Comments on: Nigel Lawson vs Bob Watson on C4 News (UK)

By: Mark Walder

Mark Walder — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 11:07:24 +0000

The inconsistencies in the entire 2007 report are enough to force it to be abandoned and a new report put together by new people, All funding to such institutions should be withheld pending a new enquiry, all data should be available to any one wanting to see it, be they scientists or not, all current taxes based on climate change or global warming should be stopped until such science is proven that man made co2 emissions is the cause of the effect if any effect exists, and all or any of the so called scientists and any government people involved in the current report are found to be guilty of wrong doing, should be prosecuted and face full consequences of their actions. When all is said and done no other science would be given so much attention in light of it being so wrong, the only reason for the attention is money, and the amount they can make out of the worlds population.

By: W R H WEST

W R H WEST — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 09:50:51 +0000

They do not have audacity –they have fear that they have been found out compromising their training and ethics.They have coperated with their cronies- they want the Swiss Bank accouts safe.Their careers are stuffed.

By: Richard M

Richard M — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 07:27:14 +0000

Quite so.

Also – this points up the importance of the “hockey stick” in the debate. The Bob Watsons of this world could wheel that in to claim how “unusual” our present situation is. Of course a logical fallacy remains just that unless the form of the argument changes – but all the same the dramatic graph was so helpful to their “only way we can explain” mode of reasoning.

Perhaps all our Bob Watsons need to be sent to bed with Andrew Montford’s “Hockey Stick Illusion” as required reading.

By: Adam Cassidy

Adam Cassidy — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:26:01 +0000

I can’t believe they have the audacity to defend any of it. Lord Nigel and Lord Monckton are like so many who speak out against this nonsense – they have no time for niceties.

Phil Jones and Dr. Pauchuri have blatantly lied, and need to be taken ruthlessly to task for these lies, for they are not owning up in the slightest. Keep up the heat, share petitions, etc., because complacency leaves us with business as usual, and we will watch in disbelief and horror as this absurd tax goes through even as people silently agree it’s probably unnecessary.

When did I wake up living in the movie “Brazil”?

By: Graham

Graham — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:02:52 +0000

Why is anyone still bothering with this nonsense ?

Do politicians get a kick out of humiliating themselves ?

“Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.”

You got thet – he finds NO INCREASE IN ATMOSPHERIC CO2 since the Industrial Revolution. In that case man made (or any other CO2) CANNOT be responsible for Global Warming. It also debunks the theory of the greenhouse effect.

It is reported that warmists jumped all over Dr Knorr in a Galileo type operation and he then conceded that CO2 must be reduced, though for the life of me, I can’t imagine why.

We know that the IPCC and UEA CRU have problems with temperature records, but surely they checked the CO2 at least. If they can’t respond to this research, then the whole of the Global Warming argument is over and done with.

By: Cameron

Cameron — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:52:56 +0000

Bob Watson said: “We’ve looked very carefully to the full temperature record over the last fifty to a hundred years. The only way we can explain that temperature increase is due to human activities.

Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT has pointed out many times, as have others I’m sure, this is argumentum ad ignorantiam. A classical logical fallacy that has no place in science. Just because they lack a sufficient imagination to think of some other cause does not show that it must therefore be caused by mankind.

By: Igor

Igor — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:31:08 +0000

I too noticed him (and well the whole of alarmist group) making “argument from authority”. Anyone who has done any debating would know that such argument is nothing more than a fallacy.

By: john

john — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:27:32 +0000

Well done Nigel Lawson, 78 years strong and still genuinely caring for his country or maybe he is just debunking for the financial gain:). Bob Watson should learn to sneer less and reflect on the sins of the IPCC, they are going to come back to haunt him.

By: JOHN

JOHN — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:25:37 +0000

Tom, I’m 56, I grew up in the SF Bay Area in the hippie heyday. You have it right (trust us we’re the establishment). Back in the day it was a bumper sticker with “Question Authority!” on it. Now when we question them, that is not the right thing to do! I refuse to be a braindead hypocrite like that. I may be an old fart, but I’m not stuck in my ways. An old dog can learn new tricks.

By: Tom Roe

Tom Roe — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:16:49 +0000

Lason kicked his cliche muttering butt. The constant appeal to authority is enough to trigger the gag reflex. Isn’t it just a little ironic that the old hippie greens have nothing better in their wrinkled bag of arguments than “trust us we’re the establishment” Well greenwieners we do not trust you on this anymore than we did on past occasions. I don’t know about others but the very liberal university I attended inoculated me for life against these scum. Yes scum.