Climate change

[JackW]

Amen to that Pete. I don't know what Family First policies are on anything else but if their votes are against a carbon tax I say bring on the next election. They are never going to form government so I don't really need to worry about their other policies, but this one drives me crazy and I am glad Stephen Fielding is asking those questions - I wish more politicians would.

[Molleur]

+1 worldwide scam to control energy and economy...

[Pete McCluskey.]

Originally Posted by molleur

+1 worldwide scam to control energy and economy...

+2 And tax the sh*t out of us.

[Cliff Beer]

OK, I'm gonna shut up now. All of a sudden I feel like the gay guy in hot pants that accidentally walks into the biker bar....

[JimmyMac]

Guess who is the top PR man for EDF the French owned energy company supplying power to southern Great Britain.
No less than Andrew Brown, our Prime Minister's sibling.



Who is Andrew Brown? Profile of Gordon Brown's brother: MPs' expenses - Telegraph

Green Britain Day ?
More like Brown Britain Day

Quote,
When he took the job, Andrew admitted that “the energy industry is not something I knew much about before”. Nevertheless, he has been at the forefront of EDF’s expansion in Britain after it bought London Electricity, Sweb and Seeboard.

[John M]

Sen. Inhofe Calls for Inquiry Into 'Suppressed' Climate Change Report - Political News - FOXNews.com

[Molleur]

It won't matter John, the enormity of revenue which may be created, as well as the huge "green" industry possibilities far outweigh the truth! Follow the money...

[craig]

I myself feel the need to follow the money trail & invest in it..
but on the other hand I have this funny feeling that I'll be hanging myself..

[ChrisL]

Originally Posted by Cliffbeer2

OK, I'm gonna shut up now. All of a sudden I feel like the gay guy in hot pants that accidentally walks into the biker bar....

Cliff, don't feel intimidated. Your assessment of the disproportionate number of conservatives on this site is right on the money. But by the same token, there lots of liberal thinkers here too who no longer see the point of trying to move an imovable object.

After all, by definition, conservatives want to conserve the status quo. And since it is usualy driven by fear of the unknown, it manifests itself as denial and all reason then goes out the window. It is as simple as that.

Liberals on the other hand are by definition, liberal in their thinking and so are prepared to think outside the square. They are by their nature finding themselves having to constantly make balanced judgements based on their understanding of the facts as they know them.

So here we have on the one hand liberals who are open to reason in advance of forming an opinion clashing with conservatives who have pre-formed opinons and looking only towards arguments that support it. It is a objective force pushing against an imovable object.

Maybe we can all simply be content in the knowledge that the advance of humans has always been driven (and hopefully will continue to be) by liberal thinkers who revel in new ideas and ambrace change, and not by people who are afraid of the unknown and would be prepared to oppose change at any cost, even if the cost ironicly turns out to be the ultimate distruction of that world.

[Gregg]

"Cliff, don't feel intimidated. Your assessment of the disproportionate number of conservatives on this site is right on the money. But by the same token, there lots of liberal thinkers here too who no longer see the point of trying to move an imovable object.

After all, by definition, conservatives want to conserve the status quo. And since it is usualy driven by fear of the unknown, it manifests itself as denial and all reason then goes out the window. It is as simple as that."


Really??? I will gladly pitch my tent with the people without "REASON". Seems to me that most of the conservatives try to base there decisions upon rational thought and facts. We tend to question things more and are not so accepting of what one Messiah may preach.


"Liberals on the other hand are by definition, liberal in their thinking and so are prepared to think outside the square. They are by their nature finding themselves having to constantly make balanced judgements based on their understanding of the facts as they know them."

Balanced judgments?? If by balanced you mean the Robinhood mentality and take from the rich and give to the poor so everyone is equal, okay, I agree with your opinion. Personally I think their judgments are biased to their position.


"So here we have on the one hand liberals who are open to reason in advance of forming an opinion clashing with conservatives who have pre-formed opinons and looking only towards arguments that support it. It is a objective force pushing against an imovable object."

Thats funny.

"Maybe we can all simply be content in the knowledge that the advance of humans has always been driven (and hopefully will continue to be) by liberal thinkers who revel in new ideas and ambrace change, and not by people who are afraid of the unknown and would be prepared to oppose change at any cost, even if the cost ironicly turns out to be the ultimate distruction of that world."

[Fred W.]

Nicely said Chris.

Talk about a disproportionate number of conservatives! You know your among people who perhaps are not putting to much thought into their arguments when they start posting links to Glen Beck regarding the economy or links to Fox 'News' for 'suppressed' climate change reports. Climate change is almost certainly all to real. It will have to be addressed sooner or later. Blowhards complaining about the introduction of the policies that may do something to slow down its affects are all going to be as dead as fried chicken long before we see the worst of them.

[Gregg]

Originally Posted by cleanfred

Nicely said Chris.

Talk about a disproportionate number of conservatives! You know your among people who perhaps are not putting to much thought into their arguments when they start posting links to Glen Beck regarding the economy or links to Fox 'News' for 'suppressed' climate change reports. Climate change is almost certainly all to real. It will have to be addressed sooner or later. Blowhards complaining about the introduction of the policies that may do something to slow down its affects are all going to be as dead as fried chicken long before we see the worst of them.

I guess this is the liberal, "out of the square" thinking Chris mentioned. If it doesn't support your position, the information must be wrong, and therefore ignored.

[John M]

Originally Posted by cleanfred

Nicely said Chris.

Talk about a disproportionate number of conservatives! You know your among people who perhaps are not putting to much thought into their arguments when they start posting links to Glen Beck regarding the economy or links to Fox 'News' for 'suppressed' climate change reports. Climate change is almost certainly all to real. It will have to be addressed sooner or later. Blowhards complaining about the introduction of the policies that may do something to slow down its affects are all going to be as dead as fried chicken long before we see the worst of them.

Do you call MSNBC 'News'?

And what about that link to fox news? Is this link better?
Inhofe Calls For EPA Inquiry
Also, this is not really about climate change; its about hiding information that might have been a detrimental to the Obama campaign.

[WEGENER Engineering]

I am always amazed how self righteous liberals are. These purveyors of all things good and caring have enslaved more people and ruined more lives than any conservative ever alive.
I do not care how you live your life but stay out of mine.

[Pete McCluskey.]

Originally Posted by Cliffbeer2

OK, I'm gonna shut up now. All of a sudden I feel like the gay guy in hot pants that accidentally walks into the biker bar....

Don't worry Cliff this biker still luvs ya!

[Mike]

Large sums of money, along with political clout are tied up in this ‘climate change’ controversy. Given these two factors, it is reasonable to at least question the motivation of a) those perpetrating green technology, carbon caps and such, as well as b) those trying to downplay climate change, presumably to maintain the status quo, which saves the cost of ‘cleaning up’ pollutants. Given that each ‘side’ may have an agenda, it follows that arguments may be slanted, either way. However, there appears to be enough “evidence” on either side to at least seek some answers before making laws and spending untold amounts of OUR money to fix something that may just possibly not be broken.

Do I want the world to go down the toilet? Hell, no. If we’re going to cook the ice caps and wipe out half the animal life etc. etc., I’d be happy to pay as much tax as required, and drive the ERA less than the 361 miles per year I put on it now. HOWEVER, If and when I pay that tax, I want to know it’s not because some bullshit politician or activist got a wild tic up his ass and jumped on the bandwagon du jour to feather his retirement, ego, self esteem or whatever! And how will I know this? When there is at least SOME agreement between real scientists on anthropogenic climate change. There are grant-chasing scientists just like there are ‘expert witnesses’ in trials. (I was asked to testify for McDonnell Douglas involving an F-4 accident, for a fee. When I refused to make certain statements, it was dropped). I don’t CARE what the ice caps are doing, I DO care about what WE are doing to them, IF we are doing anything measurable. So when some ‘reasonable’ person tells me …

…” So here we have on the one hand liberals who are open to reason in advance of forming an opinion clashing with conservatives who have pre-formed opinions and looking only towards arguments that support it.”

…once they have formed their opinion, apparently there’s no longer reason to remain open to reason, and they now become like the conservatives, looking only towards arguments that support it? No more questions allowed? Any and all scientists who disagree must be following a hidden agenda sponsored by Hillary’s Right Wing conspirators and are lying?
And “Oh By The Way”, these wouldn’t be those same scientists that were crying “ICE AGE” back in 75, would they?

Is the climate changing? Sure! I do not deny, but neither do I accept that man is the primary cause of this change. I would very much like to find out. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to have it shoved down my throat while they go for my wallet. If that sounds unreasonable…well…

[Molleur]

Well stated Mike! +1

[imsa]

I don't know how much I would believe anything printed in the Australian considering it's owned by....Rupert Murdoch. Imagine that.

IMSA

[Al Wohlstrom]

Geeez, This guy is an idiot, and the sad thing is that lots of idiots believe him!
Gateway Pundit: Most Embarrassing Global Warming Hoaxes of 2008 Revealed

[Al Wohlstrom]

SCIENTISTS DISCLAIM ROLE OF CO2 IN GLOBAL WARMING



By Dr. Michael S. Coffman Ph. D.
March 8, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change held in New York City March 2-4 was attended by an impressive list of over 500 people. The conference was organized by the Heartland Institute of Chicago and co-sponsored by dozens of organizations. Also participating were over leading 100 scientists in the climate scientific debate. These scientists made it abundantly clear with hard scientific evidence that greenhouse gases are not the main drivers of global warming. In other words, human activities do not cause warming and economy-destroying laws are not needed.

Dr. Fred Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist, and founder and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, provided very convincing evidence that CO2 is not playing a significant role in planetary warming. Citing a paper he co-authored in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology, Dr. Singer informed the audience that the physics of CO2-driven global warming require that the mid-troposphere warm faster than the surface by 2-3oC. Consequently, all global warming models have this relationship built into them.


However, real-world temperature measurements do not show this predicted warming – at all! This stunning evidence carries far reaching ramifications. Although it totally discredits CO2 driven warming, at least as it is presently theorized, global warming alarmists and the highly politicized UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) refuse to even consider it. When cornered on the subject, they have said that evidence does support their theory. In doing so, the alarmists admit they are politically motivated, and will do or say anything to protect their agenda at the complete sacrifice of true science.

This and far more hard evidence is presented in a new document released at the meeting called “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate.” The document, released at the conference as a “Summary for Policymakers,” provides overwhelming scientific evidence that man is not responsible for global warming. Yet, it is written in a way that can be understood by the average person. The document was written by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a group of 23 leading scientists on climate change from 15 nations, and represents the best summary of current research on the subject. You can download it here.

There were a variety of theories presented during the conference on what did cause global warming – all of them involving various aspects of an increasingly active sun and ocean temperature oscillations like El Niño vs. La Niña. Most scientists agreed the actual warming probably involves many, if not all these mechanisms. Tragically, however, very little research money is spent refining these theories.

In spite of the very reasoned and convincing evidence presented by the scientists at the convention, the mainline press denigrated and demeaned their presentations. Andy Revkin of the New York Times focused on minor disagreements between the scientists, rather than the strong scientific evidence that CO2 does not play a significant role in warming. To the overwhelming evidence, Revkin merely said that the scientists were trying “hard to prove that they had unraveled the established science showing that humans are warming the world in potentially disruptive ways.” Rather than critiquing the science presented, Revkin attacked the sponsor saying that the Heartland Institute is “a Chicago group whose antiregulatory philosophy has long been embraced by, and financially supported by, various industries and conservative donors.” He failed to mention that Heartland receives less than 7 percent of its budget from these “various industries.” Nor, did he say that conservative institutions working on climate change are outspent by at least 7 to 1 by environmental groups that blame CO2 and advocate draconian regulations.

The Washington Post was only slightly better. Juliet Eilperin lamented that “the meeting represented a sort of global warming doppelganger conference, where everything was reversed” – a polite way of saying that the scientists opposed everything that everybody knows is true. She emphasized that the NIPCC was only written by 23 authors, some of them not scientists, while the UN’s IPCC “enlisted several hundred scientists from a 100 nations.” She fails to mention that many of the “hundred scientists” allegedly endorsing the IPCC’s report actually attended the New York conference and called the IPCC report a scam. Ironically, AP’s Seth Borenstein, a strong proponent of man-caused global warming, acknowledged in an April 9, 2007 article that only 52 scientists actually wrote the UN’s highly political IPCC report, guided by a host of “diplomats.” While Borenstein called the non-scientists diplomats, most people would call them bureaucrats.

[Order Dr. Coffman's DVD "Global Warming - Global Governance"]

Actually, the so-called consensus of hundreds of scientists on the IPCC report is much worse than that. An analysis released in September 2007 on the IPCC scientific review process by Australian climate data analyst John McLean, revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is "an illusion." Only a few of the “hundreds” are actually involved in the UN’s peer-review process. Says McLean, “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section.”

Putting this into perspective, at most 52 scientists wrote the IPPC’s report, of which only 4 or 5 endorsed its highly politicized findings. Yet, the IPCC repeatedly gives the impression that hundreds, if not thousands of scientists endorse their conclusions. This is completely false. While many other scientists do endorse it, it is certainly not a consensus. Compared to this, every one of the 23 NIPCC’s scientists and economists who authored the report released at the conference endorsed it. Likewise, most, if not all, the 100 scientists at the conference endorsed the NIPCC’s conclusions.

No one should be surprised that the mainstream press got it completely wrong – again. After all, if they wrote that the polar bear, which is being considered for listing as an endangered species, is experiencing record high populations and is in fact not in danger from global warming, the reporters would suffer the scorn of their environmentalist friends and the possible wrath of their editors. If they wrote that maybe, just maybe all these scientists at the March Climate Change meeting in New York were right, it would shatter the use of global warming as a justification for global governance, as former French President, Jacque Chirac proclaimed to the world in 2000 during the Framework Convention on Climate Change’s COP 6 meeting. “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance…to organise our collective sovereignty over this planet.”



There was an undercurrent during the conference about the sun that was hinted at during many of the talks. The sun should have entered Solar Cycle 24 in 2007, when it becomes much more active, but is so far dead quiet. This hasn’t been seen since the 17th and 18th centuries during what is called the little ice age. The temperature dropped several degrees during that time and was accompanied by crop losses, famine and pestilence. Thankfully, no one expects it to get that bad, but we could be entering another cooling cycle, like what occurred between 1945 and 1975. Both the southern and northern hemisphere’s have had the coldest winter in decades, and in some regions this winter has broken all records.



Although it is far too early to say with any certainty what will happen, the prospect terrifies the global warming alarmists. They have long known that it could happen and is probably behind why the alarmists have changed the name from man-caused global warming to man-caused climate change for the past several years. That way, no matter what happens, the alarmists can try to convince the world that man is still at the root of the problem and we must turn to global governance to save the world. Hopefully, the world will see through the scam.