mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Debateage on BBC 4
Monbiot's moralising screed is counter-productive, rhetoric typical of the more enthusiastic AGW believers who, irritated by the relative failure of their proselytising mission, have thrown their toys out the pram, drawn firm lines in the sand between their self-satisfiedly virtuous selves and the 'angry men', 'deniers', 'no-marks', [insert tired Dissensian epithet here] and thereby exasperated the public, undermining their cause.
Update from the ethicists at Oxford:
The question of global warming has been a bonanza for climate science and the interest of climate scientists is for the stream of research money to continue. Note that I do not say this is a bad thing: but the quantities of money involved (governments have spent billions of pounds on climate research) undermine the claim of disinterestedness. If in truth they had to announce tomorrow that it had all been a big mistake they would look like idiots, the money would stop and many would be out of a job.
So, it would be fair to say that, in the unlikelier event of the AGW theory being incorrect, the chance of a majority U-turn would be <0.
Of course, I give myself leave to play devil's avocado because my carbon footprint is almost certainly < yours: I am the nec plus ultra of environmental stewardship, the alfalfa and omega, by my industrial inaction you shall know me.
Monbiot's moralising screed is counter-productive, rhetoric typical of the more enthusiastic AGW believers who, irritated by the relative failure of their proselytising mission, have thrown their toys out the pram, drawn firm lines in the sand between their self-satisfiedly virtuous selves and the 'angry men', 'deniers', 'no-marks', [insert tired Dissensian epithet here] and thereby exasperated the public, undermining their cause.
Update from the ethicists at Oxford:
The question of global warming has been a bonanza for climate science and the interest of climate scientists is for the stream of research money to continue. Note that I do not say this is a bad thing: but the quantities of money involved (governments have spent billions of pounds on climate research) undermine the claim of disinterestedness. If in truth they had to announce tomorrow that it had all been a big mistake they would look like idiots, the money would stop and many would be out of a job.
So, it would be fair to say that, in the unlikelier event of the AGW theory being incorrect, the chance of a majority U-turn would be <0.
Of course, I give myself leave to play devil's avocado because my carbon footprint is almost certainly < yours: I am the nec plus ultra of environmental stewardship, the alfalfa and omega, by my industrial inaction you shall know me.
Last edited: