False, Ed. Skeptics agree that climate is always changing, just not in the way that the warmists claim it is.
From his speech today:
…Healthy scepticism is part of that process.
We make progress by building on what we know, and questioning what we don’t.
But some sections of the press are giving an uncritical campaigning platform to individuals and lobby groups who reject outright the fact that climate change is a result of human activity.
Some who even deny the reality of climate change itself.
This is not the serious science of challenging, checking and probing.
This is destructive and loudly clamouring scepticism born of vested interest, nimbyism, publicity seeking contraversialism or sheer blinkered, dogmatic, political bloody-mindedness…
Up to 150 elderly die each day in the UK over the winter months.
Ed Davey does not think old people are of any value.
Bring on the windmills.
Climate change is a meaningless Shibboleth. Which is as redundant as Montford’s empty Shibboleth.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/6/3/the-empty-shibboleth.html
Well, I have to say that the speech is concise and ‘on the ball’. The Met Office is the envy of the world, 97% of scientists agree, etc, etc.
There can, in mid 2013, after Climategate, etc., be no excuse for this blinkered stupidity.
This is the man who will lead us into darkness (literally) when he has destroyed the coal and gas power stations and given us windmills which, several times each month, possibly each week, will deliver power at a rate that is, statistically, zero.
The question is, with Davey in charge with these ‘views’, whether many will die because the power is off in winter, or because they cannot afford it on occasions when it is on.
We face, in the hands of Davey and his ilk, the worst peacetime disaster for a century. Somebody please save us from our politicians and the mandarins who pull their strings.
Is tstupidity a treasonable offence I ask?
There’s climate change and there’s climate change.
As a person well-read in science, I know that climate (or climates, to use Gamecock’s correct but fussy terminology) change.
As a person well-read in science, I have serious doubts about the measurements that claim to show change between 1850 and now or between 1979 and now. So much of that data seems to be “adjusted” and/or fabricated and/or cherry-picked and/or misinterpreted that I’m no longer ready to outright accept that temperatures have changed significantly since 1850-ish or at least since the early 20thC.
I am convinced that humans have played no discernible role, though, even if the change has actually occurred.
If we change human activity, the climate wouldn’t change? Why should I be skeptical of these guys who can control the climate, only if we would let them?