• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Global Warming Scam is Crumbling

calsdad

NES Member
Rating - 100%
28   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
37,770
Likes
12,618
Location
Chelmsford MA
It's about time.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/10/15/lawrence-solomon-climate-change-dominoes-fall.aspx

Lawrence Solomon: Climate change dominoes fall
Posted: October 16, 2009, 12:49 AM by NP Editor
Lawrence Solomon, global warming, public opinion, Australia, climate change, Joan Ruddock, polling
By Lawrence Solomon

Australians are the latest citizenry to turn against climate change catastrophism. For the first time, according to a Lowy poll released this week, a majority of the population turned thumbs down to the proposition that “global warming is a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs.” This rejection applied to younger segments of the population as well as old, especially disappointing to Australian decision makers, given their efforts to indoctrinate youths through the educational system.

Last year, 60% of the populace bought into global warming fears and in 2006, the figure was 68%.

Neither did Aussies view tackling global warming as particularly important. When compared to other foreign policy issues, such as illegal immigration, protecting jobs, combating terrorism, strengthening the United Nations, or protecting Australians living abroad, climate change fared miserably. In fact, of the 10 foreign policy issues the poll cited, only “promoting democracy in other countries” was deemed less of a priority.

The Australian results come the same week that the United Kingdom’s Department of Energy and Climate Change released a survey showing most Britons do not fear harm from climate change. Until last week, the government had kept up a brave face, refusing to acknowledge that its relentless efforts over decades to convince the public of the need for action on climate change had failed.

With Copenhagen fast approaching, the government has decided to pull out all the stops with an unprecedented prime time TV ad campaign to turn public opinion around. “The survey results show that people don’t realize that climate change is already under way and could have severe consequences,” Joan Ruddock, the Energy and Climate Change Minister explained in justifying the need for her aggressive campaign. The £6-million ad campaign showing scenes of devastation through animation — flooding, drowning animals and humans, a sign that reads “The World’s End” — fittingly premiered on the night-time soap opera, Coronation Street, with an ad entitled “Bedtime stories.”

Financial Post
[email protected]
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud.




Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/10/15/lawrence-solomon-climate-change-dominoes-fall.aspx#ixzz0UCJQYk8C
 

calsdad

NES Member
Rating - 100%
28   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
37,770
Likes
12,618
Location
Chelmsford MA
And another one:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan118.html

The Second Battle of Copenhagen

by Patrick J. Buchanan



Before President Obama even landed at Andrews Air Force Base, returning from his mission to Copenhagen to win the 2016 Olympic Games, Chicago had been voted off the island.

Many shared the lamentation of Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, "What has become of America, when Chicago can't steal an election?"

A second and more serious battle of Copenhagen is shaping up, in mid-December, when a world conference gathers to impose limits on greenhouse gases to stop "global warming." Primary purpose: Rope in the Americans who refused to submit to the Kyoto Protocols that Al Gore brought home in the Clinton era.

The long campaign to bring the United States under another global regime – the newest piece in the architecture of world government – has been flagging since 2008. Then, it seemed a lock with the election of Obama and a veto-proof Democratic Senate.

Why has the campaign stalled? Because global warming has stalled. The hottest year of modern times, 1998, came and went a decade ago.

As BBC climate correspondent Paul Hudson writes: "For the last 11 years, we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though manmade carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise."

What this powerfully suggests is that what man does and does not do is far less responsible for climate change, if it is responsible at all, than other factors over which he has no control.

Consider. Though the emissions of carbon dioxide rose constantly throughout the 20th century – with the industrialization of the West, Japan, Southeast Asia and, finally, China and India – global temperatures have not risen steadily at all. They have fluctuated.

John Sununu, writing in the St. Croix Review, says the Earth underwent "cooling in the 1920s, heating in the 1930s and 1940s, cooling in the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s, warming in the 1980s and 1990s, and cooling in the past decade."

But if there is no crisis, why are we even going to Copenhagen? And if there is no causal connection between carbon dioxide and global warming, what is the true cause of climate change?

Some scientists say that 98 percent of the Earth's temperature can be explained by the sun. When the sun's energy increases, a matter over which man has zero control, the Earth's temperature rises. When the sun's energy diminishes, the Earth's temperature falls.

One solar scientist, Piers Corbyn, claims to have found a link between solar charged particles hitting the Earth and global warming and cooling.

Others, like professor Don Easterbrook of Western Washington University, contend that the oceans explain climate change. As they heat and cool cyclically, the Earth heats and cools. And where the oceans were cooling for 40 years before the 1990s, they have lately been heating up. Easterbrook says these cycles tend to last for 30 years.

As Hudson notes, there are scientists who claim they have taken all these factors into consideration and insist that the Earth, over the long haul, is warming. But Hudson cites Mojib Latif of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who says we are in the fist stage of a long-term cooling trend that will last another 10 to 20 years.

The anecdotal evidence almost daily contradicts Al Gore and the end-of-times environmentalists. Lately, there have been record-breaking cold spells in the Midwest and West. Snow came to Colorado this October, postponing a baseball playoff game. The hurricane season turned out to be among the mildest on record. Contrary to predictions, the polar bear population seems to be doing fine.

While the ice cap at the North Pole is receding, the Antarctic ice cap, which contains 90 percent of the world's ice, is expanding.

Moreover, receding ice in the Arctic is opening up a northwest passage from Europe to Asia. The Russians believe the immense mineral resources of the Arctic may soon be accessible. While we wring our hands, they are rushing to get them.

The mounting evidence that global warming has halted and man is not responsible for climate change has thrown the Kyoto II lobby into something of a panic. Barbara Boxer and John Kerry are re-branding the Senate cap-and-trade bill as a national security measure.

If, however, cap-and-trade, which the Congressional Budget Office says will be another blow to economic growth, can be stopped before the Copenhagen summit in December, the republic may have dodged another bullet. And the goal of the globalists – an end to the independence and sovereignty of the United States, and the creation of a world government – will have sustained yet another welcome postponement.

October 17, 2009

Patrick J. Buchanan [send him mail] is co-founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is also the author of seven books, including Where the Right Went Wrong, and A Republic Not An Empire. His latest book is Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War.
 
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
14,000
Likes
1,511
Location
New Hampshire
I really thought that the Chicagoization of the Great Global Warming Farce was going to be the effort that would push it over the top. Fortunately, Americans are waking up the ruse that it is.
 
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
908
Likes
105
Location
Somerville, MA
I still don't understand why so many laymen have such strong opinions about global warming. It's unlikely that most people (myself included) can fully understand all of the arguments presented from both sides and make a truly informed decision. It seems like people are blindly following people with whom they agree on other things, which (IIRC) is something that we don't like here.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
268
Likes
40
Location
Way West of Boston
You don't seem to give your fellow citizens enough credit. Most people can recognize a scam of such proportions. To some degree the science doesn't matter anymore since it has been so bastardized by the global warming alarmists. The hardcore left has latched themselves onto this agenda with the hope of taxing (thus gaining control over) large swaths of the economy.


I still don't understand why so many laymen have such strong opinions about global warming. It's unlikely that most people (myself included) can fully understand all of the arguments presented from both sides and make a truly informed decision. It seems like people are blindly following people with whom they agree on other things, which (IIRC) is something that we don't like here.
 
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
908
Likes
105
Location
Somerville, MA
You don't seem to give your fellow citizens enough credit. Most people can recognize a scam of such proportions. To some degree the science doesn't matter anymore since it has been so bastardized by the global warming alarmists. The hardcore left has latched themselves onto this agenda with the hope of taxing (thus gaining control over) large swaths of the economy.
I could say the same to you. I don't think you give your fellow citizens enough credit. Not everyone is in it to gain control of the economy. Some people actually want what's best for the people (gasp, I know). I know plenty of people who have nothing to gain from higher taxes (in fact, they have things to lose from higher taxes), who believe the science.

The fact of the matter is that no one knows what will happen. Anyone who claims that they know what will happen with regard to global warming (either that it will happen or that it won't) is either lying or fooling themselves.
 
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
908
Likes
105
Location
Somerville, MA
Who appointed them my guardian?

I don't GAF how educated or knowledgeable they are. They are not my Lords.
Which is why they can't force you to do anything. But they can still state their opinions on global warming, and try to do what they think is best. Which is exactly what we do. We do what we think is best. I'm just saying that not everyone's motives are sinister.

ETA: They don't care what you do as long as it doesn't affect them. But if they're right about climate change, it does affect them. So they're not trying to be your guardian, they're trying to be their own guardian.
 
J

Jose

Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Which is why they can't force you to do anything. But they can still state their opinions on global warming, and try to do what they think is best. Which is exactly what we do. We do what we think is best. I'm just saying that not everyone's motives are sinister.
Many of their ilk are trying their best to force me to do many things that will be injurious to me and to my interests in the name of "protecting the planet"

ETA: They don't care what you do as long as it doesn't affect them. But if they're right about climate change, it does affect them. So they're not trying to be your guardian, they're trying to be their own guardian.
Ah, the old socialist saw where anything that anyone does can be tied to an effect on the whole. Bullshit.

Can we start the violent revolution now already? The list keeps getting longer.
 
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
908
Likes
105
Location
Somerville, MA
Many of their ilk are trying their best to force me to do many things that will be injurious to me and to my interests in the name of "protecting the planet"
What are you thinking of that would be injurious to you? Perhaps we're talking about them doing different things. The things that I'm thinking of that they're trying to do are things like increase fuel efficiency and research alternative forms of energy. I don't have a problem with either of these things, or other similar things. If they try to tell me that I can only drive 10,000 miles a year or I get taxed more, then we have a problem.

Ah, the old socialist saw where anything that anyone does can be tied to an effect on the whole. Bullshit.
Yeah, the butterfly effect and all that. But I think that it's a bit more valid with pollution. I'm not saying that they should be able to control you or anything like that, but I'm saying that one person's pollution affects another person the same amount as it affects the polluter himself. Whether or not they should be able to legislate our actions is where the disagreement is, IMO.
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
2,466
Likes
611
Location
RI
I am 100% for a STRICT hammer of god regulation on true poisons, like mercury, lead, arsenic, etc. I don't want my kids (or me, for that matter) to have to wonder whether some douche corporation wanted to save a few bucks by dumping his poisons into my water supply. In fact, I would go so far as support the death penalty for executives that knowingly poison water/air to the point where people die from it. Not accidents, like Bhopal, but malfeasance.

That said, CO2 isn't a poison whatsoever, and thus should not be regulated whatsoever, unless or until is proven to be a poison, like mercury has been.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
621
Likes
33
Location
Royalston, MA
I'd rather 50 years from now wake up and hear on the news "Global Warming turns out not to be man-made!" while still being able to breath the air, not rely on other countries for oil, be efficient in our usage of energy and responsible as a whole for keeping the planet liveable than the alternative.
 

Mike S

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
4,600
Likes
1,396
Location
The PRM
I'm wondering what they are going to say after this coming winter as I think the NE is in for a dandy, all of the signs are there.
 
Rating - 66.7%
2   1   0
Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
1,444
Likes
100
Location
Warren, MA
Originally Posted by zeppelinfromled
Many of these people have PhDs in various scientific fields. I suspect that they believe the science because of the merits of the science, not because they were duped into it by a politician..
Perhaps "smart people who happen to agree on some issues with politicians with whom the firearm enthusiast/libertarian group traditionally disagrees?"

That's too wordy though.
It is obvious that you make a correlation between education and intelligence. This is perhaps a mistake. Many educated people make the same one. They are mutually exclusive in themselves, and coexist all too infrequently.

It truly is impossible to logically prove that mankind's actions could possibly influence the climate of the planet as a whole. Yes, really. If we all drove 2 mpg trucks and heated our homes with lignite, we could barely put into the air in a lifetime what forest fires and hundreds of volcanos put into the atmosphere every day.
The science has little merit when taken at its value as science. Really.
 

cekim

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,679
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
I know plenty of people who have nothing to gain from higher taxes (in fact, they have things to lose from higher taxes), who believe the science.
As others have said - "useful idiots"...

Good "Science" does not generally require faith as this does...

Nor does it require ignoring factual evidence which contradicts the theory...

As already discussed a nauseam in the other thread - this "science" of which you speak is garbage driven by politics and religion and even the people involved with this theory's initial postulation are now coming out and saying this...

I think your sentence captures this phenomenon nicely:
"I know plenty of people who have nothing to gain..."

A hallmark of faith is its viral social nature...
"I know plenty of good people who believe" in this religion, that religion, this superstition, that superstition...

Humans love correlation - its hard coded into our brains...

If good people "do it", then it must be good to do - whatever it is...

If you let the "science" stand on its own - at best it's inconclusive and the laughable sparsity/error of the recent temperature data in the face of geological time forces you to discount recent measurements...

At worst, its is invalidated by prior data. Ice cores, radiological data, archeological data, Mars surface temps increasing while ours were without SUVs clogging their roads, etc...

The "scientists agree" line has been used for a decade and finally "the scientists" are pointing out that no one asked the if they agree and BTW, they don't!
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
908
Likes
105
Location
Somerville, MA
It is obvious that you make a correlation between education and intelligence. This is perhaps a mistake. Many educated people make the same one. They are mutually exclusive in themselves, and coexist all too infrequently.
I absolutely think that there's a correlation between education and certain types of intelligence, but we would need to talk about different types of intelligence. Common sense is one type, and I work with professors too often to think that education is correlated to common sense.

It truly is impossible to logically prove that mankind's actions could possibly influence the climate of the planet as a whole. Yes, really. If we all drove 2 mpg trucks and heated our homes with lignite, we could barely put into the air in a lifetime what forest fires and hundreds of volcanos put into the atmosphere every day.

The science has little merit when taken at its value as science.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, so I don't know if I agree or disagree. I think the science has a lot of merit, but only if you you look at everything. You can't look at what happens when CO2 levels increase drastically, but ignore how much CO2 humans are producing, for instance. And even when you do look at how much CO2 humans are producing, science dictates that you have to admit when you don't have enough information to satisfactorily answer a question. But people (on both sides, myself included sometimes) forget about this, and sometimes make claims that they shouldn't be making, if they were basing everything on science.

Also, science rarely seeks to prove anything. That's not quite true. Science seeks to prove things, but realizes that it can't prove almost anything. I include the word "almost" in case we're including math.
 
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
7,521
Likes
257
Location
Jacksonville, FL (AKA a free state)
I am an avid outdoorsman and love fishing, hunting, diving and when I can, camping.

I do think whole heartedly that Global Warming is a huge crock of crap, but at the same time would like to see Hammer of God type regulations and punishments that knowingly pollute the water. We already have issues with drinking water and don't need to lose even more.
 

cekim

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,679
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
at the same time would like to see Hammer of God type regulations and punishments that knowingly pollute the water. We already have issues with drinking water and don't need to lose even more.
For the most part, I am there with you...

There is no question that wanton destruction of resources in this manner needs to be stopped... As many have pointed out, the libertarian view of this from a property rights perspective demands that we hold people accountable when they destroy someone else's property by their actions on their own property through shared resources...

There is no reason we cannot continue to innovate and reduce waste and pollution, but ceding sovereignty and burdening ourselves with layer upon layer of taxation which only serves to enrich the connected few is reprehensible. Those that do it and those that support it should be treated with equal contempt...

The connected few cannot oppress the broader population without the support of some large proportion of the masses who agree to oppress themselves and their neighbors...
 

cekim

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,679
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
Common sense is one type, and I work with professors too often to think that education is correlated to common sense.
Very true, and the professors are often some of the worst offenders... [laugh]

Many of them exist their entire career outside the harsh reality of the real world. Their, sometimes unknowingly, "faith based" constructs are never adequately challenged and continue to grow more irrational and self serving...
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
7,658
Likes
750
Location
Live Free or Die
Many of these people have PhDs in various scientific fields. I suspect that they believe the science because of the merits of the science, not because they were duped into it by a politician.
You can be a PhD and still be an idiot. The science simply can't prove one way or another if we've had a significant impact on "global warming". If you can't prove it, how can you say it's a problem? We also can't say that it isn't a problem. But taking action based on lack of knowledge and politics is idiotic. If the science matures enough to actually be able to predict it one way or another and people can agree on the facts that is the time to make decisions and changes. So ice is melting in the north... that proves nothing really. I have news for everyone... there were glaciers covering much of north-east america during the time that humans were first coming to the continent. The ice has been melting ever since. It is only natural that it will continue to do so as we move along on earth's cycle. If science can prove otherwise and the scientific community agrees on something as being factual then I'll buy into it. Until then I believe it is a political and financial scam.
 

EC1

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
6,879
Likes
1,228
Location
Somewhere
It is obvious that you make a correlation between education and intelligence. This is perhaps a mistake. Many educated people make the same one. They are mutually exclusive in themselves, and coexist all too infrequently.

It truly is impossible to logically prove that mankind's actions could possibly influence the climate of the planet as a whole. Yes, really. If we all drove 2 mpg trucks and heated our homes with lignite, we could barely put into the air in a lifetime what forest fires and hundreds of volcanos put into the atmosphere every day.
The science has little merit when taken at its value as science. Really.
I absolutely think that there's a correlation between education and certain types of intelligence, but we would need to talk about different types of intelligence. Common sense is one type, and I work with professors too often to think that education is correlated to common sense.



I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, so I don't know if I agree or disagree. I think the science has a lot of merit, but only if you you look at everything. You can't look at what happens when CO2 levels increase drastically, but ignore how much CO2 humans are producing, for instance. And even when you do look at how much CO2 humans are producing, science dictates that you have to admit when you don't have enough information to satisfactorily answer a question. But people (on both sides, myself included sometimes) forget about this, and sometimes make claims that they shouldn't be making, if they were basing everything on science.

Also, science rarely seeks to prove anything. That's not quite true. Science seeks to prove things, but realizes that it can't prove almost anything. I include the word "almost" in case we're including math.

While there is no argument that man is adding CO2 to the atmosphere, there is the connection with global that is highly suspect. That there is a change in global temperature can be measured, however, it would be wise to first determine if it has happened in the past. IT HAS! In the past million years or so there have been 4 periods where our "beloved" Massachusetts has lain under thousands of feet of ice, certainly colder than it is today. Also, it is important to note that inbetween these glacial periods were warm periods, in fact much warmer than today, more like a climate seen along the northern Florida coast or what may be called a Savannah climate. Certainly not caused by man. From that data. one might conclude that there are periodic warming and cooling periods which occur naturally, the rate of change of which is not known with certainty. From a purely scientific point of view, I would say that we need more data, also the data that are being collected today are insufficient to reach any good hypothesis which can be evaluated. Many researchers do good work, however, you must remember that much of what they undertake has an ulterior motive, that is one of getting funding. So in a competitive world, the more specacular the claims and the more disastrous the results, the easier it is to get funded. Never forget most scientists are driven by self-interest, like virtually everyone else. [wink]
 

cekim

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,679
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
Until then I believe it is a political and financial scam.
The "science" to verify this is infinitely simpler than that used to demonstrate global warming...

Taxation, accumulation and centralization of power within government, profit motive of Al Gore and his carbon trading venture, etc...

It's clear what their real motive here is independent of science. CONTROL and MONEY... (I like money too, but they are writing laws which forcibly redirect wealth to them - that I will not tolerate...)

Come talk to me when Al Gore has moved into a tent and Micheal Moore has given all his money away....[wink]
 
Top Bottom