Comments on: Oxford Union Debate on Climate Catastrophe

By: Ron

Ron — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 02:10:12 +0000

Auckland Professor and IPCC lead author, Alistair Woodward, gets some attention from Donna Laframboise – worth reading.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/ipcc-author-profile-alistair-woodward/

(HT: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/8/26/donnas-back.html , which has some good comments)

By: Huub Bakker

Huub Bakker — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:44:06 +0000

And that’s 32,000 US scientists only. The petition was not made available outside the States.

By: Australis

Australis — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:34:36 +0000

It is never quite clear which scientists are alleged to belong to the “consensus” or what they have reached agreement about.

In an attempt to nail the canard once and for all, the Oregon Petition gathered 32,000 signatures from practising scientists ( a third of whom held doctorates) to a document that disagreed with the statement that global warming is predominantly human-caused. That is a much greater number than those who have ever signed any document supporting CAGW.

Some have said that 90%+ of State-employed scientists who earn their living by studying global warming agree with the hypothesis that the globe is warming. Yes, well ….

By: Mike Jowsey

Mike Jowsey — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 09:15:20 +0000

Monckton is priceless!

The results of this debate should come as no surprise, except to the dimwitted ecozombies who simply recite “consensus” and “precaution” by rote. Any intelligent debate of the science and economics will result in intelligent onlookers deciding that the alarm is over-hyped and the economic impacts of the suggested remedies would be themselves catastrophic.

Which is why it is almost impossible to get any of the warmist zealots to a public debate (e.g. James Cameron http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/23/james-camerons-folly-titanic-chicken-of-the-sea/ ).