Global warming: the truth

Geoff Miller

Climate Change is not science - it's a cult and pyramid scam.

"THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH" - before the Internet they would have been parading up Oxford St. with sandwich boards.

Look.

Pollution is bad - stop it.
Fossil fuels are bad. Stop using them.

But....

So too is heavy industrialisation, massive population growth, mass migration, consumerism, global markets (fuel miles AND the destruction of indiginous industries).

But these are not discussed.

Why?

Because the finger then points at globalism, Multinationals, liberalism, Third World blackmail and....perhaps.....One World Government.

StephenW

Dear Mr Nelson

Please see this report:

Lord Monckton’s summary of Climategate and its issues

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/lord-moncktons-summary-of-climategate-and-its-issues/#more-13529

Frank P

Perhaps it would be a good idea while you're at it, Fraser, to listen to the presentation by Lord Monckton:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/18/video-of-moncktons-speech-on-obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-in-copenhagen/

Sean

I'm surprised you think global warming is a problem other than in an ideological sense, that is in terms of defending the idea of truth against the corruption of state sponsored science, and as a pretext for the micro management of every sphere of social life by the state.

For a view on the science *and* the politics this is worth a look from one of the most eminent climate scientists in the world, Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He also shows how the conservative reformers, the US equivalents of Dave, embraced global warming as a marketing tool to display their liberal credentials.

Here's a snippet (link below):

“Why do we need to deconstruct global warming? Simply because it has been an issue that has been routinely treated with misinformation and sophistry abetted by constant repetition, institutional endorsements, and widespread ignorance even (perhaps especially) among the educated. Because of the increasingly dangerous and expensive approaches being promoted to deal with this alleged problem, it is, I think, important to understand what is being said as well as to understand how climate actually works. I will begin with a few items that illustrate how this issue has been manipulated, and how, to a great extent, global warming has been merely a device for implementing broader agendas. I will then continue with an emphasis on the science.

http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf

logdon

"They have hardly disproven global warming, but have exposed the way some scientists and academics see themselves on a crusade against the wicked deniers."

So you believe that science can be manipulated for ideological reasons?

That's the thrust of the emails.

And here was me thinking the days of establishment pressure ended with Galileo.

Ian C

Fraser

"But this leaves plenty of room for robust debate." Touching.

Did you not know? "The debate is over." The time has come to make money out of global warming - whether you're a former vice-president of the USA with Wall Street directorships and investments or whether you are an impoverished scientist who has a reputation to build. Or if you are a university who needs to attract big research grants.

And if that's not what turns you on, it's time to tell others to "Do as I say and trust me, I am a climatologist -who has been peer reviewed!"

So what's the point of a debate? Remind me.

Cogito Ergosum

In all the Internet feedback on AGW, there is one consistent message. Everybody with a knowledge of geology - the history of our planet - is arguing that climate change is natural and has been since the Cambrian era (550 million years ago) and probably for most of the history of the earth (up to 4500 million years).

Given this natural history of climate change, where is the proof that human activity is significant? Nowhere, I contend.

It is time to argue the scientific case that humanity is not guilty, and to put one one side the ever-shifting weaselly arguments of the dismal "science", which persuade nobody.

Unfortunately there are far too few scientifically qualified people in government or parliament. The Treasury long ago scuppered the Scientific Civil Service, by privatisation or restructuring as agencies. The Treasury, like the political parties, distrusts anyone whose affiliation is to science rather than to official policy.

Stuart Seacole Smith

Caught the Today show climate change debate this morning with Philip Stott and Jonathan Porrit - special subject: leaked e-mails. An unusually measured discussion for the BBC. The interviewers even seem to have dialed down a click or two on their habitual sneering tone aimed at implying that AGW and the need for drastic counter-measures is an incontrovertible fact for any right-thinking person.

Also interesting, and quite impressive in its own way to hear Porrit squirming his way out of what is, by anybody's reckoning a pretty sticky wicket.

Amazingly, Porrit tried to paint Saudi Arabia as the voice of climate change skeptics. Almost got away with it too. But not quite.

In any case, at last a bit of healthy discussion, not peppered with the usual debate-killing "denier" nonsense, and an important part of getting the arguments out there in the public domain which genuinely reflect the uncertainty of the science (and the human frailties of those behind it), and the need to be very circumspect before any astronomically expensive hair-shirt supposed "solutions" are enacted. Common sense may even yet prevail.

Tom Forrester-Paton

Fraser, your wish to be a voice of calm reflection does you credit, but "even paranoiacs have enemies". Whatever may be yet to emerge from the code analysis, enough unrepudiated and acknowledged evidence arises from the emails to call into question not “what should actually be done”, but whether anything at all more should be done than we should do about the problem, say, of hip dysplasia in overbred Labradors.

John Bowman

It is actually very easy to simplify the debate by de-conflating cause and effect.

Effect: variation over time of the mean global temperatures. Evidence exists from observation. ACCEPTED.

Cause: a single element - CO2, but only that from fossil fuels - exclusively causes temperature variation overwhelming every other of many complex, factors which influence temperature variation. Evidence lacking. CASE/CAUSE NOT PROVEN.

Stuart Seacole Smith

On reflection, I can see why Porrit can afford to be sanguine. With the odious Miliband preaching his climate saboteurs/ AGW-religion line with more fervour and faux-firebrand passion than even Greenpeace would feel comfortable with, who can blame him for sitting back on his laurels a bit?Miliband is such a muppet.

Colin

The emails are one thing. All they do is provide an insight into the thinking and integrity of the people who wrote and sent them.

The really interesting stuff is in the source code and associated coders comments. Emails can indeed be taken out of context. It's much more difficult to do this with source code. That's why none of the defenders of the GRU want to talk about that. It's perhaps also the reason why a number of apparently eminent climate scientists are rushing to distance themselves from the GRU, its key staff and its work.

Given the importance of all this, a public enquiry is needed, with evidence taken under oath and FULL disclosure of all the data.

I listened to John Sergeant on any questions tonight. He is spot on, in my view, when he describes the apparent deletion of the raw data as an outrage and this whole saga as the biggest scandal, ever in UK public life.

It's clear now that the tactics of the vested interests in the political and academic classes are to shut down the debate, ride out the storm and then carry on as normal.

Frank Leader

20 years ago we were facing an Ice Age. If that was wrong. How can we be sure they have got it right this time. Stealth taxes come to mind.

mal tucker

To quote Armando Iannucci on Andrew Marr's programme just now, if someone 'fiddled the science' on whether the earth was round, would you believe it was flat?? Go back to the student Monday Club!

Snowman

Fraser, when you have a minute have a peep at this, please and then we talk:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html