New York State suffers 6 feet and counting of global warming
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
I think it is small but not de minimis, and may have cumulatively undesirable effects over the next several decades to centuries. I don't think that there is going to be a major disaster, but pressures on parts of the world that are already adversely affected by resource problems may be exacerbated, and that can't help with stability and development.
Turbobloke, is the increase in greenhouse gases since the Industrial Revolution a purely natural coincidence?
Even the term 'greenhouse' gases is a red herring of course. Turbobloke, is the increase in greenhouse gases since the Industrial Revolution a purely natural coincidence?
Diderot said:
Breadvan72 said:
Turbobloke, is the increase in greenhouse gases since the Industrial Revolution a purely natural coincidence?
Even the term 'greenhouse' gases is a red herring of course. The two are not the same and the two are not interchangeable, nor is the second an inevitable consequence of the first.
There is undoubtedly a molecule or two of manmade emissions of carbon dioxide up there at the mo. The amount by which we perturb the natural annual cycling of carbon dioxide is small, at or below the 5% level.
Then, even with a 5% perturbation, there is no visible causal human signal in global climate data arising as a result. This is the key point.
The impact of what we've emitted is invisibly small, and indistinguishable from zero even after torture by substituting data in rapidly urbanising areas for remote areas where there are no measuring stations, deleting many former soviet 'cold' stations from the picture, siting temperature sensors close to aircon outlets/chimneys/trash burning/parked cars/airport tarmac. Also after artificially depressing measures from past decades so that a flatline or dip in temperature is transformed by the actions of man (but not of carbon dioxide emissions) into a temperature rise.
Breadvan72 said:
The catastrophe bit was a response to some else above who suggested that I am signed up to some sort of calamity scenario. As to the rest, it reads to me like the mantras of your faith, with the threads here on a car forum as your Holy Texts. You get to be High Priest of Denial on a forum for car enthusiasts, but forgive me if I am more impressed by universities than by a body of work represented by this forum.
Would you be kind enough to post evidence from the universities that links man made CO2 with climate variations?You believe this to be the case. So, you must have read it somewhere or other.
Or how about posting up evidence from your universities which explains why their has been an 18 year pause in warming? The pause now being longer than the period or warming which preceded it?
Edited by Blib on Sunday 23 November 17:23
Breadvan72 said:
I am familiar with scientific method. Climate science uses physics and chemistry, and includes many observations. It is possible, for example, to measure gases, ice formation and melting, and other such matters, and historical data obtainable from ice cores. The science does't proceed on the basis of consensus (the word is spelled thus, by the way), but it so happens that there is a consensus. My question is are we really to suppose that the consensus is based on fraud or error?
OK I've back from the pub.....only to find that you've obviously still not discovered the facts about this 97% 'consensus' crap have you? Are you even going to look?Please somebody enlighten him - i've had a shed load of Co2 emitting cider and can't be arsed
Breadvan72 said:
I think it is small but not de minimis, and may have cumulatively undesirable effects over the next several decades to centuries. I don't think that there is going to be a major disaster, but pressures on parts of the world that are already adversely affected by resource problems may be exacerbated, and that can't help with stability and development.
Turbobloke, is the increase in C02 since the Industrial Revolution a purely natural coincidence?
Why so bothered about co2? Seems to be having no impact other than more food for the plants. Turbobloke, is the increase in C02 since the Industrial Revolution a purely natural coincidence?
TX.
dickymint said:
OK I've back from the pub.....only to find that you've obviously still not discovered the facts about this 97% 'consensus' crap have you? Are you even going to look?
Please somebody enlighten him - i've had a shed load of Co2 emitting cider and can't be arsed
Let's assume you're right and the small number of people you happen to believe are right.Please somebody enlighten him - i've had a shed load of Co2 emitting cider and can't be arsed
How many major scientific establishments, groups or publications in the world are raising the same objections about the ipcc?
When I used to believe AGW was nonsense, I tried in vain to find protests from any legitimate scientific body. After all, this tiny group of fraudsters had apparently duped most of the world, threatening the very premise of science based policy.
And yet I was disappointed to find very little protest. Even the oil companies didn't publicly disagree with the ipcc. I seem to recall their stance was simply "it's not proven" rather than "it's wrong because...".
I listen to quite a lot of science podcasts and am yet to hear any real concerns raised, even casually.
So is it more plausible that there's a global conspiracy in which apparently 12 people have used feeble evidence to convince most of the world's smartest scientific bodies that AGW is real in order to... er ...get funding and top-up the BBC pension fund, or that it really is the best understanding we have at the moment?
durbster said:
dickymint said:
OK I've back from the pub.....only to find that you've obviously still not discovered the facts about this 97% 'consensus' crap have you? Are you even going to look?
Please somebody enlighten him - i've had a shed load of Co2 emitting cider and can't be arsed
Let's assume you're right and the small number of people you happen to believe are right.Please somebody enlighten him - i've had a shed load of Co2 emitting cider and can't be arsed
How many major scientific establishments, groups or publications in the world are raising the same objections about the ipcc?
Politically - which is arguably equally relevant as IPCC is a political advocacy outfit - the governments of Australia and Canada hold a similar position against IPCC politicised science, and only slightly away from that alliance are the governments of India and at least a couple of eastern european nations.
durbster said:
When I used to believe AGW was nonsense, I tried in vain to find protests from any legitimate scientific body.
Why did you believe it was nonsense? Why would you do what you did rather than compare readily available data with the claims and projections of AGW disciples? These must unfortunately be rhetorical questions in effect as I can't stick around to find out at the mo, but others may wish to respond and I can hopefullly see later if you choose to reply.durbster said:
And yet I was disappointed to find very little protest.
Perhaps you were looking in the wrong place, or had failed to take sufficient account of the lack of funding (in the UK) for any such group looking to set up, and had possibly not accounted for the vilification/character assissination/career termination that can arise when an individual in the public eye puts their head over the parapet and challenges the faith.durbster said:
I listen to quite a lot of science podcasts and am yet to hear any real concerns raised, even casually.
I have had a quite different experience!durbster said:
So is it more plausible that there's a global conspiracy...
Who mentioned conspiracy? You mentioned conspiracy. durbster said:
...the world's smartest scientific bodies
Talk about preconceived notions! Smartest based on what criteria? Supporting a myth isn't smart, even when a small committee of activists seeks office and makes policy/statements that don't reflect the wider view in their organisation or body.
You appear to be going about things the wrong way. Can you spot and analyse trends in data? Do you understand the concept of causality? That's the way to do it. In any case the groups you think don't exist, do exist.
durbster said:
dickymint said:
OK I've back from the pub.....only to find that you've obviously still not discovered the facts about this 97% 'consensus' crap have you? Are you even going to look?
Please somebody enlighten him - i've had a shed load of Co2 emitting cider and can't be arsed
Let's assume you're right and the small number of people you happen to believe are right.Please somebody enlighten him - i've had a shed load of Co2 emitting cider and can't be arsed
How many major scientific establishments, groups or publications in the world are raising the same objections about the ipcc?
When I used to believe AGW was nonsense, I tried in vain to find protests from any legitimate scientific body. After all, this tiny group of fraudsters had apparently duped most of the world, threatening the very premise of science based policy.
And yet I was disappointed to find very little protest. Even the oil companies didn't publicly disagree with the ipcc. I seem to recall their stance was simply "it's not proven" rather than "it's wrong because...".
I listen to quite a lot of science podcasts and am yet to hear any real concerns raised, even casually.
So is it more plausible that there's a global conspiracy in which apparently 12 people have used feeble evidence to convince most of the world's smartest scientific bodies that AGW is real in order to... er ...get funding and top-up the BBC pension fund, or that it really is the best understanding we have at the moment?
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303...
There is no consensus - even if there were it aint SCIENCE!
Blib said:
Would you be kind enough to post evidence from the universities that links man made CO2 with climate variations?
You believe this to be the case. So, you must have read it somewhere or other.
Without wishing to put words in BVs mouth, there's plenty of evidence out there. If you dig into the detail to see the depth of work behind the 2014 IPCC reports, you'll see that each chapter lists the references used to develop the syntheses and I'd be extremely surprised if the vast majority of the papers cited weren't produced by university researchers (and I'd also strongly suspect that the working groups themselves are made up mainly of university-based researchers):You believe this to be the case. So, you must have read it somewhere or other.
Edited by Blib on Sunday 23 November 17:23
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1...
https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Pa...
https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Pa...
http://mitigation2014.org
I think it's also worth trying to put (Prof) Mike Hulme's comments referred to by Turbobloke above into perspective - if you read the full paper it's more about the IPCC process rather than discounting the point that there are thousands of scientific papers that point to human induced climate change. Basically what he appears to me to be saying is that there's a big difference between 2,500 scientists getting together and agreeing with one another about a certain aspect of the science (i.e. formally developing a proper consensus) and a couple of dozen scientists sitting down, reading 2,500 papers and saying "the majority of these papers all say broadly the same thing and lead to the same conclusion". In my view he's absolutely right in that it's not really correct to say there is a consensus but that doesn't mean that the 2,500 scientists are at odds with one another. The full paper (I think) is here: http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Hu... and the paragraph that contains the quote is below:
"Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism. Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields. But consensus- making can also lead to criticism for being too conservative, as Hansen (2007) has most visibly argued. Was the IPCC AR4 too conservative in reaching its consensus about future sea-level rise? Many glaciologists and oceanographers think they were (Kerr, 2007; Rahmstorf, 2010), leading to what Hansen attacks as ‘scientific reticence’. Solomon et al. (2008) offer a robust defence, stating that far from reaching a premature consensus, the AR4 report stated that in fact no consensus could be reached on the magnitude of the possible fast ice-sheet melt processes that some fear could lead to 1 or 2 metres of sea-level rise this century. Hence these processes were not included in the quantitative estimates."
Edited by Lotus 50 on Sunday 23 November 19:34
In haste: the IPCC doesn't do lit searches and reviews, it selects papers that agree with its position, that's its mission. Often these papers are IPCC people including themselves and their coworkers and excluding inconvenient papers from outside the belief system.
There are other papers which don't rely on inadequate computer climate models, hundreds and possibly thousands at this point in time but they don't get a mention.
None of the papers cited by IPCC has identified a visible causal human signal in global climate data unambiguously attributable to emissions of carbon dioxide. This is the key point, plenty of papers work around gigo rather than data. The reason is obvious. As Chris Folland of IPCC and UKMO famously said some time ago "we're not basing our recommendations (for carbon dioxide emissions reduction) upon the data, we're basing them upon the climate models" and "the data don't matter".
There are other papers which don't rely on inadequate computer climate models, hundreds and possibly thousands at this point in time but they don't get a mention.
None of the papers cited by IPCC has identified a visible causal human signal in global climate data unambiguously attributable to emissions of carbon dioxide. This is the key point, plenty of papers work around gigo rather than data. The reason is obvious. As Chris Folland of IPCC and UKMO famously said some time ago "we're not basing our recommendations (for carbon dioxide emissions reduction) upon the data, we're basing them upon the climate models" and "the data don't matter".
Lotus 50 said:
Turbobloke - have you never stopped to think that you might be doing the very thing that you accuse the IPPC of? Have you seriously checked the provenance and the validity of all of the papers referenced in the IPPC reports?
Why would the provenance be relevant?Edited by Lotus 50 on Sunday 23 November 20:00
If the IPCC is really just 12 people, why is it that every national science academy and institution across the developed world supports the AGW case? If the deniers are right, then every one of those bodies is wrong. Maybe they are all wrong, and some people who like big V8s are right, but I find all those learned bodies more credible than made up internet people. I don't expect to change their minds, but by the same token I don't expect to have my mind changed by being told that I have to read hundred of pages of pub scientists congratulating one another on a car forum.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 24th November 11:00
Breadvan I'm hoping that's a rhetorical question. Since it probably isn't here are a few answers: it's about tax, redistribution of wealth, keeping the developing world undeveloped, undermining the influence of the Middle East, moving away from relying on unsavoury regimes for oil and gas, massive money making scam for politicians and their mates (and fathers in law), and it's about control exerted by the left. Did I mention tax? It's never been about science - the scientific basis for the myth has more perforations that a Tetley's tea bag, and the philosophical basis for some of the underpinning ideas is laughable.
You have been duped.
You have been duped.
Diderot said:
Breadvan I'm hoping that's a rhetorical question. Since it probably isn't here are a few answers: it's about tax, redistribution of wealth, keeping the developing world undeveloped, undermining the influence of the Middle East, moving away from relying on unsavoury regimes for oil and gas, massive money making scam for politicians and their mates (and fathers in law), and it's about control exerted by the left. Did I mention tax? It's never been about science - the scientific basis for the myth has more perforations that a Tetley's tea bag, and the philosophical basis for some of the underpinning ideas is laughable.
You have been duped.
It would appear so and not singularly but without much of a fight. As per this explanation (below) from leftie Lord Donoghue, previously linked to by another PHer, it may take some time for those of a certain political persauasion and personal philosophy to accept their willing dupingYou have been duped.
has occurred as per Miliband et al in the political classes grasping climate change "like a drowning man clasping a lifebelt".
Lord Donoghue said:
The issue of why the political left is overwhelmingly supportive of the climate change alarmist ideology/faith, and hence there are relatively few left wing sceptics, is quite complex and would take more space and time than I intend to impose on you here. But may I, as a lifelong Labour supporter, offer a couple of broad observations. They are by no means comprehensive and omit many nuances. But they are major general factors which I have observed in the party for 61 years, and in Parliament for almost 30 years.
First is that most leftish British people get politically involved because they genuinely believe they wish to contribute to the common good in our society. (They tend to believe , rightly or wrongly, that the right wing wishes to contribute to their own individual or class good). At first this drew many to sympathise with Marxist ideology, until the Soviets discredited that. More sympathised and many still do with the social democratic ideals of equality and civil liberty, though that position lacks the ideological certainties and claimed scientific basis of old Marxism. With the collapse of Marxism, there was created a vacuum on the left. Those seeking an ideological faith to cling on to for moral certainty, felt bereft. They also wanted a faith which again gave them a feeling of still pursuing the common good of society, especially the new global society, and even more a feeling of moral superiority, which is a characteristic of many middle and professional types on the left. Climate change and the moral common good of saving the planet , with its claimed scientific certainties, offered to fill the vacuum. It may or may not be a coincidence that the climate change faith gained momentum in the 1990s immediately after Marxism collapsed with the Berlin Wall.
I notice that my Labour colleagues who are troubled by the cost of the war on climate change, and especially when I point out that its costs fall heavily on the poorer classes, while its financial benefits go to rich landowners and individuals on the Climate Change Committee, still won't face those facts because they want to cling on to the new climate faith because they want to believe it is in the common good. They are not bad or stupid people. Many are better and cleverer than me. But they have a need for a faith which they believe is for the global good. They don't want a moral vacuum. And the current leaders of the social democratic parties in Britain and Europe are not offering them much else. For Ed Miliband, who is not a bad or stupid man, but coming from a Marxist heritage, when asked for more vision, he grasps climate change like a drowning man clasping a lifebelt.
While this need persists and there persists the misconception that the Green faith is somehow leftish and in pursuit of the common good, then most on the political left will stay with it. To shake them it will be necessary to show them that the costs of implementing climate alarmism will actually destroy the economic hopes of the poor and is often a cynical device to enrich the wealthy. That it enables self righteous middle class posturers to parade their assumed moral superiority at the expense of the poor. And that it's so-called scientific certainties are very uncertain indeed. It is also necessary for the sceptical and realistic side to show more publicly that they accept the proven aspects of climate change (which every sceptic I know does) and care about the genuine concerns of the environment (which the Greens ignore by littering our landscapes with inefficient and costly windmills.)
My second point concerns the Stalinist tactics of the Green activists in trying to suppress any questioning of their dogmatic faith and to damage the lives and careers of any professional person who attempts to examine this subject in an honest way which might undermine their dogmatic claims. Their use of Holocaust language such as 'Denier', implying their target is akin to a neo Nazi, is but one example of the Stalinist mentality. In that political context, where any questioner is so derided, it is no surprise that most Labour supporters choose not to take the risk - especially when it immediately throws them into confrontation with their embattled leader.
Sorry to go on so long. But they are my observational conclusions on why it is not easy for the sceptical side to make progress on the political left. Interestingly, polls suggest it is among Labour working classes, always more practical than our Hampstead/Guardian types, that there is the biggest dissent from the Green religion - and some of them are already slipping off to UKIP, which shows more concern for their suffering under the Green taxes.
This battle to bring understanding to Labour that its climate policies punish its core supporters, will take a while to win, partly for the two reasons I offer above.
The junkscience has indeed been laid bare for years and the above goes a long way to explaining for the rest of us why certain people get the same overwhelming evidence put their way time and again then ask the same non-questions as though it never happened. Which is sad because when the lifebelt is let go, in this case only the lifebelt sinks as it was never capable of floating in the first place.First is that most leftish British people get politically involved because they genuinely believe they wish to contribute to the common good in our society. (They tend to believe , rightly or wrongly, that the right wing wishes to contribute to their own individual or class good). At first this drew many to sympathise with Marxist ideology, until the Soviets discredited that. More sympathised and many still do with the social democratic ideals of equality and civil liberty, though that position lacks the ideological certainties and claimed scientific basis of old Marxism. With the collapse of Marxism, there was created a vacuum on the left. Those seeking an ideological faith to cling on to for moral certainty, felt bereft. They also wanted a faith which again gave them a feeling of still pursuing the common good of society, especially the new global society, and even more a feeling of moral superiority, which is a characteristic of many middle and professional types on the left. Climate change and the moral common good of saving the planet , with its claimed scientific certainties, offered to fill the vacuum. It may or may not be a coincidence that the climate change faith gained momentum in the 1990s immediately after Marxism collapsed with the Berlin Wall.
I notice that my Labour colleagues who are troubled by the cost of the war on climate change, and especially when I point out that its costs fall heavily on the poorer classes, while its financial benefits go to rich landowners and individuals on the Climate Change Committee, still won't face those facts because they want to cling on to the new climate faith because they want to believe it is in the common good. They are not bad or stupid people. Many are better and cleverer than me. But they have a need for a faith which they believe is for the global good. They don't want a moral vacuum. And the current leaders of the social democratic parties in Britain and Europe are not offering them much else. For Ed Miliband, who is not a bad or stupid man, but coming from a Marxist heritage, when asked for more vision, he grasps climate change like a drowning man clasping a lifebelt.
While this need persists and there persists the misconception that the Green faith is somehow leftish and in pursuit of the common good, then most on the political left will stay with it. To shake them it will be necessary to show them that the costs of implementing climate alarmism will actually destroy the economic hopes of the poor and is often a cynical device to enrich the wealthy. That it enables self righteous middle class posturers to parade their assumed moral superiority at the expense of the poor. And that it's so-called scientific certainties are very uncertain indeed. It is also necessary for the sceptical and realistic side to show more publicly that they accept the proven aspects of climate change (which every sceptic I know does) and care about the genuine concerns of the environment (which the Greens ignore by littering our landscapes with inefficient and costly windmills.)
My second point concerns the Stalinist tactics of the Green activists in trying to suppress any questioning of their dogmatic faith and to damage the lives and careers of any professional person who attempts to examine this subject in an honest way which might undermine their dogmatic claims. Their use of Holocaust language such as 'Denier', implying their target is akin to a neo Nazi, is but one example of the Stalinist mentality. In that political context, where any questioner is so derided, it is no surprise that most Labour supporters choose not to take the risk - especially when it immediately throws them into confrontation with their embattled leader.
Sorry to go on so long. But they are my observational conclusions on why it is not easy for the sceptical side to make progress on the political left. Interestingly, polls suggest it is among Labour working classes, always more practical than our Hampstead/Guardian types, that there is the biggest dissent from the Green religion - and some of them are already slipping off to UKIP, which shows more concern for their suffering under the Green taxes.
This battle to bring understanding to Labour that its climate policies punish its core supporters, will take a while to win, partly for the two reasons I offer above.
Lotus 50 said:
don4l said:
Why would the provenance be relevant?
Because of TB's suggestion that they are written by the IPCC's mates rather than scientists nominated by Governments on the basis of their expertise in a particular area of science. The former is a very small group. The latter group cites only research that supports IPCC articles of faith, that's what the IPCC does, it's their role. Heresy against doctrine is forbidden.
Communication from UEA's global warmer Phil Jones to Mr Michael Hockey Stick Mann on 08 July 2004 said:
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
These three protagonists, Jones and Mann plus Kevin (Trenberth) are at the heart of the IPCC coterie.A consequence of writing about reality is that your peer review will fail.
Pertinent extracts from a communication from Ed Cook to Keith Briffa regarding the pet subject of treemometers said:
I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of mathematics that we use in our field (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc
If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of filter theory stuff in it. It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the mathematics appears to be correct theoretically
My emphasis added. How impertinent is that, getting stuff right and expecting to be publised! Not with pal review at work.If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of filter theory stuff in it. It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the mathematics appears to be correct theoretically
And if heresy gets published by some act of serendipity, or act of daring by an Editor rejecting a peer review hatchet jobs, the Journal editor may find themselves in big trouble.
Group communication from Phil Jones on 11 March 2003 regarding the cheek of the Climate Research journal in publishing an off-message paper said:
I will be emailing the Journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome Editor.
Ecen so, your work won't be cited too often except in a character assissination angle. A reward of writing 'on message' is that papers tend to get published because the reviewers will be of the same mindset. Careers are then enhanced when these papers are cited by other similar workers in a scigroupw
k. There are other rewards too, one individual alone at the University of East Anglia has garnered over 13 mil in research grants for work dedicated to supporting the myth of manmadeup warming. The relevant unis love such people. It wasn't always thus, things were different prior to drowning politicians grasping the lifebelt of politicised climate junkscience. Take September 1972 for example.
The person concerned felt the heat and saw the light some years later.
There was never much money, if any, in the reality of stasis / cooling.
Diderot said:
Breadvan I'm hoping that's a rhetorical question. Since it probably isn't here are a few answers: it's about tax, redistribution of wealth, keeping the developing world undeveloped, undermining the influence of the Middle East, moving away from relying on unsavoury regimes for oil and gas, massive money making scam for politicians and their mates (and fathers in law), and it's about control exerted by the left. Did I mention tax? It's never been about science - the scientific basis for the myth has more perforations that a Tetley's tea bag, and the philosophical basis for some of the underpinning ideas is laughable.
You have been duped.
OK, let's think about this left-wing conspiracy idea for a moment. You have been duped.
You're suggesting there was a deliberate, long-term plan in which The Left™ conspired to redirect global wealth, deliberately harm developing countries (for some reason) and upset the balance of global power.
This implies there was a meeting, 20, 30 years in which a small group of people sat down and thought the best way to disrupt global politics was to invent a scientific theory about the climate. This plan would be based on easily dismissed "junk science" and yet would convince the world's Governments, scientists, political parties, pretty much all the science media and much of the mainstream media. Unfortunately, the only people they hadn't counted on were members of a car forum casually reading stuff they don't really understand in their lunch break. (note: me
).And the tax, of course. This enormously complex and convoluted plan that has taken decades to come to fruition and persisted through several changes of Governments across multiple nations was a scam to invent new taxes. Because it's so difficult for a Government to raise a bit of extra tax cash any other way. They certainly couldn't just add 2p on petrol or something.
It gets stranger. Very few of the Governments leading the charge have been what I would regard left-wing, meaning the people who devised and executed this incredible plan have done it despite having little political power, and for an end result that means they're making their political enemies wealthier.
As plans go, this one sounds something of a long shot. At best I think it might be just about plausible for a James Bond film.
durbster said:
Diderot said:
Breadvan I'm hoping that's a rhetorical question. Since it probably isn't here are a few answers: it's about tax, redistribution of wealth, keeping the developing world undeveloped, undermining the influence of the Middle East, moving away from relying on unsavoury regimes for oil and gas, massive money making scam for politicians and their mates (and fathers in law), and it's about control exerted by the left. Did I mention tax? It's never been about science - the scientific basis for the myth has more perforations that a Tetley's tea bag, and the philosophical basis for some of the underpinning ideas is laughable.
You have been duped.
OK, let's think about this left-wing conspiracy idea for a moment. You have been duped.
You're suggesting there was a deliberate, long-term plan in which The Left™ conspired to redirect global wealth, deliberately harm developing countries (for some reason) and upset the balance of global power.
This implies there was a meeting..
Are you seriously suggesting that climate change is not political and not about global redistribution of wealth while at the same time looking for whatever reason to prevent emerging nations from burning fossil fuels that would give them cheaper energy and allied economic development?
The evidence is, as usual, against you.
UN IPCC Official Ottmar Edenhofer said:
But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore
The year 2000:http://www.angelfire.com/mi/libertyinstitute/lalb....
Prof Deepak Lal in his inaugural Julian Simon Lecture at the Liberty Institute in Delhi pointed out the new cultural imperialism of international Greens and their local networks. Professor Lal argued that the Green movement is a secular religion filling the void created in the West by the retreat of faith in traditional religions. This supplements the ranks of Greens who moved over to fill the void created by the loss of Marxism. Prof Lal held that the aim of this new religion is to create a new 'white man's burden' and impose its values on the world. The former religious crusades for saving souls has given way to new green crusades. The professor added that in his view this new imperialism needs to be resisted — its claim is to save the environment, but its practical effect in many instances will be ruinous for poor countries.
The year 2014:
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-other...
The Indian Express said:
An Intelligence Bureau report on foreign-funded NGOs “negatively impacting economic development” in India has called Greenpeace “a threat to national economic security”, citing activities ranging from protests against nuclear and coal plants and funding of “sympathetic” research, to allegedly helping out an Aam Aadmi Party candidate in the recent Lok Sabha elections. The allegations are part of the IB’s report, dated June 3, submitted to the Prime Minister’s Office. As reported first by The Indian Express, the IB claims the negative impact of the NGOs’ role on GDP growth to be “2-3 per cent per annum”. The report, signed by IB Joint Director S A Rizvi, accuses Greenpeace of contravening laws to “change the dynamics of India’s energy mix”.
turbobloke said:
The rest is your catefully arranged fiction - and the people setting up a consipracy are those who want to argue against it, including you!
You say carefully arranged, I say thrown together in 15 minutes before starting work.turbobloke said:
Are you seriously suggesting that climate change is not political and not about global redistribution of wealth while at the same time looking for whatever reason to prevent emerging nations from burning fossil fuels that would give them cheaper energy and allied economic development?
Of course it's political. That's why it's such a ststorm.How are they preventing emerging nations from burning fossil fuels?
I don't understand redistribution of global wealth. From where, to where?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff