FOD: "No it wasn’t. Here is a review of what the scientific literature said in the 70s, "

We are not talking about scientific literature, we are talking about the general information avaliable to the man in the street through the MSM.

your citation:

"Developments that are dramatic or new tend to draw the news media's attention, Revkin argues, rather than the complexity of a nuanced discussion within the scientific community (Revkin 2005). A handy peg for climate stories during the 1970s was the cold weather."

Firstly the peg could just have easily been the warming trend in the '70s but the as it turned out the bias of information commonly avaliable was the so called cooling trend or the 'new ice age'.

Another quote from your citation, there was "no consensus" in the scientific community about 'climate change', hardly surprising since govenrment had not really managed to infiltrate the 'scientific community' with their grants or other blandisments at that time.

As to other points, yes it would be fantastic if our population recycled more, used energy more wisely and didn't drop litter everywhere that suits them, but taxing ourselves to poverty isn't going to make any of this happen, nor make a blind bit of difference to the earth's climate.

How arrogant of our political masters to peddle the myth that the pain and sacrifice of British citizens towards reducing our miniscule contribution to the worlds greenhouse gasses will ever cause the likes of China, India or America to follow our lead. Still whilst they're all laughing at us Brown/Darling are smiling at trousering yet more of our hard earned cash.

It is also a great means of citizen control and an excellent source of taxation. There are currently serious plans under discussion for individual carbon credit cards, a product of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research; the new over-60 bus passes are smart cards which could be adapted for that purpose, along with the "voluntary" student ID cards already mooted. David Blunket's entitlement cards never went away.

We have to have nuclear power and we have to have coal.

Carbon dioxide is NOT A POLLUTANT. Carbon capture is an expensive, uncertain and unnecessary technology and there are many potential geological problems.

What happens to it once it's buried, do we let it out again bit by bit to warm the planet up again as we get colder over the next few years? What if there was an earthquake and it all escaped at once?

Of course, the Precautionary Principle is a one way street and the sole property of the environmentalists, (I use the word advisedly, as they are in favour of detroying our wild uplands and our coastal waters with inefficient heavily subsidised.wind turbines, in the process killing untold numbers of wild birds and bats).

Control pollution, yes, but clean-burn coal technologies,such as fluidised bed combustion, will do that.

No. What do you think the CC in acronym IPCC stands for? The IPCC was formed in the 1980s.

The only person I know of who is on record as advocating a change from the term 'global warming ' to 'climate change' has been a republican advisor in the US who thought 'global warming' sounded too scary, and wanted to downplay it.

"If you are old enough to remember the ’70’s then the scare then was ‘next ice age."

No it wasn't. Here is a review of what the scientific literature said in the 70s, and scientists were predominantly concerned about greenhouse warming even then:
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

Just for one, I'd like to see an analysis based upon raw data!

Well, what happened was that the Stern report was found to be so absurdly biased and scientifically flawed that both scientists and economists ridiculed and vilified it. Only politicians have been gullible enough to take any notice of it.

Crucially, the Stern report took only the very worst of the IPCC's scenarios and then applied some random elements of its own, and thus came up with an utterly absurd conclusion.

The Stern Report notably did not include any models for the SRES A1 family of scenarios, which opts for mitigation through increased wealth. This increased wealth comes as a result of increased free trade and technology sharing across the world.

Which is why the Libertarian Party have adopted the SRES A1 family as our reaction to climate change: because it is the best scenario for human beings.

DK

Nobody wants to live in a fridge or an oven either. NO ONE but an Eskimo or a lover of S+M.

But the evidence for global climate change especially global warming has simply got so many holes in it is might as well not exist at all. Any government that condemned its population to even an ounce of poverty on the evidence available who be worse the Stalin on a dad day IMO.

If is a well know fact of life that if the US economy sneezes the UK economy catches a cold.

Therefore if the UK economy get a cold the developing world gets influenza. If the developing world gets influenza not only do countless millions die. It does not take a nazi rocket scientist to work out what happens to people in the third world.

So if the American economy catches global warming disease and seriously act on it. Half the population of the world could already be dead, before the worlds average temperature changes even one degree.

I for one would take the risk that UN scientists are just being paid to make it up as they go along. Which there is plenty enough evidence already to say that they are doing exactly that.

The UN is simply finding a role for itself, thats just the plane TRUTH of the matter.

The only thing that worries me is that if we don't do what the UN and the people that control it want us to do. The UN will simply come up with another scam or cause the global warming by technological means ON PURPOSE. The technology already has long since existed to do this. I do not trust the people that control the UN not to use it, if the chips are down.

I think he has thus answered Alex' question about why & by whom the campaign is being fought in religious rather than scientific terms. That plus the fact that the theory that we are undergoing catastrophic warming is a theory but with no evidential basis to it.

I would also question John's reply that cutting fuel use is automatically good. This seems to be obvious but actually it only applies if fuel & power are in short supply. We know that we could saisify all our power needs for billions of years with nuclear power. I think getting richer is a better answer than accepting reductions.