The Great Global Warming Scam

[lickthewallfatboy]

Originally Posted by Bookworm

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?

Originally Posted by Bookworm

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.

[huggles]

I'm not abrasive - I'm happy to change my mind if you can show me something credible! I apologise if this has come across as rude? and erm, what vested interests have I got then, I'd be very keen to hear!?

Dr Tim Ball is also known for his, erm, let's say little white lies. He's made claims about his own qualifications which are far more elaborate than any Al Gore has ever made - calling a newspaper article "cold hard fact" does not it it so:
"In September, 2006, Ball filed suit against Johnson and four editors at the Calgary Herald newspaper for $325,000 for, among other things, “damages to his income earning capacity as a sought after speaker with respect to global warming”.[14]. In its response (point 50(d), p12), the Calgary Herald stated that “The Plaintiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”(Original statement of claim, Defendant Johnson's answer, Defendant Calgary Herald's answer). In June 2007, Ball abandoned the suit."

Let's look at the people he quotes:

Richard Linzen would appear not to be squeaky clean though he is at least qualified! : FRONTLINE: hot politics: reports: the doubters of global warming | PBS.
And this is a bit cheeky, but he doesn't seem too keen to put his money where his mouth is either: Betting on Climate Change

Myles Allen: his point is to do with policy responses to the problem at hand, not the science behind climate change and in fact I agree with this statement, governments should set the market frameworks such as carbon prices and let things happen rather than micromanaging individuals behaviour - that's a political matter, not a scientific one. It appears that Mr Allen also agrees that there is an anthropogenic contribution to climate change - for example please see this piece of research that Myles Allen contributed to which states in the introduction "we exclude purely natural forcing and attribute it [warming from 1946-1996] largely to the anthropogenic components" Climate Change: Critical Concepts in ... - Google Book Search

Nigel Calder: is not a scientist. He is entitled to his view, but I trust him as much as I trust any journalist - you believe him without checking if you prefer. He has written on space, energy, relativity robots and climate it's true... but then again so have I!
I have not read his climate book (have you?) but I understand it is about the solar variance theory, I would suggest you read up on that. Many climate scientists seem to agree that it is one of the contributors to climate change.

Where the issue is so controversial and partisan it is advisable to check your sources. I remain unconvinced that there is much in the way of credible scientific opposition to the view that humans are contributing to climate change or that we should try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I do think that some green groups and media lie and overemphasise the problem and are thereby muddying the issue and fuelling the anti groups.... This makes me almost as angry as the fibbers on the other side (only almost because I prefer some action to be taken to total inaction so not quite!). The reasons why they do this is up for debate, but I would say that's the way debate works. We are allowed to freely present our arguments and counterarguments and hopefully fall down somewhere in between where the truth probably lies!

[huggles]

This is very wise:

Originally Posted by Bookworm

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.

it's a very partisan and dirty debate nowadays!

you're better at this than me

[Bookworm]

Years more experience at it, m'dear.

[lickthewallfatboy]

Bookie-as for not quoting you fully,the reason I posted it as I did is because people are being threatened with death just for speaking out-again Why????Are campaigners so afraid of dissent that they would silence it at all costs by whatever means necessary?

the bottom line with me is-I believe there very well may be changes in the global climate -but I strongly disagree with the arguments and tactics used by the most vehement apologists for "man- made" as being the biggest culprit.

We are being bulldozed into feeling guilty and radically changing the way we live by people who I believe may be working to a different political agenda entirely......

and until China and India radically change their ways,they are pi55ing in the wind-and that IS a fact!!

And if the government were serious about alternative methods of powering our homes,the level of grants avaialble would be closer to the 100% mark rather than the 50% now available-which still leaves the new technology out of most people's reach for financial reasons

Games are being played with our lives here by certain elements,and I don't like it one little bit.

[Bookworm]

Originally Posted by lickthewallfatboy

Bookie-as for not quoting you fully,the reason I posted it as I did is because people are being threatened with death just for speaking out-again Why????Are campaigners so afraid of dissent that they would silence it at all costs by whatever means necessary?

Yeah, I don't buy that one. Let's face it, if you have that kind of power (cos we're talking global conspiracy here, right?), you don't just threaten. You get rid of. Accidents happen. Know what I mean?

the bottom line with me is-I believe there very well may be changes in the global climate -but I strongly disagree with the arguments and tactics used by the most vehement apologists for "man- made" as being the biggest culprit.

No argument from me there, nor from Huggles, if I read his/her post right.

We are being bulldozed into feeling guilty and radically changing the way we live by people who I believe may be working to a different political agenda entirely......

Again, no argument, and I doubt we'll ever be told the real reasons... although cynically, I suspect that for a lot of them, it will be nothing more than a convenient platform to further their own ends.

and until China and India radically change their ways,they are pi55ing in the wind-and that IS a fact!!

Hmmm, difficult one, I agree... After all, if we do accept for one moment that the Industrial Revolution and subsequent industrialisation of the Western world is largely responsible, now that China and India are reaching that point, you can't blame them for saying: "sod off, you've polluted the Earth for a century, now you've decided that it's not good, you want us not to get our turn at industrialisation?"... although I do believe that if cleaning up was the real aim, then there would be all kind of helps that could be put in place. Alas, unless the West really has the Earth's interests at heart, I can't see that happening in more than token gestures.

And if the government were serious about alternative methods of powering our homes,the level of grants avaialble would be closer to the 100% mark rather than the 50% now available-which still leaves the new technology out of most people's reach for financial reasons

Hear hear! I have been looking into getting solar panels and/or windmill on my house. The amount of information available is appalling, and as for the costs, well... At the moment, it would take about 75 years to recover my cost outlay! Not a great incentive, no matter how much I would like to give it a try!

[lickthewallfatboy]

we put a heat pump in our house during the build,and with the grant it still took around £7500-where on earth is joe public gonna magic that kind of dosh up from?

look at the money they're spending on the 2012 sodding olympics-what kind of "carbon footprint" is that going to leave as a result of construction of facilities right up to the time of flying every tom dick and harry in from everywhere?

money better spent in the way already highlighted.....again proof that what they say and what they do are 2 different animals

[Bookworm]

Don't get me started on the Olympics, I live in Outer London, remember?

[Enron]

Heard about an a new raft of environmental taxes that were coming our way about two years ago, however dismissed it at the time as didnt think people would be gullible enough to accept them.

The new taxes were being proposed by a group called Bilderberg, a collection of industrialists, media, banking, government and heads of royalty... not to solve any environmental crisis but to liberate the middle classes of wealth.

So what we are seeing in the blanket coverage of the likes of BBC News is a softenning up for people to accept these.

[huggles]

My understanding of microgeneration here - PV, heat pumps etc - is that it would be a relatively expensive way to contribute to the deep emissions cuts that are supposed to be being achieved in the west at the moment. so, as much as joe public wants them (to cut their bills), I think the grants are just meant to stimulate the technology's development and make it cheaper and cheaper and keep the industry going whilt otherwise economically it might not rather than get them on every house, then hopefully it will get cheaper for when we really need it, maybe leading up to the 2050 targets even! (then I guess maybe it would become compulsory on new houses or something?).

As for china and india, it's a fair comment. Our efforts are futile unless they make some.
However, I don't know what the numbers are now but the 2003 numbers per capita are here: NationMaster - CO2 Emissions (per capita) (most recent) by country
Chinese co2 emissions per head are 2.7 tonnes per head and US is 19.5, though european emissions are much lower - therefore they still have room to grow for now and we can meet them in the middle. We can show them how to keep their economy growing but emit less. By telling the chinese economy that rich european economies want low carbon the chinese industry will react....hopefully.

Regardless, I do also agree with the view point that we have put the stuff up there so far and we should lead the way. More cynically, making ourselves more self sufficient (even amongst EU states) leaves us more secure anyway...!

Enron - New taxes etc have to go through the usual processes or else they would be subject to judicial review wouldn't they?
Anyway, you don't seem to understand politicians. No politician wants to tax anyone least of all the middle classes - politicians crave popularity.

edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor