The mammoth global warming scam

field

From the BBC webstie (hardly a centre of climate scepticism):"The UK's summer floods of 2007 were a freak event unrelated to global climate change, according to a report from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH)." That wasn't the message we have been receiving previously.

EyeSee

field - I think you are supposed to read it in a way that suggets the bit after would read; 'as if they'd know'.

Dr Coles

Over 400 World Wide Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007. See http://tinyurl.com/2dv6nz

Thinkster

It doesn't matter. Getting rid of pollution, plastic bags and other dirty human biproducts will create new industries.

Commondog

I'm converted.
Prior to reading what this column has provided, I suppose I was typical in that I just took it as read that we are in deep trouble with this GW situation, and that my every breath brings the planet further to its knees.
Now, well, it seems there is so much written to counter this, by so many respectable scientists, that has been kept under wraps by the mainstream (ie left-leaning, anti-West) media; a decided aroma of rat has wafted across this particular nose.
So, again, I'm converted.
But where I am now is this: who and what stands to gain from this constant ramming of the GW message into the minds of we, the lay public? What has motivated so many people of such standing, to foist upon us such terminal despondency? Has it been designed to hamstring the developed countries? Or, could it be put down simply to a random accrual of so much negativity in the minds of those who occupy the senior positions in academia - those who have come to realise the rank idleness of the whole sixties libertarian project which held for them, in their youth, so much hope?
Maybe I stray close to the wacky line here, but I'm confused and I'm looking all directions to get new bearings on this.

Brian Williamson

Power. Money. Greed. Status. Tick whichever. Or all. Oh, I almost forgot, deception. Try reading The Politically Incorrect Guide To Global Warming with an open mind and see how ideas and hypothesis mutate into fact. Why this is nothing new apart from the vast amounts of money washing around and that only mere years ago Global Cooling was the bogeymen. Or that since the Russians closed their Polar Weather Stations the information is patchy and missing large swathes of the Globe. Or that the dissapearing snow on Kilimanjaro has nothing to do with Global warming. Or that Polar Bears whilst decreasing in certain areas are, doh, increasing in others. This is politics rather than science and we all know what happens when they get involved!

field

There's no reason why polar bears shouldn't do well out of global warming in any case. As I said on the other thread it's just a good principle of action for us not to pollute the planet. The sooner we move to green fuels the better. But whether carbon caused global warming is just not proven. Variations in solar insolation have a far greater effect on the planet's temperature.

Jeremy Jacobs

Well done Melanie. I think our friend in the States Alan Caruba went to the Conference you referred to.

Lee Jakeman

The problem with the whole "Global Warming" thing is that most of us, being reasonable people, can see the sense of NOT polluting the air, the sea, rivers or anything else. The environment SHOULD be respected and protected. We SHOULDN'T be treating it with contempt. Few of us would disagree. It's the fact that Global Warming has become a kind of religious orthodoxy, with bigoted adherents pontificating to the rest of us as if we were all complete morons. So we now have a NEW threat to the environment - the hot air and pollution of the Global Warmers.

Stephen Green

Like so much else science has been perverted by money. the search for grant funding means that those scientists that promote sensational matters get the money and those that pursue the classical lines of research are ignored. Much so called research is not based on true science but relies on subjective interpretations of unreliable statistics. It is easy to sex up such research and most of it can be done by computors at the expense of hard graft analysis. A new equation upon which to ponder:- 1 Max Clifford = 10 Faradays

Tom Blanton

Cracks in the wall: I was surprised when I got my March issue of Physics Today (published by the American Institute of Physics) and read “Is Climate Sensitive to Solar Variability?” by Scafetta and West. Among their conclusions: “The non-equilibrium thermodynamic models we used suggest that the Sun is influencing climate significantly more than the IPCC report claims. If climate is as sensitive to solar changes as the above phenomenological findings suggest, the current anthropogenic contribution to global warming is significantly over-estimated.” I’ve witnessed the prejudice against anything that questions MMGW in my work as a scientist, but I’m starting to see some cracks in the wall and a little light shining through. Maybe there’s hope. To Commondog’s question : “who and what stands to gain ….?” The UN would be the main beneficiary. They want a tax base. They’re the main ones pushing MMGW with their IPCC reports. Look for them to propose an international carbon tax as the only solution to “crisis.” Of course there are others, like Al Gore with his carbon-credit hedge funds and anyone who hates the West, but I think the UN is the big one.

David Morgan

There is certainly overmuch being attributed to CO2 and man's impact as it makes a good story line. However, while it can NEVER be absolutely proved that we are causing it (do we have a parallel world or expect to produce a formula) it seems very likely indeed to the serious scientists and we need to take action which will cost us VERY LITTLE and help the poorest in the world even it only slows sea rise by a modest amount. As far as bias in the press, of course it has always been true - have we already forgotten 1970-2000 when those who warned were rubbished and not printed or funded for reasearch. Let us have 30 years of opposite bias and it will be more or less equsl. There is no doubt that the business world does not want this action on climate change (viz the foorts of the oil companies to rubbish it) and I am disappointed that the Spectator gives space to this attempt to support them. Perhaps its right-wing inclinations are showing!!

Stephen Fox

Interesting comments, of course carbon dioxide is absolutely NOT a pollutant. Without it nothing would grow at all, and as far as I can make out, increasing its presence will speed up plant growth. David Archibald at http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf gives a fine eulogy to the stuff. Commondog, the warmists remind me most of those people who went about whipping themselves and exhorting people to fear the wrath of the Lord, repent or be damned etc. Why they should want to do that is another matter. Stopping the West in its tracks is certainly part of it, especially for the post-communist, anti-globalisation crowd, but under the egalitarianism there is a scarier note, something approaching despair. Note, when you hear actual solutions proposed, the true believers DO NOT WANT any. They want us to be forced back to a primitive, simple life.

JMS

Please show me real field data thats crossed referenced against real field data...Not just surface temp from stations that have been over run with urban sprawl and recorded by students more interested in the pub than droping a decimal point. What results have the balloon and Satellite temp stations recorded? No global warming, in fact slight cooling. This cross referenced real field data is the truth...but the truth isnt gonna stop the war on terror or kick GW Bush out of office. :(

Andrew Cochrane

This article merely hints at the sinister motives behind pushing the MMGW propaganda. When you consider that there is actually NO consensus on climate change (proven by numerous anonymously competed surveys completed by thousands of scientists), state governments continue to preach that the science is 'settled'.
This is more than simply a means to control and tax individuals. This is about controlling entire *states* through the might of our somehow accepted one-world government, the sainted UN. What better way than to create a crisis that demands rationing the world's oil?
Please people, don't just accept what politicians tell you, QUESTION everything, look deeper, demand real evidence, and look around you. The world has just had the coldest winters (north and south) in 3 decades! Could be a blip, but you can bet if this were the 70s they'd be citing this as evidence for global cooling.
We warmed by about 0.5C in the 20th century. So did Mars. Case closed.

walt Newman

I guess the question I would love to have answered...but is NEVER addressed..."What caused the earth to warm up LAST TIME after the Ice Age? It certainly wasn't an SUV or a hair spray can.

Peter

Climate scientists are giving their students his paper to critique as an undergraduate exercise. And other scientists are writing to the Manhattan Declaration organizers saying that their work is being misquoted and misused and asking their names to be removed.

Darell Morrison

Not so strange is the politicized global warming pseudoscience similarities to the same politicized "fear" tactics of Eugenics which occurred earlier this century?
Take a look at legislation efforts now and compare to what history now shows to be a shame period. Nicely explained in this article http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html

Micheal Crichton's "State of Fear" a fiction story of some skeptical global warming folks is not only a good read but has a wealth of real references.

Steven

Global warming is a socalist plot to ruin our economy thus to make government bigger.

Jerome Horste

Absolutely outstanding article!

Please do write more as we are in desperate need to balance the debate and as you know the polemic is not in favour of the facts and the mass media as always censor by omission.

I really do hope that people are learning to discriminate for themselves and realise this scam for what it is.

Only the other day I read an offensive remark by a fanatical warmist, that "deniers" (I assume he meant rational people) "should be all shot for stupidity because the debate is over".

I occasionally come across people like this and it reminds me of stories my grandmother used to tell me of her youth in Germany, before the war.

This colossal fraud has obviously gotten out of hand and reversing it needs to be sudden like removing an overdue plaster from a wound or it will have to be peeled back very slowly.

We now live in fear, not from terrorism, but from our government and with the increasing number of road and street cameras the stealth introduction of ID cards via the passport office - and the national ID database (which will become international) that will be hackable will ensure that we continue to comply.

The only good citizen is a heavily taxed citizen

Peter

AGW biased science asserts that CO2 is a positive feedback mechanism ie: that climate is going to spiral out of control and continue to climb.
1. It hasn't
2. If CO2 were a +ve feedback mechanism - how would the planet ever have cooled when volcanoes were the norm or at any other time in our geological history where proxy data shows that CO2 was at much much higher level than today.
Just a thought !
Just another IPCC inconsistency!