The Great Global Warming Scam

[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:

 

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]

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

[huggles]

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?

 

oh. THEM.

I'm sure every penny will be very well spent....

[Enron]

Guess your not going to be able to persuade some people on either side, i'm just reporting what I heard - ignored it at the time, but the chips are beginning to fall into place with the hysteria (media led) around global warming.

 

Politicians like to remain popular, but at the same time politicians will do what they think they can get away with.

[lickthewallfatboy]

just heard on the news that energy saving lightbulbs contain mercury and are dangerous if broken......will have to be disposed of under special circumstances......

 

who was the bright spark(!) who thought that one up??

[Bookworm]

Funny, that, I just read a couple of days ago in the paper that they could induce migraines.

 

I can see the next article headline from here: "SPOTLIGHT TURNED ON LOW-ENERGY BULBS!"

[ncf355]

Just like to chuck in that I wont comment on the overall right or wrong (though this thread has inspired me to do some digging once I've dealt with all my court claims - circa 2010!)

 

BUT

 

Surely the recycling part can be no bad thing?

 

Do we really want to keep filling up landfills with endless junk?

 

I have started getting quite paranoid about the amount of rubbish we put out - a few years ago I would've just loaded up the car and took the lot down the tip (even perfectly useful items that I had no use of and saw no value in)

 

One area that really bugs me is supermarkets that go on about using less packaging and using resusable bags, yet sell kettles and irons at £4.99 that are more than obviously inferior quality and will be replaced in a years time only to have the old one enter land fill

 

I appreciate that for some, hardship means a 4.99 kettle is a bonus - but better a £10 kettle that lasts 3 years than a 4.99 that lasts 1, plus as the supermarket has to make a profit what poor sod made that kettle?

 

No doubt a sweat shop somewhere in India paying the person a ludicrous wage

 

I could get into a rant here, but wont

[huggles]

Guess your not going to be able to persuade some people on either side

 

maybe so!

 

I did some reading about bilderberg yesterday - this is an absolutely fascinating and fun article: Who pulls the strings? | Extracts | Guardian Unlimited Books there are documents round the web that purport to be minutes and agendas from their meetings too. not sure that they could coordinate all this in one meeting a year though.... oh well, apparently they can't because it is clear that the US are at odds with Europe on climate change.

[dave]

BW, you ask if we can afford to be wrong. The answer is 'no' in either direction.

 

There are as many reports that back up the theory as there are that don't back it up; it's just that the majority of the ones that back up the argument are government funded. It's no wonder people are sceptical, and has nothing to do with people not wanting to change their lifestyle as someone else suggested.

 

That argument always annoys me - because I have read as much as I am allowing myself to read about the subject and have done my own research (to the point of building a weather station (NOAA satelites receiver) out of an old iMac and setting up my own analytics on it some years ago), and came to a conclusion that differs from that of the media, it must be that I refuse to change my lifestyle.

 

Nothing to do with my opinion - it's just that I'm lazy apparently.

 

It's a very poor argument and deserves to be ignored. It's almost like pointing someone in the wrong direction rather than addressing the concerns.

 

"Oh, your research doesn't agree with the government funded research. You must be lazy then."

 

Poor argument.

[huggles]

This argument against the consensus is where we started, and I have yet to be shown much evidence that there is as much disagreement on the key issues amongst experts as you claim.

 

As for the government conspiracy, yes you can argue that increasing agreement amongst scientists is consistent with a global effort to suppress the truth, but I'd apply occam's razor again and say that it's also consistent with more and more research being done and more and more learning and better information being applied to the null hypothesis. This is how science works. See evolution for example. You see more and more agreement as understanding grows.

 

Furthermore, the scientific community is global. Work is published, peer reviewed and critiqued globally (especially the work of the IPCC - some of its projections and estimates have been criticised for being to optimistic as well as pessimistic). But international governments do not agree on climate change - see the farce over the Kyoto protocol and the lack of anything concrete coming out of Bali and the US's attempts to derail any sort of agreement at Bali. In theory, American government funded research should be showing different results to perhaps european or japanese research, shouldn't it?

 

Finally, I would ask again, what politicians have to gain from raising taxes? They don't want to tell "middle england" they have to pay more tax or take away things they like, like chelsea tractors - they want middle england to like them and they want to stay in power!

 

Oh, and have you subjected your work to any peer review?

[dave]

I have indeed published the work, although it was not "scientific" - it's not on the 'web' for scrutiny, as at the time access to the www was not very common - it was posted in nntp newsgroups (the same place where I found the other research - still available no doubt in archives).

 

You state that the more research, the more agreement. I haven't seen any evidence of this. The one (recent) report that springs to mind that was government funded and DIDN'T give the results that the govt. wanted, was buried pretty bloody quickly - and even now, if you want a copy, you have to pay for it (despite it being our money that paid for it in the first place) - not true of the other 'independent' reports that actually arrived at the figures that they wanted to hear.

 

I also have to say that I don't think it is an argument against consensus - unless your only source of information is the BBC/CNN/ITV etc...

 

I also think that this arrogant government will tell "middle England" whatever it likes - in a three tier race with no viable alternative, they have no hope of losing. It also depends where you think it stops. Do you think that any of the parties in this country disagree on the human causes of GW? I think they are all pretty much along the same linear line when it comes to this issue - simply because of the large cash cow that they know it is.

 

...as to the US, they are not 'against' GW or GW 'deniers' at all - contrary to popular belief. I was in Chicago and the people there was furious about the hike in domestic fuel costs, all in the name of keeping 'emmisions' down. Not corperate emmissions I'll grant you, but just enough to keep the general public paying more and more and creating a divide between the beleivers and non-believers.

 

Of course, the BBC/ITN etc... would have you believe that the US has said "GW does not exist".

 

Utter rubbish - just go there and ask a normal person if they think their domestic bills are going up for the reasons that are being touted and you will hear a completely different answer to news at 10 here.

[huggles]

The one (recent) report that springs to mind that was government funded and DIDN'T give the results that the govt. wanted, was buried pretty bloody quickly - and even now, if you want a copy, you have to pay for it (despite it being our money that paid for it in the first place) - not true of the other 'independent' reports that actually arrived at the figures that they wanted to hear.

 

what's this report called, please?

 

I also think that this arrogant government will tell "middle England" whatever it likes - in a three tier race with no viable alternative, they have no hope of losing. It also depends where you think it stops. Do you think that any of the parties in this country disagree on the human causes of GW? I think they are all pretty much along the same linear line when it comes to this issue - simply because of the large cash cow that they know it is.

 

This makes no sense. If there was a realistic alternative, there seems to me to be some appetite in the electorate for a political party that takes an anti-climate change position but none will take it up - why? perhaps because it is simply not viable.....

Seriously - you think all the governments in the world got together with the scientists and the media and they all agreed that they'd make up this whole thing so they can tax the middle classes more so they can spend the money on turbines and nuclear power stations?! (edit: sorry, I forgot, industry and environmental groups are in on this too)

 

 

Utter rubbish - just go there and ask a normal person if they think their domestic bills are going up for the reasons that are being touted and you will hear a completely different answer to news at 10 here.

 

sorry, what does this prove? if I ask someone if they are ****ed off about their gas bills going up (...whilst their shareholders sit pretty...) they will say yes? well duh!

[dave]

You have missed the point. The point is that apparently (according to at least European media), the US deny that GW exists at all (aside from the democrats that is). It simply isn't true. They DO 'acknowledge' GW and are raising domestic fuel taxes as a way of 'containment'. Their own funded reports yeald the sort of results that you would expect. You asked me if I thought that the US reports should be differing from those of a government that acknowledges GW. The US DOES acknowledge it and is taxing people accordingly.

 

As it happens, and conspiracy theories aside, I do think that they stumbled across the happy side-affects of this by accident. If governments actually wanted people off of the roads to 'hald' the growth of GW do you not think that investment in alternatives would be a good idea? Negative incentives very rarely work. Positive incentives do, yet there are no positive incentives - to think that the 'powers that be' are actually doing something about GW is foolhardy and gullible.

 

One such report is TRL323. This is not a GW related (not directly at least) report, yet the net result allows for higher fuel taxes etc... and as such would be touted as an anti GW measure.

 

There are many others, but the fact that you ask me for them, shows that your research is at the very least, shallow. The information is out there for all to read and make their own mind up. What annoys me the most is that people choose to believe every word they are told and then after being brainwashed for so long, actually come to believe it theirselves and actually argue on the same side without seeing a shred of evidence.

 

Your reply still implies that scientists actually agree with the sh*te that governments are spouting regarding this issue. Please, do a little research. There would be little point in me pointing you at the sources as you would just claim that it's my 'interpretation'. Find it, read it and you will make your own mind up.

 

Next thing is, you'll be telling me that a bank told you that to charge you a penalty was fair and just and perfectly legal. You challenged that view once, I'm sure you are capable of making your own mind up without listening to yet more propaganda.

[huggles]

mate, you live in conspiracy world. cynicism is one thing, the x-files is another!

 

I am fully aware of the positions thank you. Europe advocates large and binding emissions cuts now, the US approach is more one of adaptation - i.e. no emissions targets, just to let it happen and the technology will adapt. they are actually quite different and rather different policy responses spring from these positions. The US's seem to me to be more industrial subsidy than anything else! perhaps you should read more about that?

 

and you can't tell me what any of these reports are? how convenient!

[huggles]

Next thing is, you'll be telling me that a bank told you that to charge you a penalty was fair and just and perfectly legal. You challenged that view once, I'm sure you are capable of making your own mind up without listening to yet more propaganda.

 

err. yeah, that's exactly what I'm getting at? erm. ok.

 

edit: I would like to make on thing clear though, as I am not sure I want to post in this thread any more...I see no debate or proof! I very strongly agree that some environmentalists and campaigners and the media and politicians can overstate the case. this is wrong but it is a fact. they think it makes their case appear stronger. however, other sources, understate the case. both sides muddy the waters if taken out of context, that's why I look it out for myself.

[dave]

That's fine with me. You ask for a report name, I give one. You don't even read it and accuse me of not telling you what reports there are. Odd.

 

I saw no proof or debate the other way. That's why I researched it myself. So many people assume that others should do this for them.

 

No offence to you, but it was the same thing with the banks. How many times did I hear the phrase "you're wasting your time" or "you can't take a bank on" etc..., simply because the banks said those exact things?

 

With all due respect, stop being so blinkered and do your own research for a change. Or don't; and just keep believing everything you are told. It's naivety in the extreme to be lazy and to just believe what you are told, simply because someone told you that a 'qualified person' says so.

 

Wake up. Please.

 

FYI, the www is not really the place for serious research for ANYTHING, let alone this issue.

[huggles]

TRL323? That report has nothing to do with climate change, you said so yourself. I did not read it because it's about an irrelevant subject that I am not interested in.

What I asked for was the name of the specific report which you referred to which refuted climate change as I would like to have a look at it. You also said there are many more that you know of but you chose not to tell me what those were called either. I have a cynical mind and I am trying to make sure my research is up to date (and if we're offering friendly advice to one another then you might like to make sure your research is relevant).

 

To come back to your comparison, when I came to this site for consumer advice I was helpfully provided with examples, verifiable laws and cases (i.e. evidence) which I used to make my claim. If I had come here and been provided with irrelevant information and bluster and insulted then I would have walked away. I am still puzzled as to why you think it is a reasonable comparison.

 

I am a cynic. I have firsthand experience of media fabrication and do not take the mainstream media at its word (nor posters on internet forums). I know that the media either under or oversells what's happening because stories and sensation sell copy. However, as much as it is overblown or underblown by many parties, as far as I can tell the balance of evidence indicates to me that in all likelihood human activity is contributing to climate change. If you can point me in the direction of something relevant that might change my mind then I would be thrilled. I'm getting tired of having my intelligence insulted by you with meaningless comparisons and tangents, if you can't post anything meaningful then I'm walking away, if you can then perhaps we can actually debate.

[dave]

I think if you had read TRL323 (I actually said it was not directly related) you may be able to read between the lines, but if you only want to read spoon fed rubbish, then that's fine. You will form the same opinion as everyone else that is spoon fed the same things.

 

Subtlety is a tool of government. To ignore subtleties is a foolish thing to do in my opinion.

 

Be careful you don't fall off of the edge of the world eh? Just imagine what could happen if the sun stops revolving around the Earth. ;-)