Climate Change

Even if the climategate emails do not discredit anthropogenic (man made) global warming (AGW), the problem is that it has cast doubt upon the integrity of some of the most influential scientists in the field. If AGW is ever discredited, these times will represent the greatest collective flight from reality in the history of mankind. It will humble us into the realisation that we are not at the pinnacle of knowledge but just as susceptible to manipulation as the illiterate peasants of the dark ages. My position is that global temperatures are changing and it seems very probable that human activities contribute to this. However, I also believe that the data is being manipulated and distorted for political reasons. This was evident even before climategate. The fact that AGW dogma was so seamlessly integrated into the ideology of the anti-capitalist left rang alarm bells very early on for me. And the political right use it as a money spinning racket (carbon trading industry) so everyone seems to be using the doctrine to further their cause (except of course the Saudis who have everything to lose and nothing to gain). I believe that the debate over AGW is secondary. We need to cease our dependence on fossil fuels anyway because a) we don't have any of our own now North Sea reserves are running dry, leaving us at the fiscal and political mercy of countries who do b) world reserves will run out eventually c) burning coal etc. is dirty (smog etc.) and not an ideal way of producing energy. If we can develop solar, wind and nuclear energy coupled with a decrease in our population, we wouldn't have a problem. We have not had a coherent energy strategy in this country for over a decade. The French run the nuclear power (because we have not developed the expertise) and we have to import gas and oil and are ripe for being ripped-off since all our energy in some sense has to be imported. jude

I would also add that politicalisation of science is not new. It is a misconception that science is based on undisputed fact. A classic divide is the social scientists vs evolutionary psychologists debate. The former hold that social and cultural environment is more important that the Darwinian view for an explanation of human nature. The latter maintain that our nature can be entirely explained in evolutionary terms. Those scientists who take the first position are often socialists such as Stephen Rose who is a supporter of the SWP. The latter such as Gould or Wilson tend to be more mixed in their political persuasions if they hold any publicly at all. This is because people will try their utmost to skew the evidence to suit their political persuasion. The standard social science model of human behaviour is necessary to justify the theoretical systems of many socialist ideologies. jude

a second addition Mangone, is that AGW is certainly not a "Huge Hoax". This is about people who are trying to convince themselves as much as you and me. I am guilty as is every academic; when compiling a position or stating an argument we a) seek out the data or arguments that support the conclusion we want to find and b) interpret data in such a way that it supports the theory we already believe in, often because we want it to. It is the error of drawing conclusions first and then finding the evidence to support us instead of impartially researching and then drawing the conclusions. I do not believe in a conspiracy, merely the weakness of human nature. jude

I believe that the climate is changing anyway but that we contribute to its speed. I agree that there are too many people. I don't see how we will be able to keep giving food aid to people when the lands turn to deserts. There will be more and more people starving and less and less good land to grow food on. Bio-fuels have taken the place of wheat etc in many parts of the UK. There was a Red Indian saying:- Only when all the rivers are dry and all the fish are eaten will man realise that one can't eat money. I guess we are heading there.

Given the choice between a scientist and a man from a stone-age culture with a plate in his lip, I'd always trust the latter.

I didn't see the film, Mangone, but I read your link. Its obvious to any but the blind that plans need to be drawn up, decisions made etc. asasp but we all know money comes first to the people in power.

Been around a lot longer? Surely we've all been around the same amount of time? Haven't used the time they've been around to learn anything - that I agree with. They are the planet's natural chavs.

Long enough to know my baggins from my bilbo.