The Great Global Warming Swindle

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

Should we reduce coal/oil burning?. Yes. Why ? Because its a finite resource. and it can pollute our atmosphere to an extent that affects our health.

So there are good reasons on both sides of the argument for the same change in behaviour - just different reasons.

What is this discussion really about, then? Which scientists should get funding/promotion/professorships?

FFS !

quote:

What is this discussion really about, then? Which scientists should get funding/promotion/professorships?

As I said before, its about politics (vote for me - and pay me well) and business.

There are already 100s of thousands of people in every walk of life, living of the "environmental/global warming" bandwaggon.

For the last 2 years its been "global warming". The previous 5 years was "managed forests". Before that it was "the safety card" and before that it was "quality assurance".

Cheers

Don

Don

This is still not an argument against change, though, is it?

We are supposed to value the fact that our capitalist democracy produces some coincidence between the self-interest of politicians/businesspeople and the needs of the electorate/market. Merely to point out that there are vested interests on all sides does not remove the necessity for change.

Deane

"Don

This is still not an argument against change, though, is it?"

On the previous page I said....

quote:

There are too many people in the world, using too many finite resources. These are the issues that we need to tackle.

Although the solutions appear to be the same, the devil is usually in the detail. So its worth sorting out WHY we need to make changes.

Cheers

Don

That's like saying we should be picking shuffleboard teams fairly - while the Titanic heads straight for the iceberg.

quote:

That's like saying we should be picking shuffleboard teams fairly - while the Titanic heads straight for the iceberg.

Not true Deane. Only if you believe that man can influence the changes in climate can you go for that.

I don't think for one second that the paltry amount of CO2 (against that which occurs naturally) that man provides is going to make the difference.

What I do see is a lot of government funded scientists helping their employers encourage people to sleepwalk toward higher taxation.

The addition of which, will do absolutely nothing for the environment, and everything for said governments.

I bet politicians can't believe their luck - the usual reaction to excessive taxation being mitigated to the point where normally sane people are inclined to just open their wallets at the mere mention of the word "carbon".

Utterly amazing that these frauds can get away with it.

Kind regards,

Steve

Deane,

I think Steve has captured it quite nicely.

I would add a few businesses to the list of people who can't believe their luck. But the concept is the same.

It's one big con.

And the argument that you proposed along the lines of "either way, the solution's the same" isn't true.

In this world of limited resources, we have to negotiate/fight to get our fair share (or more than our fair share) of finite resources. Its no good foregoing our share, if somebody else is going to take advantage and use it for their benefit over ours.

Cheers

Don

Don and Steve

I agree that taxation is a very blunt tool. But then, I believe it has worked, along with education and other regulation (minimum age etc), to reduce the number of cigarette smokers.

I think that we are talking from different premises, as it were. If you'll permit me temerity to summarise it thus:

I believe government should lead and promote necessary social change (our use of resources is a socialised phenomenon with environmental consequences). I believe this is inherent in the democratic mandate because all exercise of power by a democratically elected executive is founded upon the concept of honour and moral rectitude.

You believe that government should lag behind the mores of the electorate and that this is more reflective of a democratic process.

quote:

You believe that government should lag behind the mores of the electorate and that this is more reflective of a democratic process.

No, I don't think that.

What I do think is that our planet has been both unbearably hot, and unbearably cold to our certain knowledge in it's enormous history without any suggestion that any of the creatures that inhabit it were somehow responsible.

I believe that it will be again, in the fullness of time.

Taxation is, however, even more inevitable. If you can con people into paying more on the totally baseless assertion that by doing so you are "helping the environment" - what a result.

If you can also throw in the politics of envy, so much the better. By which of course I mean it's no good going after the rainbow wig wearers for tax is it? They are usually potless, as it would probably offend their environmental sensibilities to earn money - it might, after all, require burning fuel to get to work.

Kind regards,

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by Steve S1:

If you can also throw in the politics of envy, so much the better. By which of course I mean it's no good going after the rainbow wig wearers for tax is it? They are usually potless, as it would probably offend their environmental sensibilities to earn money - it might, after all, require burning fuel to get to work.

I thought you were promoting a reasoned approach to this problem? It does your argument no favours to post such clear evidence of prejudice.

quote:

I thought you were promoting a reasoned approach to this problem? It does your argument no favours to post such clear evidence of prejudice.

How patronising. So you don't notice how much easier it is for those who pay little tax to campaign for others to pay more, then? Yeah right.

And you talk of reasoned approach? On your terms it seems.

Kind regards,

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by Steve S1:

How patronising.

My point is well illustrated it seems. You detect the tone I have used but fail to see the obvious tone in your own post? So you don't like environmentalists? Fine. It doesn't mean their arguments lose any validity.

quote:

My point is well illustrated it seems.

Not at all.

It's true that I don't agree with those who advocate sacrifices for others, that they themselves are in no danger of having to make.

I am also not in accord with those who would seek to dictate how others should lead their lives (within the law, of course).

Not all environmentalists fall into this category. There is, however, a significantly vocal proportion that do.

Kind regards,

Steve

Steve

I do regret the tone I took in my reactive post. It was very patronising and I apologise.

Deane

Deane,

No need to apologise, but that's good of you. I enjoy a debate, but with text there is none of the nuance of conversation and it's easy to react.

All the best to you.

Steve

"Global Warming Industry"? As opposed to the Pollution Industry? An insignificant speck.

But consider this: never mind what is causing or not causing global warming/climate change ... can anyone possibly claim that the humongous amounts of toxins and pollutants spewed into the atmosphere and the water by human activity -- from cars/trucks/planes, manufacturing, chemical plants, nuclear waste, corporate agriculture, and so many other sources -- is a good thing? Good to breathe (epidemic childhood asthma)? Good to drink? Good for our food chain (everyone living in an industrialized society has mercury and other poisons in their body)?

Can anyone say that all this shit we've been pouring into the ecosystem since the dawn of the industrial age is good for any living thing? Regardless of whether this affects climate change or not, can we all agree that we must do much more to control these rampant poisons, especially as huge populations like China become "modernized" and exponentially exacerbate the problem?

Shouldn't we pour resources into finding cleaner renewable energy? And not just for the sake of health, but so that we can reverse the egregiously insane global politics driven by the insatiable demand for oil? Robert Kennedy Jr. cites a statistic that if all American cars got 40mpg, that alone would eliminate the need for foreign oil. Wouldn't that be a good thing?

Finally, in regards to the "Global Warming Industry," hey, if people can make money developing clean, renewable energy, reducing pollution, making the ecosystem healthier, making the world safer ... what the hell is wrong with that?

All best,
Fred

Hang on. This is not about pollution. Im fairly confidant every single person here is keen to see pollution reduced.

The issue is CO2 emissions and whether the levels created by us do contribute to Global warming or whether it's one great big political lie based on bad science such that our leaders and others with vested interests get to preach, tax and manipulate us as they see fit, all in the name of the greater good. Bit like some other global organisations really.

You can't separate the issue of CO2 emissions from the issue of pollution. In fact, you can't separate CO2 emissions from pollution itself ... deal with pollution and developing clean, renewable energy and CO2 emissions will drop. I guess then we'll see if they contribute to global warming.

As far as everyone here being keen to reduce pollution, perhaps, but the major polluters on this earth fight such reductions, as well as fighting the transition away from oil-based energy and toward clean, renewable energy, every step of the way, tooth and nail. The foxes are guarding the hen house.

All best,
Fred

For those who need further convincing, more empirical evidence:

Scientists Detail Climate Changes, Poles to Tropics

By James Kanter and Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times

Saturday 07 April 2007

Brussels - From the poles to the tropics, the earth's climate and ecosystems are already being shaped by the atmospheric buildup of greenhouse gases and face inevitable, possibly profound, alteration, the world's leading scientific panel on climate change said Friday.

In its most detailed portrait of the effects of climate change driven by human activities, the panel predicted widening droughts in southern Europe and the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, the American Southwest and Mexico, and flooding that could imperil low-lying islands and the crowded river deltas of southern Asia. It stressed that many of the regions facing the greatest risks were among the world's poorest.

You can read the whole thing here:

tinyurl.com/ypekyn

Or we could just keep our heads buried in the sand.

All best,
Fred

This is an amazing thread.

One channel 4 documentary and global warming is a con job. That hundreds if not thousands of scientists are ignoring the evidence in the documentary becuase they prefer working in the "global warming industry".


Two roads diverged in narrow wood,
999 scientists said the road to the left was the safest in their opinion
1 recommended the road to the right.

smart old me took the road less travelled on as I had seen a channel 4 documentary once.



SJB

Two roads diverged in narrow hi-fi shop,
999 scientists said the road to the left was the road to perfect sound forever. Couldn't be any other way as they had measured it.

1 recommended the road to the right.

smart old me took the road less travelled as I had heard decent analogue playback system.


Sorry SJB, I'm not swayed by 9 out of 10 cats arguments.

I have severe doubts about the hypothesis adopted by the IPCC that assumes that the effect of CO2 is amplified by behaviour of the atmosphere. Prior to the C4 documentary a couple of academics working in related fields had expressed their private concerns to me. The C4 documentary presented these opinions to a wider audiance.

Regards,

Willy.



Regards,

Willy.

It's not quite 9 out of 10 cats prefer whiskas.

We have 2 scientific hypotheses,

one supported by the vast majority of scientists, the other not. Theories have to be challenged and indeed sometimes the 1% are correct.

However I have the confidence in the other 99%, that if the solar theory is correct more and more of them will embrace it. I don't go along with the conspiracy theory that they wouldn't.

The idea that fossil fuels have nothing to do with global warming would be Valhalla for the oil industry, an industry with enormously more resources than all the scientific global warming community could muster up if it were mustering from the big bang to present.



SJB

quote:

Originally posted by Sloop John B:

Theories have to be challenged and indeed sometimes the 1% are correct.

The point of the report this past week is that they're no longer talking about untested theory ... what might or might not happen. They've presented incontrovertible empirical evidence that it is already happening, that human activity does contribute, and, unfortunately, that it's affecting the poorest populations first. I wonder how quickly attitudes will change when it's lapping at the doorsteps of the well-off.

All best,
Fred

Incontrovertible empirical evidence...

Is that where Martin Perry Said he no longer puts his lawnmower away for the winter as the grass grows all year round? What kind of a hysteria will this man get into when we start growing grapes in the north, like during the Medieval Climate Optimum?

Ok a bit of a cheap shot there but when this is the sort of shit they come out with how can I not doubt their credibility? I will in the fullness of time get around to studying the IPCC report and then take a view as to wether it stands up or not. In the meantime, based on their presentation of the case for man-made global warming to date, I wouldn't buy a used hi-cap off them.

Regards,

Willy.

quote:

This is an amazing thread.

One channel 4 documentary and global warming is a con job.

Well...........not exactly.

Some of us had posted a couple of years back that the burning of fosil-fuels during the Industrial Revolution and up to the present day, represented an insignificant "blip" in the historic record of Climate-Change.

Man's influence on Global warming has been noticable for the past 10,000 years ie since the beginning of farming. The industrial revolution is also noticable.

However, the important points are

both these effects (despite being noticable) are insignificant compared to natural changes
natural changes will dominate our future
even if we stopped producing ANY CO2 from now onwards, it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the natural outcome.

The other thing to recognise, is that the emergence of mankind and the development of mankind has been asociated with periods of global warming. In other words, we wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for past periods of global warming.

Tony B Liar has a vested interest in global warming. Come the end of May this year and he is out of a job. With his back-bench salary he is going to need a few after-dinner speeches and a few lecture tours to keep up with the missus. He has two possible "Headline" subjects:-

How to win a war in Iraq
Global warming

Both would be crowd-pullers.

No guesses as to which one is survivable.

Cheers

Don