Skip to comments.Science in favour of climate change 'akin to evidence linking smoking to cancer'
Posted on 10/09/2013 10:58:22 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Lord Deben, chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, condemned the media for seeking to balance climate change proponents with sceptics.
He warned that a number of climate sceptics were given too much coverage, and said the media should recognise that a balanced report should have "some rationality" within it.
Evidence in favour of climate change is so strong, he said, that it could be compared to evidence linking smoking to cancer or evidence that the Moon Landing was not staged.
He said: When youre discussing the science of climate change, you really shouldnt go off to Australia because you couldnt find another person who had some scientific credentials to appear because you feel youve got to have that balance.
"I just think youve got to recognise that balance has to have some rationality within it......
David Kennedy, the chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change, challenged the Government to do more to educate the public on the science of climate change.
There is more that the Government can do, both in central government and local government, once there is a story they need to run with it and get people to believe that story," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Evidence in favour of climate change is so strong, he said...
The science in favor of climate change is akin to the evidence linking saturated fat to heart disease.
Maybe its time to ban all use and possession of carbon based fuels except for critical government use, of course.
Its like the 2nd Amendment protecting Obama’s storm troops right to use guns against you, but not giving us any rights,
The ol’ BS detector is going off like a klaxon. The old ying yang better get grease cause we’re gonna be paying out of it big time.
P.S. As for the smoking meme. Don’t know everybody’s age on FR but, when I was a kid, my parents and my friends parents used to have parties where there was so much smoke in the house you could hardly see across the room. IF second hand smoke is the threat that it is proclaimed to be, wouldn’t us baby boomers be croaking at a lot higher rate from supposed second hand smoke issues? Where’s the data? Anyone remember the asbestos curtains at the movies? “We do asbestos we can.”
But it ain't our fault ... it's cyclic.
Because the mass media is so biased against AGW orthodoxy and such whores for those horrid skeptics....oh, wait....[eyeroll]
And 1000 years ago Norsemen raised cattle in Greenland. You can’t do that today; it’s too cold.
Smoking is not the only cause of cancer. Western production is not necessarily the cause of temperature changes on Earth OR Mars.
Climate change is pretty nice in Texas this time of year.
Science with millions of samples in both the test and the control groups vs pseudoscience with one item in the test group and zero in the control group.
False. We just went through 17 years of rising CO2 levels without a significant rise in temperatures. That would be akin to having no moon rocks, no video of lunar walking. no astronauts claiming to have been on the moon and no images of earth from the moon.
Well, I might be a little bit guilt about the Mars thing. While I cut back from the three pack a day habit, I have been pointing my Laser level at Mars an awful lot lately. Just something I felt compelled to do while sitting on the porch, smoking and sipping 12 year old bourbon. John Carter hasn't been answering the Morse code messages though. Reckon he might be sleeping in some cave or sumpin.
The skeptics have already made them go from “Global Warming” to “Global Climate Change” because of their reporting the facts.
Why would they have changed their message so drastically unless they were wrong in the first place, hmmmm?
I wonder what the salaries are for Chairman and CEO of the Committee on Climate Change. I wonder what they would be if it became the “scientific consensus” that human activity is not a significant factor in climate change.
Exactly correct. Both are bogus.
Climate scientist must be sensing they are about to lose their funding.
What, no "except when that story sucks" clause?
Not exactly bogus. There were certainly indications that suggest the possibility, but neither ends up being supported by the actual facts on the ground.
There's a reason why both epidemiology and computer modelling are called "hypothesis generating". Neither is capable of proving anything.
The evidence supporting global warming being a LIBERAL HOAX is so strong it can be compared to linking polio with the polio virus. Or sex to having children, or being a hundred years old linked to taking last place on a 9 mile marathon race...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.