The Great Global Warming Scam

[lickthewallfatboy]

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest [problem] in History’ | NewsBusters.org

 

"It is the greatest [problem] in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a [problem]. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

 

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment. ........"

[hagenuk]

You can sum up the [problem] in one word.

 

 

 

Tax.

[lickthewallfatboy]

precisely!!

 

ust watch BBC breakfast- every day without fail we are being brainwashed by the media to believe this nonsense

[MilkTrayMan]

Have NEVER subscribed to the wholesale condemnation of Human Industrialisation = Global Warming myself...

 

History of the Earth has shown that it has naturally fluctuated from time to time + survived!...

[dave]

I've always thought it was a [problem] - a tool of governments. In fact, I was posting about this very thing about a week ago in a different forum.

 

Tax is right. Demonise people who supposedly pollute the environment (smokers, 4x4 drivers, people who can't get 2 weeks recycling into the stupidly small black box, pretty much anyone really), and you have a licence to print money.

 

I notice the US is slowly catching on to this too recently - I wonder if Bliar had a word in George's shell like and told him what a lovely money spinner it all is?

[GuidoT]

I too am sceptical about the link between global warming and the related impact of human intervention on the same.

As MTM said the earth is always going through natural climate change cycles and we may well be going through one of those.

The media have a lot to answer for, remember the Millennium Bug that the media were so fond of reporting on, that turned out to be little more than a damp squib.

[dave]

To be fair, the millennium 'bug' (it was hardly a bug, it was largely by design) DID exist.

 

I spent at least 2 years on a team of 40 programmers sorting some of that out for a large London firm (paid very nicely too).

 

I think it's testament to people like us (and the many, thousands of others) that you think the way you do.

 

Honestly, it's quite nice that it went by without so much as a whimper - it certainly wouldn't have done so if it were not for the millions of man-hours put in by programmers the world over.

 

There were a few missed though - the French lost a satellite, and one bank in Mexico reported their cashpoints stopped working to name just a couple.

[huggles]

I suppose you think evolution is a massive conspiracy against christianity too, do you?

 

It does amuse me when people ignore consensus amongst the scientific community who have a great deal more expertise than them because they do not want to have to adjust their lifestyles at all.

[lickthewallfatboy]

there is no such consensus-many many scientists are casting doubt on this "research" as being flawed

 

have a look around and don't automatically accept the drivel people like Al Gore feed the masses

 

this is after all the man who insisted potato was actually spelt "potatoe" amongst many other things.....the "inconvenient truth" is Al Gore is a total idiot....he also claims to have "invented" the internet!! --

 

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet" Gore said when asked to cite accomplishments that separate him from another Democratic presidential hopeful, former Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey, during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN on March 9, 1999

 

 

other examples of the "wisdom" of Mr Gore-

 

""When my sister and I were growing up," Mr. Gore told a small audience made up mostly of women, "there was never any doubt in our minds that men and women were equal, if not more so."

 

On July 16, 2000 during a "Meet the Press" interview, Gore was asked if he would be in favour of postponing the execution of a pregnant woman. His hesitant response was "I'd have to think about it".

 

 

"A zebra does not change its spots." - Al Gore, attacking President George Bush in 1992.

 

 

[Bookworm]

And many, many more accept that there is a strong possibility that it is happening.

 

I actually got interested in climate change a long, long time ago, long before the media or Al Gore jumped on that particular bandwagon, at a time when the likes of Greenpeace were trying to raise some awareness and were by and large being gagged by the media. It highly amuses me to see the turnaround happening now, I have to say.

 

Yes, the Earth goes through various cycles of glaciation and heating up. Yes, within those long cycles, there are mini-cycles also happening. So maybe, just maybe, human influence has no effect whatsoever... Then again, analysis of ice "carrots" shows that natural events like say, a big volcanic eruption, left their mark in the amount of acid rain, carbon dioxide and other chemical markers (which then allows to see how it influenced things like vegetation and animal life, etc...), so I personally would doubt that 100 years+ of industrial revolution would make no difference. The permutations known as fossil fuel and atomic bomb effects are actually used in techniques like carbon 14 to date items in the last century, because of the increase and decrease in atmospheric radiocarbon. I won't bore you with the details.

 

Let's put the above aside for one moment and decide that the evidence is not sufficient.

 

Question is, can we take the risk of being proven wrong and that we did have a detrimental effect, we could have prevented that and did nothing, and realised too late to reverse or stabilise the trend? Personally, I think that when it comes to the life of our planet, I'd rather err on the side of safety.

 

As for the "tax" conspiracy theory, pur-lease. Governments have had to pass anti-pollution laws which have cost some of their biggest contributors/pals/lobbyists billions. Do you really think that taxing 4x4 more would even make a dent in that by comparison? Why do you think the US refused to sign the Kyoto agreement?

 

There's apologists everywhere. Some would have us believe that the Holocaust never happened. Some would have us carry on as we are and tell us that we don't need to do a thing, as whatever is happening -if anything- is beyond our control. Hmmm, maybe, maybe not... I'll ask again: Can we afford to be wrong? :-|

[huggles]

there is no such consensus-many many scientists are casting doubt on this "research" as being flawed

 

have a look around and don't automatically accept the drivel people like Al Gore feed the masses

 

this is after all the man who insisted potato was actually spelt "potatoe" amongst many other things.....the "inconvenient truth" is Al Gore is a total idiot....he also claims to have "invented" the internet!! --

 

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet" Gore said when asked to cite accomplishments that separate him from another Democratic presidential hopeful, former Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey, during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN on March 9, 1999

 

 

other examples of the "wisdom" of Mr Gore-

 

""When my sister and I were growing up," Mr. Gore told a small audience made up mostly of women, "there was never any doubt in our minds that men and women were equal, if not more so."

 

On July 16, 2000 during a "Meet the Press" interview, Gore was asked if he would be in favour of postponing the execution of a pregnant woman. His hesitant response was "I'd have to think about it".

 

 

"A zebra does not change its spots." - Al Gore, attacking President George Bush in 1992.

 

 

 

what does al gore's spelling or these quotes have to do with the science behind climate change? al gore is not a scientist and does not claim to be, he is merely a high profile figure who is using his status to promote this view point (which seems in the main to align with that of the scientific community - can't be sure, I can't say that I've watched his film in full).

In any case, there are many many more such examples which can be attributed to george bush who sits more on the other side of the fence, does that prove anything about the arguments on the other side? No.

 

I work in the energy industry where there would be a number of vested interests in discrediting the science of climate change if there were big gaps and they obviously also have the expertise and money to do it However, all I see are private compnaies investing significant amounts of their own resources in the technogies that will be needed in the future - this is purely anecdotal of course but it is a lot of money!

As far as I can tell, the only creditable group of experts who maintain some objections to the human contribution to climate change are the american association of petroleum geologists and they do not deny the link altogether. Perhaps you are aware of more?

 

Climate science and modelling is is necessarily subject to guess work (hence the need for modelling). I think bookworm's position up there is very strong and logical one and the prudent position to take, regardless of your personal feelings. Action and mild discomfort now could save such severe pain later that even if you aren't sure it will happen it's worth trying to avoid that. To me it is also highly desirable with the rapid growth in the chinese economy for rich countries like us to lead by example and show them that they can live within the resources we have here on earth in a sustainable way and also not suffer economically. And I think that the consensus amongst experts that we should be acting quickly now to prevent is stronger than consensus on human causes of climate change.

 

I'm not claiming to be an expert either, correct me if you like. And by all means tell me your opinion - but don't just give me your opinion as if it is a fact!

[lickthewallfatboy]

Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe - USATODAY.com

 

the myth of US petroleum backed scientists are the only ones against global warming propaganda shattered here-

 

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

 

climate change on Mars-aliens must scrap their 4x4's

Climate change hits Mars - Times Online

[Bookworm]

Since you seem to think that Gore is the start all and end all of the global warming "[problem]", maybe you want to apply the same scrutiny to the character of the chap leading the "[problem]" claims, as described in the 2nd article quoted in your post:

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To describe him as a "UK climate researcher" or a scientist of any kind is more than a bit of a stretch... as for his affiliation with Exxon-Mobil, no mention of it in the article, strangely as he would appear to be very much one of those working with or for one of the biggest petroleum companies in the world.

 

Gore's authenticity... well, that he is a politician who jumped on the latest bandwagon, I have no doubt about. It doesn't mean that the bandwagon he jumped on is not a valid one. ;-)

[lickthewallfatboy]

it's the almost religious devotion to "man made climate change" that gets on my wick-the refusal to accept the possibility that it's part of the natural climate change cycle

 

all the climate change campaigners going to their big climate fest in Bali produced as much carbon getting there than 20,000 cars produce in one year,yet joe public is expected to buy e products and change they way we live,while the campaigners travel the world in style.....sounds very fishy

[lickthewallfatboy]

Global Warming Heresy by Walter Williams -- Capitalism Magazine

"Among the many findings that dispute environmentalists' claims are: Manmade carbon dioxide emissions are roughly 5 percent of the total; the rest are from natural sources such as volcanoes, dying vegetation and animals. Annually, volcanoes alone produce more carbon dioxide than all of mankind's activities. Oceans are responsible for most greenhouse gases. Contrary to environmentalists' claims, the higher the Earth's temperature, the higher the carbon dioxide levels. In other words, carbon dioxide levels are a product of climate change. Some of the documentary's scientists argue that the greatest influence on the Earth's temperature is our sun's sunspot activity. The bottom line is, the bulk of scientific evidence shows that what we've been told by environmentalists is pure bunk."

 

channel 4's "Great Global Warming Swindle"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

[huggles]

erm, did you read my or bookworm's posts? come up with some convincing arguments and I might come your way a bit, but all you're doing at the moment is throwing mud around, I see no facts or counterarguments or evidence.

"the great global warming swindle" was widely discredited including by those who took part in it: Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4 - Independent Online Edition > Climate Change

I prefer to believe the experts rather than channel 4 thank you very much, though you continue to believe whoever spouts the point of view which challenges you least if you like.

[Bookworm]

it's the almost religious devotion to "man made climate change" that gets on my wick-the refusal to accept the possibility that it's part of the natural climate change cycle

 

all the climate change campaigners going to their big climate fest in Bali produced as much carbon getting there than 20,000 cars produce in one year,yet joe public is expected to buy e products and change they way we live,while the campaigners travel the world in style.....sounds very fishy

 

Ah, now you're on a different subject, and that is the old "do what I say, not as I do". Nothing new there. From "making poverty history", Children in Need, Comic Relief, Band Aid and what not, people who could give away a tiny %age of their income and not see the slightest difference in their lifestyle urge us to donate "every penny counts" and freely give their time to tell us so. The sheer hypocrisy never fails to stagger me.

 

But as I said, that is a different matter. My original question remains: Can we afford to just dismiss the evidence as a [problem] or a hoax?

 

My conviction, as I stated in my first post, stems from a time where climate-change was not on anyone's political agenda, and from research which was not sexed-up by the media (I wish it had been at times, that did NOT make exciting reading! ) or spread around by cyber-rumours. Even allowing for natural climate cycles, I have no doubt that we are, if not creating, at least, accelerating the process.

 

I quite agree that our recycling habits are not going to make a huge change. I firmly believe that any changes to be implemented need to be done at industry level. Stop telling us to recycle our wrapping, instead, force the companies to supply stuff with less wrapping around. Stop charging us for carrier bags, instead develop more of those eco-friendly ones and encourage supermarkets with financial incentives to supply them instead. And so on, and so forth.

[Bookworm]

Global Warming Heresy by Walter Williams -- Capitalism Magazine

Walter Williams is an economist. The article is an opinion that environmentalists are trying to suppress alternative opinions, it brings no new evidence on the validity or lack thereof of global warming theories.

[huggles]

please also see further comments on the assertions made in that film here: RealClimate » Swindled!

you might want to look further into those before making your mind up!

[huggles]

I quite agree that our recycling habits are not going to make a huge change. I firmly believe that any changes to be implemented need to be done at industry level. Stop telling us to recycle our wrapping, instead, force the companies to supply stuff with less wrapping around. Stop charging us for carrier bags, instead develop more of those eco-friendly ones and encourage supermarkets with financial incentives to supply them instead. And so on, and so forth.

 

this is right, but industry reacts to what consumers want so if the government will not act then it is up to us to a point to put the pressure on or put the carrots in place

[lickthewallfatboy]

environmentalists are trying to suppress alternative opinions

 

and the big question is.....why?????

[huggles]

Here fatboy, let's have that whole sentence for a little more context shall we?

The article is an opinion that environmentalists are trying to suppress alternative opinions, it brings no new evidence on the validity or lack thereof of global warming theories.

 

I still see no counterarguments or facts!

[lickthewallfatboy]

I think you have more than a vested interest in this yourself.....why are anti GW propaganda campaigners receiving death threats?

 

Scientists Receive Death Threats For Questioning Man’s Role in Global Warming | NewsBusters.org

 

simple-money!

 

quote from the article

 

"

Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened

," said the professor.

"I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics,

but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal

."

Other well-known skeptics agreed with Ball:

Richard Lindzen

, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: "

Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges

.

"

Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science

."

Dr Myles Allen

, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: "

The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do

."

Nigel Calder

, a former editor of New Scientist, said:

"Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system

."

END

 

 

 

ooohhhh-you're quite abrasive in your comments,aren't you......

 

[lickthewallfatboy]

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

 

 

 

Global Warming, climate change facts

 

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.

 

Funny thing is,I used to believe all this man made global warming bunk,until I decided to listen to what others were saying,and watching the behaviour of the "great and the good"(ahem!) who are peddling this mantra.....no more....

[Bookworm]

Huggles is quite right, if you're going to quote me, please quote me in full, no extracting just a small part which changes the meaning of the whole sentence, that's a cheap trick the media do all the time. ;-)

 

In all communities, scientific especially, there'll be disagreements. After all, until it happens -or doesn't- it's all conjecture. You could say the same about the OFT test case, I have seen conspiracy theories, I have seen optimistic points of view, I have seen "the banks will win, we're being stitched up" and "the banks can't win, justice will prevail", from the sublime to the ridiculous.

 

As I said before, I have also seen certain "historians" denying the Holocaust ever happened. Point is, the vast majority agrees that it did happen.

 

Likewise, you may find bona-fide scientists who don't agree with the theory of man-made global warming, and may even have an alternative point of view. If the majority of them however finds a consensus that the problem is either man-made or that it contributes to the problem, then I am afraid that for our own safety, we need to go with the consensus.

 

Let's not forget that even the chap you quote in your previous post does not deny global warming, he simply denies it is man-made. And maybe, just maybe, he is right. The problem is that semantics then muddle things, because somewhere between the "global warming is not man-made" and "global warming is happening", there is one factor that those sceptics never seem to address, and that is: "Global warming is happening, it is not man-made... but is our behaviour helping global warming accelerate or worsen?" That question never seems to get addressed.

 

As I said before, I was studying these things long before it came to the fore of the media or political attention, so I know I am not just following blindly the "great and the good". I am just glad that it finally is reaching the public attention... I deplore that the issue is being hijacked by politicians, however, but sadly, that seems to be the only way these days.

 

Don't let your distrust of them wot lead us colour your opinions. Fools are those who blindly follow them, but refusing to hear anything we're being told is not sign of great wisdom either, I'm sorry to say.