Guardian: Gordon Brown attacks 'flat-earth' climate change sceptics

[Turborama]

'Dangerous, deceitful' attempts to derail Copenhagen summit condemned

Gordon Brown tonight led a chorus of condemnation against "flat-earth" climate change sceptics who have tried to derail the Copenhagen summit by casting doubt on the evidence for global warming.

Sceptics in the UK and the US have moved to capitalise on a series of hacked emails from climate change scientists at the University of East Anglia, claiming they show attempts to hide information that does not support the case for human activity causing rising temperatures.

On the eve of the Copenhagen summit, Saudi Arabia and Republican members of the US Congress have used the emails to claim the need for urgent action to cut carbon emissions has been undermined.

But tonight the prime minister, his environment secretary, Ed Miliband, and Ed Markey, the man who co-authored the US climate change bill, joined forces to condemn the sceptics.

"With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn't be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics," Brown told the Guardian. "We know the science. We know what we must do. We must now act and close the 5bn-tonne gap. That will seal the deal."

More: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/04/flat-earth-climate-change-copenhagen

[Peace4us]

1. Let Free Speech Ring

It seems dangerous and deceitful to me to not allow open debate and criticism of ANY issue. That is freedom of speech. I feel like these people have hijacked the benevolent environmental movement to use it for their political ends. The Cap and Trade thing is just a way to tax an already economically hurting populace and will place a great burden on the poor. The Banking/Oil class will just structure everything so that they reap more massive profits through rising energy costs.

I don't think that it has been proven uncategorically that man drives the climate. Dramatic climate changes have occurred when there was no CO2 increase due to human activities. What the emails show is that there is an agenda behind the so-called science and that led to a skewing of the data to reach a pre-conceived outcome. This is not what the scientific method is supposed to be about.

Gordon Brown's childish name calling is the last resort of someone who is losing his grip.

I am no climatologistic and I would like to believe that we have unbiased science which will give us truthful and helpful answers to the problems facing humanity, but after reading both sides thoroughly, I am not filled with confidence in the scientific community.

To all of the scientists who have been doing honest research on the subject, please continue and be vocal and open and honest.

To those who are pushing some other agenda, on either side, you deserve to be outed and let the light shine!

[n2doc]

2. Bull. You don't want to hear the truth.

Enjoy your stay.

[bahrbearian]

6. Calling for a tombstoning , of someone you disagree with?

You don't want to debate? Thats real opened minded of you. I don't agree with the poster either but they have a right to an opinion.

[PaulaFarrell]

3. Your own words damn you

"To those who are pushing some other agenda, on either side, you deserve to be outed and let the light shine!"

[izquierdista]

4. All right, since you don't think

We'll let you go "debate" all the fine minds at the local mental hospital; I'm sure they that they will have a criticism of ANY issue you want to bring up.

[kestrel91316]

7. Read Friedman's book "Hot, Flat, and Crowded" and get back to us.

We await your new and INFORMED commentary.

[kestrel91316]

5. I am in the middle of listening to Thomas Friedman's HOT, FLAT, AND CROWDED.

It should be required reading for ANYONE prior to their forming an opinion or commenting publically on the subject og climate change, lol.

But it's a BIG book, with BIG words. So I doubt RWers will be up to the task.

[Peace4us]

8. The Subject og (sic) Climate Change

I am not a right winger, nor do I deny that the world is warming. To be honest, I am not a scientist and have only read both sides and tried always to keep an open mind, without political labeling, which I think is used to separate and control us as Americans. I am more of a Jeffersonian classical liberal, rather than a strict Democrat.

As far as having to read a certain book to comment, I am sorry that I did not fufill your criteria, but then this is an open forum. And as someone who does not have a television and probably reads about 5 books a week, fiction and non-fiction, I probably have a well educated mind, which tries to be fair and rational.

I have always tried to live my life in an environmentally sound fashion. I have designed solar house systems and built a straw bale building, which I had to do as an outlaw, basically, since building codes did not allow such an energy efficient building.

But I also take time to study both sides of an issue and give each due consideration rather than just jump on some popular bandwagon and discount everything anyone ever says that differs from my opinion.

I was a Sierra Club member, a backpacker and an anti-war hippie back to the lander in the 70's. I loved the environmental movement and rejoiced that we were changing the world for the better. Reduce, reuse, recycle has always been my credo.

I have seen that movement taken over by corporatism and by people that have agendas that have nothing to do with saving the planet or environmentalism. If you look at the big donators to many environmental groups you will see the names of many big corporate polluters. So I am careful what I support. I don't like that this is what happened, but then I don't like a lot of the direction that our country has taken.

People on an honest quest for the truth do not have to rant and rave at their detractors. They can merely show them the rational facts which lead to their conclusion. If they allow their data to be scrutinized, then everyone will probably eventually arrive at the same conclusion, given good data.

If they are trying to hide their data or change it to suit an agenda, that is not honest science. They could be right, they could be wrong, but they are not honest and then trust becomes an issue.

I want my planet to be clean and healthy. I want it's inhabitants to be peaceful and loving. I want us to be able to discuss our problems rationally and without hate. I want our scientists to be honest. I want enviromentalism to be the grassroots caring for our planet, not some sort of big government plan to get more tax dollars to fund more wars.

I have been a computer programmer and did some computer modeling, so I understand the difficulties involved and the temptation to fudge data so that you can achieve the desired outcome. That experience has made me question greatly the whole climate computer modeling idea, since so many variables are involved which affect our climate, many of which we are not even fully cognizant about, since they are complete fields of study in themselves and we do not have all the data to put into the model. Garbage in, garbage out. Without perfect data going in, you will not get a reliable outcome in the model. This is just programming truth. So I never trusted the model idea.

If you disagree with me on that, that is okay. In the spirit of free debate, I salute you...:-)

Peace and Love.