high technology jobs that were lost in Spain for every 1 “green” job that was created?
      How about wind power being subsidised 200% of its value out of taxpayers pockets while China and India burn as much coal as they like?
      How about AGW is a discredited scam?
      How about James Hansen demanding a moratorium on the burning of coal by 2030? We wouldn't have enough energy to even run our current agricultural production and we'd have to grow vast quantities of biofuel.

      That would be genocide.

      • hunter349

        None of your responses are even questions that matter except the one about the job losses in Spain.

        We subsidize green energy because of the need to expand it and the need to have the infrastructure built.
        The same way we subsidize most of the farming in the country. Because people don't want to invest money into it when there are easier ways to make cash.

        So China and India burn coal like crazy? Did your mother ever tell you the line about “what if Billy jumped off a bridge?” China and India are also full of many other unscrupulous activities. Should we start doing those as well? Or maybe they should start setting multinational corps like we do and rape other countries resources through greedy trade deals and military force to copy us.

        Climate change is far from discredited. Just because more people are buying into the propaganda that it does not exist in no way discredits it. Who make money by keeping things the way they are? Who makes money by relaxing regulations on pollution? The same people running the right wing of most countries. The greedy corps who made their billions by things being exactly the way they are. The same corps who splatter you with Fox News and Bloomberg to make you think your getting actual info.

        Who gives a shit about James Hansen? He has no authority. He states what he believes would be best but he in no way can effect anything.

        Spain's blunder is first of all a learning platform, secondly we have lost waaaaaay more than 2.2 for every 1 jobs when we went to robotics in industry. Why not complain about that. Fox News certainly would not. Because they are cheaper, need no benefits, can't call out sick, and make corps billions.
        Thirdly, the major problem with jobs in the world is that we live in a time where we NEED very few actual people to work. The rest of us are just in some sort of service or subsidized industry. We don't need to have people do most of the jobs that they do. But we got to keep em busy right? we got to put some green in their hands so they can give it right back and feel like they have a say in their world, right? We got to keep hanging that carrot in front of their faces making them believe they will all get that dream if they just work harder and longer and faster. Lets keep showing the hand full of new millionaires we get every year on TV. Fuck put them on radio and in magazines and billboards. We got to keep the masses believing they too can make it when in reality the gap between the rich and poor keeps getting wider and a smaller and smaller percentage of the country controls more and more of its wealth.

        • FergalR

          We subsidise green energy because it's the next speculative bubble in the line after dotcom and housing. When it's nearly done, the powerful will pull their money out of the pot financed on the backs of honest workers and then buy up everything they own as the market collapses. They've been doing it since the 17th century and you're still in blissful ignorance.

          Australia just signed a deal to sell 30 million tonnes of coal a year for the next two decades to China while they tax their own people for carbon emissions. Farmers in Australian have been proscribed from growing food on their own land rendering them penniless in the name of international “environmental” treaties.

          “Climate change” as you so quaintly call it is complete bullshit. Two papers in the last fortnight which were held back from publication until after the Carbonfrauden conference have made a risible mockery of the hypotheses. That they stopped calling it “Global Warming” and switched to “Climate Change” is tantamount to them saying “Yeah, we know we said CO2 increases temperatures, but it can also make them fall or stay steady or increase or decrease precipitation because we're motherfucking Wizards and you're all of our biotches.”

          You're obsession with left/right politics is pathetic. I have no idea what a Bloomberg is. I had the misfortune of contracting Dengue fever in Nicaragua during Gulf War One and owing to a water supply failure I was forced to stay in a hotel full of enfranchised ignorant American shit-kids coked off of their faces. No doubt they they believe the left and right wings aren't connected to the same bird the same as you do. Convalescing in my room I had little choice but to watch Fox News and laughed myself near unconsciousness at the constant stream of lies they reported. If Fox is the only media reporting the obvious and egregious climatology fraud in the US then it's precisely because that station has so discredited itself. Open your eyes: big business owns all the mainstream media. If they didn't want their carbon fraud to go ahead they could stop it in its tracks any time they wanted.

          James Hansen is the originator of the fraud. Late last year he gave a private status report of how the scam was progressing to the ultra anti-democratic Club of Rome. If he's stating what he believes then he is a moron since all the observed evidence says he's wrong.

          Robotics increased industrial efficiency. Limits on carbon dioxide emissions massively reduce efficiency and will allow the mega corporations to buy up all of their smaller competitors whilst getting rich on carbon trading scams. You say that “we NEED very few actual people to work.” How ignorant can you be? Most of what you buy and use everyday is made in sweatshops in the third world. The US has just about closed down its motor industry now and shipped it abroad. Your country is being de-indutrialised. International banks have you trillions in debt. And you think that the “global warming” or “climate change” scam or whatever the fuck they're calling it this season is for the benefit of Mother Nature.

          Open you eyes. Global temperatures haven't changed to any statistically significant degree for 15 years. And they have fallen considerably since 1998.

  • GoodDoktorBad

    First of all “global warming” is a term. There is sufficient evidence to say that global warming is real, because global average temps are rising. The real questions regarding this “term” are: Why is it happening, did we do it, do we need to change it, can we change it, and of course, will we change it?

    I'm old enough to have seen that the earth is being trashed by us. I have seen the changes in the earth and they are real. Where are the bees, the grasshoppers, the crickets? Where has the so much of the wildlife gone in the span of the last 40+ years of my life. The weather patterns have changed since I was a child. I'm not blind or crazy. Anyone can see it if they look. Global warming itself, whether a concern worth debating or not, the fact remains: The earth is being seriously fucked up in so many ways and the activites of humans are responsible…

    • FergalR

      Actually, global temperatures haven't changed to any statistically significant degree for 15 years. And they have fallen considerably since 1998.

      Other than that I agree with you. That the environmentalist movement has been hijacked by the singular issue of carbon dioxide is tragic. Meanwhile the Earth continues to be raped and our food is contaminated with exitotoxins such as aspartame and hormone mimickers like bisphenol-A as the environment is tainted with a host of chemicals which are actually pollutants.

      It's worth repeating: global temperatures haven't changed to any statistically significant degree for 15 years. And they have fallen considerably since 1998.

      • GoodDoktorBad

        I don't remember my sources enough to debate you on the warming trend issue, sorry.
        But I think we agree that that issue is likely moot anyway.

  • Gregory

    The comments here are fascinating. The response to climate change has become so political. One's response to it appears to be severely limited to one's ideology and we can say the same about any particular topic. The polarization of the thought process in people who seem otherwise intelligent is striking. How can so many smart people be so utterly daft?

    Of course climate change is real, it's an “Inconvenient Truth.” Watching video of a polar bear having to swim farther north than usual due to less ice isn't a myth. Neither are the folks in Alaska who have had to move their village due to rising sea levels. The facts are there.

    So why all the discussion? Very strange and worth examining to find out more about human nature. Just as Americans and others in the Western World seem to be in opposition to their best interests because their ideology won't let them change their point of view, we see folks who are passionate about making climate change go away. It's the white elephant taking a crap in their living room and they're trying to ignore it.

    The human experience should be more than just parroting what your ideology says you should believe in or not. Reality is out there waiting and the reality is climate change.

    fiat lux

    • FergalR

      It's the myth of climate change being man-made that's the debate Gregory. If the so-called “scientists” involved in studying the climate had allowed their methods and data to be examined as is customary in the scientific method there would be a rational debate. Instead those climatologists who were anything but fervent believers in AGW were sacked from their jobs and received death threats. Then there were calls for those who disagreed to face “Nuremberg-style” trials and the trivialisation of the word denier by fanatics urged on by the compliant media. Did you even read the posts here?

      The only ideology I subscribe to is a desire for the truth to be told. Examine the facts for yourself and you'll see that the hypothesis of dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming is a tissue of lies.

  • rfw888

    This guy almost convinces me that the reptilian shapeshifter theorists might be on to something, rather than just on something….

  • Drew phillips

    It baffles me to think that people can argue about man-made global warming. We add heat-trapping gasses into the atmosphere — what do you think they are going to do? Trap heat of course. In the 70's the pollution generally had larger particulates which acted as a reflector of light and that caused a momentary cooling effect, but even that can no longer mitigate the warming the earth is now experiencing. As a simple example of how man can affect climate: when all the air traffic was halted in the US immediately after 9/11, America's temperature rose 1 degree Celsius WITHIN 3 DAYS. Why? Because the shielding effect of the jet trails were no longer there. Another simple point is that before 1970 there were roughly the same number of heat record days as cold record days on each continent. Now there is about twice as many heat record days as cold record days — see a trend?

    • FergalR

      There is no trend. It's a cycle. It gets hotter then it gets colder over several decades. Diligently kept records from the early 20th century and before have been vandalised to make it seem that temperatures only rise. The little ice age ended around the time the recording started, millions starved when it was cold. The climatologists can't explain why the little ice age happened because they don't have a clue how the Earth works. We were told there was an ice age coming when it got cold in the 70's and now the same people are saying it's going to get warm. It's a scam.

      CO2 does absorb and re-emit about 16% as much long wave radiation as water vapour, but that's not the point. The planet has negative feedbacks, otherwise water on its own would cause a feedback that would boil the oceans away, there's about 70 times more water in the air than CO2 right now. AGW is a scam. Honestly.

      As for the 1C cooling in the days after 9/11: how the fuck could they know that? Temperatures go up and down by the hour, how could they know how much the temperature rose if they don't know what it would have been anyway? It's bullshit propaganda courtesy of the BBC. High level clouds such as contrails have a net warming effect anyway; look it up.

      Global temperatures haven't changed to any statistically significant degree for 15 years. And they have fallen considerably since 1998. See a trend? There isn't one. It's a cycle and AGW is a scam.

  • Anonymous

    Bahh. How can he be a man to doubt a ‘global conspiracy’? Princesses dont die in car crashes.

    AGW is fiction, a big money spinning scam!

  • gavinc

    Bahh. How can he be a man to doubt a 'global conspiracy'? Princesses dont die in car crashes.

    AGW is fiction, a big money spinning scam!