December 29, 2012
It is sad really.
Spooner, shows the poverty of the climate sceptic case. He says:
The reason why scientific consensus emerged in this debate is because political activists want to get things moving, and if they say that consensus is scary and urgent, then sceptics had better get out of the way....The science was "settled", the debate was said to be over and no further discussion was required. Any media professional should have been aroused by such an excited censorship campaign, and it stimulated my first cartoon on the subject [bellow], which depicted the family TV set as mediaeval stocks with an imprisoned climate sceptic being pelted by the family with their TV dinner.
The scientific consensus has nothing to do the confirmation of the IPCC's hypothesis by scientific evidence. It's all politics and groupthink for Spooner, who has embraced an anti-science position that highlights scientific fraud, plagiarism, and ghost writing.
Meanwhile, governments have started to make the shift away from the heavy use of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) that threatens the world with human-induced climate change to a low carbon future. The aim is to make the shift to a future climate with less than 2C of warming. Staying below two degrees is not a matter of science or technology. It will be determined by political and social decisions to take the necessary steps to shift to low-carbon living
The deniers have shifted from saying there was no such thing as warming or climate change, then the change in climate was a natural cycle and not the result of human interference, finally some are saying that though we may be responsible for some warming but not much it would cost so much as to send civilisation back to the dark ages. I'm waiting for them to say let “free markets determine what the science is”.