http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... gen-summit



See, there's a big problem for me - we'll inevitably get some BS deal so that the politicians can be seen to be doing something, the political equivalent of carbon trading. Years from now we'll have them and a bunch of crackpots hailing the fact the world didn't end as being a result of initiatives like this



Not sure about the 'Orwellian consensus' bit, some of them are definitely cranks though, and I find myself somewhat agreeing on the 'bullying, censorship and fraudulent statistics' - the IPCC report furore alone being a good example.



And that's just about when Nick jumped the shark



Clark actually knows what democracy's about, right?



Yes, well done there, you'd have been better saying nothing



Really? Cos I've seen, read and heard from quite a few of the doubters

I'm so sick of that 'the majority agree' BS - these days, if you are by definition a 'leading climate scientist', that means there's very little chance you're gonna stick your head above the parapet, you'd be absolutely ruined



Yeah, Griffin's just the rough edge on that side of the coin...



OK, if he said that, it's obviously quite mindless in it's approach, but would the desired outcome (reducing CO2 levels) really be any more ridiculous than the logic behind the congestion charge?

"Orwellian consensus' is indeed a bizarre phrase. If he's referring to 1984, surely there was no consensus, everyone just did what Big Brother told them to?

The history of science is actually littered with cases of people who were effectively ostracised or ignored because their theories went against received wisdom. From Galileo all the way up to the early quantum physicists.

BNP Boss To Represent EU At Climate Summit

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politi ... 8134?f=rss



Er, so the people of the UK and Europe are all in complete agreement about climate change, all of them? And why can't Griffin represent them?

And I see we're also back to the 'credibility' bit and effectively putting words into peoples' mouths



Why is it ridiculous? Wouldn't be because not everybody agrees on climate change and the 'facts' would it?

And if Clark wants to talk voting figures, he could consider the amount of people that don't/won't vote in the UK, or who have obviously been aligning themselves with the bleedin' BNP in greater numbers, never mind that probably half the ones who do vote will do so for someone other than his party



She's talking a lot of sense IMO, and is quite possibly being wasted in the Green Party



And she's the weather presenter

Question is, unfortunate for whom?



@ 'the demands of the science', when about the most the government has done is to use it as a tax...