Why global warming is a global scam

Status
Not open for further replies.

leedswillprevai

Established Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2006
Messages
1,057
Reaction score
100
Points
160
Location
Telford
Global warming environmentalists are insistent that the world, particularly the western world reduce long term their C02 emissions from their current levels by between 60-90%.

Now firstly what climate gate has proven through the the thousand plus emails which have been leaked from the East Anglian Institute which is itself a prominent science institution, is that there is a manipulation of those figures, that there has been complicity, that data has been withheld and or deleted. The very climate models are only as good as the information which is presented to the model so if the figures are distorted then the climate models will of course represent that and therefore give a very misleading and deceiving picture of what is really happening.

I also find it very ironic that according to the surface to air temperature measurements in the last decade there has not been a rise in temperature and yet there has been a rise in C02 levels. If you look at what is now being admitted albeit in a watered down fashion, the earth is going through a global cooling cycle but they insist that once this is over, things will get oh so much worse and if we don't act now, it will be too late. I find this ironic since many of the people who are so convinced by this, are the very same people who would mock someone on any other issue with the throw away line "oh the sky is falling" "the sky is falling"!

Also consider this to, lets suppose that the much attacked notion of global cooling does come true in 2018. Now supposing that is the case, it would make great sense to be in such a hurry to ram through these changes now, because then they could claim credit for the fall in temperatures and then they could up the ante.

Now just to underline what is unfolding here Lord Monckton who is the former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher has invited these leading scientists to debate with him on the merits of climate change and yet none are doing so. This of course includes David Suzucki and anyone else you can think of and furthermore, as for Al Gore being revered as some kind of messiah by so many people, lets take note of 2 very important things, firstly he will not appear to debate when there are unknowns he only accepts pre screened questions and secondly, he will not appear before any kind of an audience until he receives a fee of 300.000. Only after those 2 criteria have been met do we seea gushing and "passionate" Al Gore and of course even the former is based upon the non partisan nature of the event, i.e. if a journalist asks him a question, which he already had warnings about, well that's fine lol.

Next, and returning to the central point raised by the environmentalist lobby, don't simply look at what the targets are for the reduction targets but with what they deem the necessary reductions in C02 have to be. This is because although it has been described before and has been dismissed, purely on the numbers alone, essentially all industry would need to be shut down for decades on a world wide scale. This is no exaggeration and I challenge anyone to look at what the UN's target reductions (in terms of tonnes are) and then relate that to the yearly output that humans are said to create. To actually implement that would of course lead to the total collapse of the economy's. This statement is rubbished by those on the "green" side and yet is simply dismissed with a refusal to back up why.

Next we have to again focus on these figures and ask, well hold on, if they want to take existing C02 levels from what they are now and reduce them by 90%, which considering they claim humans are responsible for 60% of total carbon dioxide levels, equates to a real terms decrease of 36%. The question is since the very process of life is humans breath in oxygen given from plants and in turn plants take in the carbon dioxide which we breathe out, what impact will such a marked reduction of carbon dioxide have on the plants?. Now the responses I have heard range from, that's just crazy, to plants already absorb too much C02, but in the latter case, who the hell actually decides that?

Another point to make is that there are thousands of scientists who disagree with the scientists presented to us in the mainstream. Therefore there is only a climate concensus because they choose to shut others out, or label them as a fringe group. However what are we saying here? that we should trust the scientists who presented to us on television and by the government? Well then the question is what makes them any more plausible than the other side? . One of the key rebuttals issued by the environmental pushers is that those who are arguing against this are akin to holocaust deniers or and more importantly they smear them with the label of being proxies for big oil. There is in fact some truth to that, but along with that truth masks a bigger truth and that is the funding of these scientists is now being linked to their funding of climate change and since the major governments and various foundations are intent on pushing this, there is millions and millions to be made if the "concensus" is reinforced.
Moreover we already know that governments have just become themselves a proxy of major corporations and so we must then ask well what is in it for the corporations, why are they so interested in this?

The answer to that lies in the means by which they are going to facilitate this drive, they will use a system called cap and trade. Now essentially what this means is that companies are issued with a limit on how much carbon dioxide they can produce and from there can buy extra credits. That was initially the way in which it was going to be rolled out, but of course now what they have been pushing for is a universal system in which everyone is given a carbon limit, for those who use less carbon than the limit, they can sell it and make some money, for those that don't, they can go back onto the open market to buy some. Now at this juncture this screams to me a global tax and the buildings of a true slave state economy. Just to add some context to this, in order to repay our money which has been handed over to the banks freely, government statistics though themselves watered down, are predicting a need to increase taxes in this country by at least 6% of GDP in the next 5 years. In other words in the region of 60 billion.

In doing so, they will force this country into even deeper despair and yet another tax on top, will make this all the more disastrous. However you could argue that well governments will ensure that the price will be cheap right?. This would be a misinterpretation of what this is set out to achieve and why corporations are salivating, so simply put, you will buy on the open market and you will sell on the open market. To gain some perspective of what is going on here, you read news articles which say something along the lines of this market could be worth something between 300 billion to 2 trillion. What this basically means is that a new bubble is hurriedly being formed and it will become huge and then burst spectacularly just as the dot com bubble, just as the housing bubble. The reason is that speculators, not individual speculators but financial institutions will be speculating wildly on the futures price of cap and trade and to put it simply, this is a weight of money trap, they pour so much money in to create an artificial demand for cap and trade which will in turn drive the price upwards and upwards and then other people seeing that, will piggy back it and throw in their money in the hope that this a market where will make fortunes themselves. The sad truth is because a lot of people still don't understand the fundamentals behind the overwhelming change in price and because of that, history will repeat itself and people will then scratch their heads in disbelief when the big players jump out of the market and leave the other folks carrying the bag.

Now included in the list of financial institutions who will be deeply involved in the game of speculation is of course the infamous Goldman and Sachs who most Americans will by now know very well since they have your money. Another important point to note about the futures market, is once again not only creates a bubble but a derivatives bubble, so then we will have the TNT of this derivatives bubble to stand on top of as well as everyone else. As this wasn't enough, just to compound things and add insult to injury as Taibbi spoke about in his youtube video for rollingstone, there is a sub section of the current fiance bill which is trying to clear congress which would give unlimited future "bailouts" to the top 25 banking institutions. This means they can then jump on to this game, make incredible sums of money and when it goes pop, they will rob even more from the tax payer and eventually all of this is going to have the net effect of driving living standards down for the majority of people to effectively subsistence levels.

Now you could of course argue that for this scheme to be acceptable, those who had exceeded their carbon quota limits could not simply be left to suffer and so the government would have to provide support for them. Well lets suppose that is true, when a country is dependent on the government like that, then it shows a huge gulf between the rich and the poor of the country. What the world shows us that wealth has a dramatic effect on new borns, seeing a massive reduction as living standards increase, now on the other hand when peoples living standards tumble, there is less incentive not to have kids. So with the latter coming true, those targets to cut carbon dioxide could never be met as more children are introduced. So at this point they could attempt to limit the number of children which people could have, but to do so would require a massive malevolent global law to be passed. It is important to remember that such a law just as the upcoming Copenhagen agreement, would be legally binding on the nation and we would therefore have yet another branch of global dictatorship announced in the faces of everyone. I personally would love for this to come about because people naturally are rebellious and are nearing the end of their patience now. However I don't think such a step would dare to be taken and this would of course dramatically effect carbon dioxide levels.

Would there be benefits? well that is something you have to balance out, a huge reduction in manufacturing and in the economy would lead to a reduction in pollution, but it would also lead to a terrible hard ship for the world which will make the current hard ship seem like it was a doddle. However they aren't doing away with pesticides, if anything pesticides are getting stronger, depleted uranium gets used more and more, we saw the horrible effects of white phosphorous being used in Iraq and we of course we see all the various chemicals being dumped into our food and into our seas.

So what is the long term goal? well this isn't my opinion, this is something you can google for yourself, the long term is contraction and convergence, in other words contract C02 by up to 90% and reduce the wests affluence from 15:1 against the the third world to 3:1. Or another way of putting it is this banking bailout is only the very beginning of a much longer game to destroy all of the wests wealth and of course this does not mean the third worlds wealth will increase hugely, this is part of the game of robbing because they have bled the rest of the world dry. This is an evil insidious scam to destroy any freedoms and turn us all into serfs. I know people have a difficult time digesting such statements because they see the tearful faces of those at the UN summit and see the media lovingly basking in it as if it's something wonderful but look beneath the surface and this gets very ugly.
 
Wow!! Well, your reasoned and well-documented response has certainly convinced me. Just a few minor niggles (not very important, I admit):

I also find it very ironic that according to the surface to air temperature measurements in the last decade there has not been a rise in temperature.
In fact, the last 10 years have been the warmest on record.

Next we have to again focus on these figures and ask, well hold on, if they want to take existing C02 levels from what they are now and reduce them by 90%.
No they don't. They want to reduce anthropogenic CO2, which doesn't include breathing, by 90%

Well then the question is what makes them any more plausible than the other side?
Because they know their physics. The other side have forgotten it or never learnt it.

Finally, congratulations on integrating so many conspiracy theories into one GUCT. :thumbsup:
 
I'm not going to pretend I know the in's and out's of Climate Change, but being the cynic that I am, I find it hard to believe that self serving institutions of capitalism are promoting the green cause on purely altruistic grounds.
 
I'm not going to pretend I know the in's and out's of Climate Change, but being the cynic that I am, I find it hard to believe that self serving institutions of capitalism are promoting the green cause on purely altruistic grounds.
What does it matter why they support it, so long as they do?
 
Wow!! Well, your reasoned and well-documented response has certainly convinced me. Just a few minor niggles (not very important, I admit):

I also find it very ironic that according to the surface to air temperature measurements in the last decade there has not been a rise in temperature.
In fact, the last 10 years have been the warmest on record.

Next we have to again focus on these figures and ask, well hold on, if they want to take existing C02 levels from what they are now and reduce them by 90%.
No they don't. They want to reduce anthropogenic CO2, which doesn't include breathing, by 90%

Well then the question is what makes them any more plausible than the other side?
Because they know their physics. The other side have forgotten it or never learnt it.

Finally, congratulations on integrating so many conspiracy theories into one GUCT. :thumbsup:

Firstly the usage of the word conspiracy theory was to be expected. The purpose of what I wrote was to invite others to look into what I have said. The fact is the contraction and convergence plan is official, the cap and trade scheme is official, the involvement of speculators is undeniable and regarding the impact, again I invite you to look at the target reductions of the UN and compare them to human output each year.

Now you will either choose to do both of these or you will call just cry "conspiracy theory". Secondly you said there had been record temperature rises in the past 10 years. So at this point I have to wonder what you are talking about, now there are conservative estimates and there are higher estimates. So let me use the higher estimates for the sake of argument and those are that in the past 100 years globally surface to air temperature has increased by about 0.75 C. So I am struggling to tally how your statement tally's with what scientists have said about the earth currently experiencing a global cooling. We can't have a global cooling if worldwide surface to air temperature is at a record level in the past 10 years. The 2 can't co exist

As for the targets set, I didn't say it included breathing, where did I say that?. Secondly plants still absorb the C02 from economic activity do they not? I really don't think they care if it's C02 from humans or C02 from factory's they still gladly accept it.
 
Last edited:
... you said there had been record temperature rises in the past 10 years. So at this point I have to wonder what you are talking about, now there are conservative estimates and there are higher estimates. So let me use the higher estimates for the sake of argument and those are that in the past 100 years globally surface to air temperature has increased by about 0.75 C.
BBC News - This decade 'warmest on record'
So I am struggling to tally how your statement tally's with what scientists have said about the earth currently experiencing a global cooling. We can't have a global cooling if worldwide surface to air temperature is at a record level in the past 10 years. The 2 can't co exist
Quite right, they can't. But then we're not undergoing a global cooling.
As for the targets set, I didn't say it included breathing, where did I say that?Secondly plants still absorb the C02 from economic activity do they not? I really don't think they care if it's C02 from humans or C02 from factory's they still gladly accept it.
You said:

"Next we have to again focus on these figures and ask, well hold on, if they want to take existing C02 levels from what they are now and reduce them by 90%, which considering they claim humans are responsible for 60% of total carbon dioxide levels, equates to a real terms decrease of 36%. The question is since the very process of life is humans breath in oxygen given from plants and in turn plants take in the carbon dioxide which we breathe out, what impact will such a marked reduction of carbon dioxide have on the plants?. Now the responses I have heard range from, that's just crazy, to plants already absorb too much C02, but in the latter case, who the hell actually decides that?"

You claimed that it was proposed to reduce the overall CO2 levels in the atmosphere by 90%. I pointed out that it wasn't; the proposal was to reduce the anthropogenic CO2 by that amount. You then seemed to me to be including the CO2 we exhale in the overall issue concerning the target reductions. To clarify my point, I wanted to say that by 'anthropogenic' I didn't include our breathing. That is part of the natural CO2->O2->CO2 cycle, and is irrelevant to GW. In other words, you raised it; I addressed it.
 
The article in question includes that it can be measured differently also, they say using the 1998 figure as the benchmark, an apparent plateau has occurred. However once again in the interests of representing a) a balance and b) referencing what I say, same site...

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | What happened to global warming?

Also the UN says the humans contribute 60% to C02 levels from all of our activity's. Now they want to reduce this by 90%, the reason they want to reduce this by 90% is because I assume the 10% represents respiration and the other 90% is anything we do to produce anything. So assuming this is true, then it does represent a decrease of 36%.
 
I really can't be bothered to dig into the facts too deeply re: this subject, but have to ask myself why it would be in anyone's interests to deny global warming, if it is even a slight risk?
And then I ask myself who are going to be the ones to lose out if we cut emissions?
And I can only come to the conclusion that it's the fuel companies.

That's enough in itself to convince me the threat is very real.

Maybe a bit naive, but I would guess many think along similar lines.
 
I am not defending oil companies, we all know they have been involved in some extremely immoral acts themselves. However they are nothing compared to the gambling casino's who have put us in so much financial peril and they are the ones who stand to gain the most from this.
 
So, as a neutral, can I ask you Steve.J.Davies and leedswillprevai
if you have any remotely vested interests in your views?

Ie, you don't work for a fuel company or anyone that stands to lose?
 
I really can't be bothered to dig into the facts too deeply re: this subject, but have to ask myself why it would be in anyone's interests to deny global warming, if it is even a slight risk?
And then I ask myself who are going to be the ones to lose out if we cut emissions?
And I can only come to the conclusion that it's the fuel companies.

That's enough in itself to convince me the threat is very real.

Maybe a bit naive, but I would guess many think along similar lines.

Doing something for the wrong reasons is always wrong.

If decisions are made on a false premise then the real problems will not be properly addressed.

We need to deal honestly with resource depletion, overpopulation and real pollution. If we achieve success then there will be enough reduction of CO2 emissions as a by product to satisfy the precautionary principle.

Current warnings and proposed solutions are outrageous on the basis of the shaky evidence available and the original poster is right about the potential for abuse of the system of cap and trade.

One does not need to be a conspiracy theorist to learn the lessons of history and have some basic economic common sense.

One of the advantages of cap and trade is that it has the potential to create much more false wealth to defer the coming crisis when the US, UK and other western governments do actually run out of money.

The trouble is that in economics a problem deferred is a problem enhanced.
 
Ie, you don't work for a fuel company or anyone that stands to lose?

I think you will find that these days fuel companies are considered to be central to the CC conspiracy.
Along with bankers, the media, governments, universities, charities etc etc
 
Great, just what we need, another thread started by a stooge from an energy company. Yes, a "stooge", whether you know it or not.

It's all very simple, really. Scientists who are experts in this particular area are making it known that we have a problem. Unfortunately, the evidence for this is pretty complex and not something that the general public can understand. The general public will look for a trusted authority figure to help them formulate an opinion.

Politicians are never the most trusted of authority figures so when someone like Al Gore takes his crusade to the world, it can backfire. On the other hand, if you have Jeremy Clarkson saying it's all rubbish and a conspiracy, then you'll instantly have a vast amount of sceptics or denialists.

All the energy companies have to do is sow seeds of doubt. That's all. They've done a magnificent job. They set up "think tanks" with impressive names (e.g. "The Institute of Science") who churn out sound bites that end up on the news or in print as a "balancer". All so they can keep making record profits, and damn the future of the planet.

Being a sceptic is perfectly acceptable - in fact the progress of science needs scepticism. But being "in denial" and no amount of evidence will sway your opinion - that is definitely not healthy. I think there's definitely a case for humanity's effect, but if new evidence came to light that the science was flawed and it was all a big mistake, I wouldn't disregard it.

Here's something I'd like to ask the sceptics or denialists out there - how did you first hear about global warming?

In addition to this, I can't for the life of me understand why denialists keep peddling misinformation that can easily be refuted, even by using Google? Do they not even bother to look beyond the "it's all a conspiracy" sites? That shows mind-blowing naivety and arrogance. It's like "flat earth" all over again, except for the consequences of inaction.
 
Again the throwaway ad hominem of "conspiracy theory" which isn't the least bit surprising. It's at the very least lazy to dismiss something without first disproving it. Now as for the seeds of doubt, first of all I have no vested interest, I am a tax payer who knows that all of this is leading only one way and that's to massive leaps in centralisation and taxation. So the very notion that the oil companies are the only vested corporate interest in this is the biggest betrayal of honesty. I have already outlined who the vested interests are on the other side of the issue and why.

Now regarding contraction and convergence, please do your research and ask yourself how you can reduce c02 by 90% and bring down the wealth ratio from 15:1 to 3:1. The answer is there must be a direct correlation between carbon dioxide and wealth. I welcome someone to look at how many tonnes of carbon dioxide the UN climate group want to see saved and how that relates to annual output from the entire world economy. It will mean shutting down the entire economy of the world for many years. Now you can refute that, but please do it with actual substantive proof.

If you can't, then you are the one who is in denial. Furthermore though it's important to remember that every treaty that is signed, makes any future governments powerless to stop it or amend it. The state is recognised as a legal personality so any moves now can not be stopped. That to me is extremely dangerous and in the interests of "saving the planet" can be abused.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry if my post was misunderstood, and kudos to the OP who at least didn't trot out something like "It must be rubbish cos there saying that its all the cows" (misspellings are deliberate, you can find this kind of post on numerous threads).

My point is that it looks extremely convincing that there's a big problem. I'm not a scientist, so I won't pretend that I've waded through raw data or perused vast amounts of peer reviewed documents. I have, however, got a "denier" in the family who regularly bombards me with misinformation that is easily refuted in a matter of minutes by directing him to any number of sites with reasonable, easy-to-understand content. It makes no difference whatsoever. He's a Top Gear fan so Clarkson Knows Best.

As I've posted elsewhere, the general public debating matters of science isn't new these days. Evolution is under attack, not only in the US but here in the UK as well. Vaccines too. You'd think GW would be an easy sell, but no. Tons of rubbish being pumped into the air? Check. Deforestation on an alarming scale? Check. Evidence that humans directly affected the ozone layer? Check. It's all pretty depressing that the misinformation campaigns are working so well.

What the OP appears to be coming from is denial based on the costs of fixing it. I'm not considering the costs of fixing anything. I'm just acknowledging that there's a very high likelihood that we're not leaving things in such a great state for future generations.

Consider someone recently diagnosed with a brain tumour. It's been growing for some time. My viewpoint would be "OK, there's a tumour there", yours would appear to be "Hmmmm, I'm not so sure it exists - if it does then to operate might cause the patient to be partially paralysed".

Anyway, nobody stepping up and answering my question?
 
I'm sorry if my post was misunderstood, and kudos to the OP who at least didn't trot out something like "It must be rubbish cos there saying that its all the cows" (misspellings are deliberate, you can find this kind of post on numerous threads).

My point is that it looks extremely convincing that there's a big problem. I'm not a scientist, so I won't pretend that I've waded through raw data or perused vast amounts of peer reviewed documents. I have, however, got a "denier" in the family who regularly bombards me with misinformation that is easily refuted in a matter of minutes by directing him to any number of sites with reasonable, easy-to-understand content. It makes no difference whatsoever. He's a Top Gear fan so Clarkson Knows Best.

There is misinformation on both sides but when we see emails (such as the one I have posted on the other thread) which asks the scientists to delete some data, we then have to ask hmm. When a freedom of information was made for these emails years ago and was not forthcoming we have to ask what happened to the raw data. The other problem is I stated that this decade has seen no increase in temperature change and immediately that was led by a retort from a poster who pointed me towards a BBC article. However likewise I posted a link from the BBC dated October 12th which states there has been no increase in temperature which they are putting down to global cooling.

So this underlines that the concensus is a myth and there is clearly massive disagreements still. What we have seen is 0.75 C increase based upon the higher estimates in the last 100 years. When you think of all the immediate problems the earth has, jeoparding the wests economy seems to be the last thing that should be on anyones minds. Also as mentioned and has been in the pipeline since at least the beginning of the eighties there are some expecting a major global cooling to begin from 2018.

As I've posted elsewhere, the general public debating matters of science isn't new these days. Evolution is under attack, not only in the US but here in the UK as well. Vaccines too. You'd think GW would be an easy sell, but no. Tons of rubbish being pumped into the air? Check. Deforestation on an alarming scale? Check. Evidence that humans directly affected the ozone layer? Check. It's all pretty depressing that the misinformation campaigns are working so well.

I never disputed there is tonnes of rubbish being pumped into the air but the deadly chemicals are the ones which are dangerous to everyone such as mercury, such as sulphur I wil never argue about that. Deforestation again I agree with you, that needs to be checked, the plants can not absorb if they aren't there to do the absorbing and especially when you consider how vital the rain forests are.

The misinformation campaign has spread to this although though by the simplistic notion that it's only "oil companies who want to stop this" on the contrary many corporations are pushing this because they see how lucrative this is.

What the OP appears to be coming from is denial based on the costs of fixing it. I'm not considering the costs of fixing anything. I'm just acknowledging that there's a very high likelihood that we're not leaving things in such a great state for future generations.

There is environmental catastrophes, look at the honey bees dying out for instance but of course no one wants to look at the possibility that gm crops are doing that. There are issues where I do agree with environmentalists. Also if you don't consider the costs then future generations are going to be left with nothing anyway.

Consider someone recently diagnosed with a brain tumour. It's been growing for some time. My viewpoint would be "OK, there's a tumour there", yours would appear to be "Hmmmm, I'm not so sure it exists - if it does then to operate might cause the patient to be partially paralysed".

Anyway, nobody stepping up and answering my question?

That would be down to the consent of the patient, whereas forcing us into a global governance which pushes us into having carbon rationed to us, is anything but consensual and again if you want to consider how this impacts upon future generations, consider how environmentalism could also be used as a weapon of oppression. When you hand over control, you don't get it back. Again I know people object to such language, laugh at it but history tells us that big government goes bad and you can't get any bigger than countries being legally binded to get rid of all c02 (outside of humans breathing).

In this regard, we are already seeing the very beginnings of this, with the recent statement from the health czar of this country who stated we should all give up meat to save the planet. This is the type of centralisation and control, which is surely dangerous and the implication if we simply end up saying okay do whatever you deem is necessary, is every aspect of our lives is dictated to us.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure most readers here saw the great PR stunt where the Government of the Maldives held a cabinet meeting under water to highlight rising sea levels but I don't suppose many saw this response from a former lead reviewer for the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), Nils-Axel Mörner who was head of Geodynamics at Stockholm University until his retirement in 2005.

Why the Maldives aren't sinking | The Spectator

Interesting reading.....and why does it not get the media coverage it deserves ?
 
Interesting reading.....and why does it not get the media coverage it deserves ?

Because the Maldives not sinking in the next 100 years isn't very interesting. It may be true, but it ain't interesting.
Now, the Maldive Parliament having a session on the beach while the world's last polar bear floats by on the world's last iceberg, that would be headlines. A complete set-up and a pack of lies, but everyone would report it.
CC, the media and politicians, not a happy combination.
 
So, as a neutral, can I ask you Steve.J.Davies and leedswillprevai
if you have any remotely vested interests in your views?

Ie, you don't work for a fuel company or anyone that stands to lose?

no vested interest at all.

why on earth go off topic like this ? oh yeah...
 
[/COLOR] In fact, the last 10 years have been the warmest on record.


Professor Philip Stott on LBC last night explained how this statement is a statistical con and meaningless

You have a period where the planet warms say 1970-1999 (and rememeber in the 70s the planet was cooling and ecomentalists where predicting an ice age) the planet then stays static for 10 years neither warming or cooling, so the last 10 years have been static, however because of the previous rise the temp is at a current high therefore the last 10 years are the warmest on record even thou there has been ZERO warming for the last 10 years. This kind of twisting and miss reporting seams to be pretty common when you look at most pro climate change reports, and in this case you turn a period of time that statistically goes against your desire of climate change and make it a panic headline so the sheep can all start bleeting again.

the other problem is that records only go back a tiny amount of time, we know from other data sources that in the middle ages and during the time of the Romans the climate was several degrees on avg warmer than it is now, so even in this tiny tiny time span of 2 thousand years temp has fluctuated vastly more than we saw recently.
 
Last edited:
In fact, the last 10 years have been the warmest on record.

Professor Philip Stott on LBC last night explained how this statement is a statistical con and meaningless

This kind of twisting and miss reporting seams to be pretty common when you look at most pro climate change reports, and in this case you turn a period of time that statistically goes against your desire of climate change and make it a panic headline so the sheep can all start bleeting again..

It's made even worse as many papers and Websites, particularly the BBC News website will have that as a main headline with little if any detail. A lot of people in this day and age will just glance at headlines and assume it's a done deal. It takes a concerted effort to seek out the truth or alternative opinions and unfortunately too many people can't be bothered and are happy with their little lot as long as they can have a little moan now and again knowing full well it will change nothing.

If you drip feed all these little snippets people will end up believing whatever they are being fed. It worked very well with the Terror campaign and war in Iraq.

All part of a devilish plan by the Government maybe !!!!!!!!:devil::devil::devil:
 
All part of a devilish plan by the Government maybe !!!!!!!!:devil::devil::devil:

I believe so, we are energy junkies in the west, especially for oil and we all know this can not go on for ever. We have been to war twice recently for oil i mean terrorism.

They are making the data fit to wean us of our dependency on energy
 
Professor Philip Stott on LBC last night explained how this statement is a statistical con and meaningless

You have a period where the planet warms say 1970-1999 (and rememeber in the 70s the planet was cooling and ecomentalists where predicting an ice age) the planet then stays static for 10 years neither warming or cooling, so the last 10 years have been static, however because of the previous rise the temp is at a current high therefore the last 10 years are the warmest on record even thou there has been ZERO warming for the last 10 years.
Not sure I see the relevance. The warmest on record means the warmest on record, ie the average temperature of each year in the 2000's has been higher than any other year prior to that since records began, about 150 years. What have the warming since 1970, or the stasis in the last 10 years got to do with it? They are still the warmest on record, and at least some of that heat has had to come from greenhouse capture.
This kind of twisting and miss reporting seams to be pretty common when you look at most pro climate change reports, and in this case you turn a period of time that statistically goes against your desire of climate change and make it a panic headline so the sheep can all start bleeting again.
Well that of course applies either way (doesn't it just!!). The difference of course is that the laws of physics show that the wishful thinkers (aka GW deniers) rank with Canute's advisers when it comes to rationality. Never since Bishop Wilberforce has so much effort been squandered in so many attempts to bolster entrenched belief against evidence and theory.
the other problem is that records only go back a tiny amount of time, we know from other data sources that in the middle ages and during the time of the Romans the climate was several degrees on avg warmer than it is now, so even in this tiny tiny time span of 2 thousand years temp has fluctuated vastly more than we saw recently.
Why do we coming up against this same old rubbish? The extra greenhouse energy is pushing the average temperature up. Any underlying trends overlay that rise. Plot annual average temperature over as many past years as you care to name, and you'll see a zigzag line representing hotter and cooler years. Overlaying that you'll see longer-term trends (most notably 11 years because of the sunspot cyle). But until about 200 years ago, the statistical underlying trend of all that was flat: no average rise in temperature. However, from about 1800, the line has shot up in a typical hockey stick curve. This rise is way outside any previous trend, and the only theoretical (not hypothetical) basis for it is greenhouse capture from the extra 100ppm of CO2 we have pumped into the atmosphere since then.

I repeat my challenge yet again: 100ppm CO2 captures a lot of heat, so where is it going if it isn't warming the atmosphere? Greenhouse warming is simple physics, so anyone with GCSE science should be able to answer that, and there's a Nobel Prize awaiting if you do.
 
Not sure I see the relevance. The warmest on record means the warmest on record, ie the average temperature of each year in the 2000's has been higher than any other year prior to that since records began, about 150 years.

Surely the fact that the Romans were growing grapes all over England indicates that 2000 years ago, temperatures were considerably warmer than those we are seeing now.

I repeat my challenge yet again: 100ppm CO2 captures a lot of heat, so where is it going if it isn't warming the atmosphere? Greenhouse warming is simple physics, so anyone with GCSE science should be able to answer that, and there's a Nobel Prize awaiting if you do.

And I repeat again: if the cloud cover has increased due to other factors (say vastly increased particulate levels), the increased albedo may mean there has been no net anthropogenic warming.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom