Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Global Warming


_w_

Recommended Posts

I've just come across this and to me at least, it seems flawless. Must watch.

Apologies if it has already been posted, this is from 2009.

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=27951

An interesting aside is those people at the UN he calls communists and how he touches on their actions. I didn't know anything about the promoted Copenhagen treaty but the approach is very similar to other UN initiatives that aim to strip nations of their sovereignty with no possible remedy should one change its mind. This should be of interest to those who think the globalisation treaties can be reversed, they cannot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 405
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Some quotes printed on the same page that bring some light to the real issues.

It's worth noting, these people he calls communists are the people who also gave us WTO/GATT and Agenda 21. There is a pattern here. Hasn't NOAA's budget just been obliterated?

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen." - Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

"We require a central organizing principle - one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public�s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary." - Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation." - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control." - Professor Maurice King

"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable." - Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

"Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it." - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

"The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet." - Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

"The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil." � Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it�s full complement of species, returning throughout the world." -Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." - Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

"... the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion." - Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

"I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems." - John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

"The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing." - Christopher Manes, Earth First!

"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." - David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the meantime the propaganda continues unabated. On Channel 4 last night:

02:25 THE YEAR THE EARTH WENT WILD 55 MINS

2011 has seen an onslaught of epic-scale climate and geological events across the world. This film looks back on a year of natural disasters, all caught on camera in spectacular fashion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In his novel 1984, Orwell, makes the point that ever since the arrival of the machine it was obvious to any thinking person that we would sooner or later live a world of surplus. In that world of surplus difference between rich and poor fades away.

My own example is America in the 1990's, a 'poor' person had their own 3 bed 2 bath house, 1 car, appliances, etc.. A rich person had 6 cars, and a mansion. But the utilitarian difference was tiny.

In 1984 Orwell says the party deals with this surplus by spending it all on the never ending wars, leaving shortages at home. Funny thing is in the real world nuclear weapons are so cheap and destructive even that won't really work.

So enter a mountain of legislation which legally restricts our own production. 'Cap and trade' for example. With the goal of reducing our production by 80% by 2050.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just come across this and to me at least, it seems flawless. Must watch.

Apologies if it has already been posted, this is from 2009.

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=27951

An interesting aside is those people at the UN he calls communists and how he touches on their actions. I didn't know anything about the promoted Copenhagen treaty but the approach is very similar to other UN initiatives that aim to strip nations of their sovereignty with no possible remedy should one change its mind. This should be of interest to those who think the globalisation treaties can be reversed, they cannot.

Yawn

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/monckton-makes-it-up/

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/moncktons_testimony_to_congres.php

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

plenty more here too

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?s=moncton&submit=Search&qt=&q=moncton+site%3Awww.realclimate.org&cx=009744842749537478185%3Ahwbuiarvsbo&client=google-coop-np&cof=GALT%3A808080%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A34374A%3BVLC%3AAA8610%3BAH%3Aleft%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BALC%3A66AA55%3BLC%3A66AA55%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A66A\%0D%0AA55%3BGIMP%3A66AA55%3BFORID%3A11%3B&searchdatabase=site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In his novel 1984, Orwell, makes the point that ever since the arrival of the machine it was obvious to any thinking person that we would sooner or later live a world of surplus. In that world of surplus difference between rich and poor fades away.

My own example is America in the 1990's, a 'poor' person had their own 3 bed 2 bath house, 1 car, appliances, etc.. A rich person had 6 cars, and a mansion. But the utilitarian difference was tiny.

In 1984 Orwell says the party deals with this surplus by spending it all on the never ending wars, leaving shortages at home. Funny thing is in the real world nuclear weapons are so cheap and destructive even that won't really work.

So enter a mountain of legislation which legally restricts our own production. 'Cap and trade' for example. With the goal of reducing our production by 80% by 2050.

We don't need artificial ways to reduce surplus - it's a temporary phenomenon. As the quote above says:

"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable."

It's also worth noting that we don't have a GLOBAL surplus. Whilst Americans are worried about whether they can afford that 2nd/3rd/4th car, millions of people worldwide are starving to death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In his novel 1984, Orwell, makes the point that ever since the arrival of the machine it was obvious to any thinking person that we would sooner or later live a world of surplus. In that world of surplus difference between rich and poor fades away.

Ever been to Africa, Southeast Asia or even upper Manhattan after dark?

The difference between rich and poor is starker than ever, if you look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just come across this and to me at least, it seems flawless. Must watch.

Apologies if it has already been posted, this is from 2009.

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=27951

An interesting aside is those people at the UN he calls communists and how he touches on their actions. I didn't know anything about the promoted Copenhagen treaty but the approach is very similar to other UN initiatives that aim to strip nations of their sovereignty with no possible remedy should one change its mind. This should be of interest to those who think the globalisation treaties can be reversed, they cannot.

Monckton - how did I guess! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Monckton - how did I guess! :lol:

So its really down to faith. The doom sayers believe the theories of "scientists" based on various fossilised tree trunks, and the sceptics will disbelieve until they are shown real concrete evidence.

If the doom sayers are wrong they will wreck our economies and throw civilisation into a new dark age for nothing.

If the rationalists are wrong we will keep eating and our ancestors will know who was right in 20,000 years.

There is not enough evidence to prove either side of the argument so you may as well believe what suits you and if you get an opportunity to make a quid out of it like Lord Monckton or Al Gore go for it. Both opportunists who spotted an opportunity to make a few bucks for themselves.

In about 20,000 years we will know who was right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife spends her working days pippeting various colourless solutions from containers into dishes and then looking at them through powerful microscopes.

For all I know she just does this for fun and the peer reviewed papers she writes are just a big scam to fleece the tax payer of more money.

Likewise for all I know the people at CERN use the large hadron collider for skateboard races and just publish the odd thing about "faster than light speed particles" for a laugh knowing that nobody can prove them wrong as they won't have the equipment or brains to do so.

But given 97%+ of the people with the equipment and brains to study climate change beleive it is happening and it can be proven scientifically I will chose to side with them.

I find it funny that there are so many people willing to think that the people more likely to fake results and deliberately misinform people are scientists on £30k a year who get paid either way rather than oil companies and big industry who have billions at stake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it funny that there are so many people willing to think that the people more likely to fake results and deliberately misinform people are scientists on £30k a year who get paid either way rather than oil companies and big industry who have billions at stake.

I thought that all climate scientists were in danger of being buried alive under the wheelbarrows full of taxpayer cash being delivered to them on a daily basis. Is this not true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the links. The reactions are weak though, focused on 'he said we said' and ad hominems than anything. Very weak.

On the points that matter, the points that show the IPCC's science is weak to inexistant they don't seem to respond. I guess they can't because the data is not there to support a global warming theory.

These critics just serve to confirm the strength of his scientific arguments IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is not enough evidence to prove either side of the argument

That is I think the conclusion one needs to come out with: there is no case and so it can't be proved or disproved.

The policy initiatives should be stopped now, not that I think they will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it funny that there are so many people willing to think that the people more likely to fake results and deliberately misinform people are scientists on £30k a year who get paid either way rather than oil companies and big industry who have billions at stake.

Similar UN driven experts told us globalisation would make us all richer. :)

And Agenda 21 would make us enjoy the countryside more.

And Codex Alimentarius would make us eat better as we would do away with all those dangerous natural products.

Only a handful of scientists are of the vocational type. The majority, specifically the big article producers, are like the rest of us: career driven and happy to make the necessary compromises to reach their career objectives. Not that the IPCC represents anything close to the majority view anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Similar UN driven experts told us globalisation would make us all richer. :)

And Agenda 21 would make us enjoy the countryside more.

And Codex Alimentarius would make us eat better as we would do away with all those dangerous natural products.

Only a handful of scientists are of the vocational type. The majority, specifically the big article producers, are like the rest of us: career driven and happy to make the necessary compromises to reach their career objectives. Not that the IPCC represents anything close to the majority view anyway.

Monckton isn't a scientist. He has a BA in Classics and Diploma in Journalism yet your OP primarily relies on his assertions about climate change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course. Because if enough people call you a babbling idiot, it must mean that you are a genius.

I have enough of a scientific background to know he is not an idiot, his critics sound more idiotic by not tackling the data in any meaningful way. Questions as to whether he sits at the house of lords or not are rather pathetic.

It's not just him though. Over the past year or so I've come across a number of people highlinting weaknesses (not to mention data distortions and astonishing levels of 'peer pressure') in the IPCC arguments. What he does is put them all together to produce a clincher.

There is no case for global warming. Changes in hundredths of percentage points in atmospheric CO2 levels are not questionned; their impact on temperatures or climate, despite what the propaganda machine tried to make us believe, are not proven and based on the last few years' data, not even measured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Monckton isn't a scientist. He has a BA in Classics and Diploma in Journalism yet your OP primarily relies on his assertions about climate change.

Ad hominems.

He didn't do the measurements, just the presentation.

The data, all one should be concerned about, is scientific. Shooting the messenger doesn't make it any less compelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife spends her working days pippeting various colourless solutions from containers into dishes and then looking at them through powerful microscopes.

For all I know she just does this for fun and the peer reviewed papers she writes are just a big scam to fleece the tax payer of more money.

Likewise for all I know the people at CERN use the large hadron collider for skateboard races and just publish the odd thing about "faster than light speed particles" for a laugh knowing that nobody can prove them wrong as they won't have the equipment or brains to do so.

But given 97%+ of the people with the equipment and brains to study climate change beleive it is happening and it can be proven scientifically I will chose to side with them.

I find it funny that there are so many people willing to think that the people more likely to fake results and deliberately misinform people are scientists on £30k a year who get paid either way rather than oil companies and big industry who have billions at stake.

97%+ of the people with the equipment and brains to study climate change beleive it is happening and it can be proven using complicated computer models.

The only problem is, no matter how sophisticated they may be, the models are wrong.

Garbage in, Garbage out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. I have remained open minded all these years until I could come across data that is meaningful in my judgement. I have now.

No you haven't because you are using the deniers' false questions instead of listening to what the scientist have actually been saying.

It's a subtle ploy but the deniers do it very well and you've been sucked in hook, line and sinker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.