Sex God
The lie begins to crumble
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Is this Climate Change Malarky a money making Con or not?
Money making Con or not?
Yes
0%
No
0%
7 votes
The lie begins to crumble
Does that mean they will stop stealing our money on the pretext it is helping to save the planet?
Will they stop taking our money to put towards half backed crack pot schemes, saying how much this or that can help the effect of global warming?
This has categorically proved to me without any shadow of a doubt, we are all being conned. But us Brits with the oh so stiff upper lip, will just carry on paying for this scam.
Bollocks to the lot of them I say....give me back my money.
Sex God
Poor Professor Jones, I would imagine he has been pressured by the powers that be and now he may well become there scape goat!
Just because the data does not indicate substantial temperature rise is not a reason to reduce our efforts to cut emissions....or:
Or:
Or:
And:
“No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart
Canadian Environment Minister
Calgary Herald
14 Dec 1998
Or:
“The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models”
Chris Folland
UK Meteorological Office
Or:
“We have a policy at Greenpeace that we no longer debate people who don't accept the scientific reality of anthropogenic climate change.”
Ben Stewart, Greenpeace
in a letter to Iain Dale
circa 2007-05-28
And:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to suppress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister
JTS....your comment " Just because the data does not indicate substantial temperature rise is not a reason to reduce our efforts to cut emissions " is a fair point but....
They have used that very comment a million times about how the Earth is warming due to...ya cars or...ya leave your light bulbs on too long.
I am all for cutting emissions as breathing in cleaner air must be better but...don't let these thieves and " so called Scientists " use the " Global warming " tag, to then say we are saving the planet.
For years it was known as Global warming due to the Ozone layer, now it is climate change, and all the while making us pay dearer for everything.
These idiots and hypocrites then FLY out to some far away place to discuss it even though planes apparently pollute the worst.
Plus you say about not being a substantial rise there has been NO rise.
Only when we are all dead and buried will the truth of this con be revealed, and the people in 60 years time will be laughing at us idiots saying how could they have fallen for such rubbish....I wonder that now all the time, but I for one have not been fooled at all.
They have used that very comment a million times about how the Earth is warming due to...ya cars or...ya leave your light bulbs on too long.
I am all for cutting emissions as breathing in cleaner air must be better but...don't let these thieves and " so called Scientists " use the " Global warming " tag, to then say we are saving the planet.
For years it was known as Global warming due to the Ozone layer, now it is climate change, and all the while making us pay dearer for everything.
These idiots and hypocrites then FLY out to some far away place to discuss it even though planes apparently pollute the worst.
Plus you say about not being a substantial rise there has been NO rise.
Only when we are all dead and buried will the truth of this con be revealed, and the people in 60 years time will be laughing at us idiots saying how could they have fallen for such rubbish....I wonder that now all the time, but I for one have not been fooled at all.
The average temperature has been rising for many years now, we can safely ignore a ten-year average:
The black line is the average.....the TREND is rising even though the short-term is falling.
It just is NOT rising as fast as the "warmists" would have us believe.
Never mind that PARTS of January were COLDER than other Januaries, the AVERAGE is warmer !
And even though there is snow in all US states it does not mean that the average temperature is lower GLOBALLY.
A warmer climate will bring about changes in weather...some places will get cooler (sometimes) and warmer other times.
The black line is the average.....the TREND is rising even though the short-term is falling.
It just is NOT rising as fast as the "warmists" would have us believe.
Never mind that PARTS of January were COLDER than other Januaries, the AVERAGE is warmer !
And even though there is snow in all US states it does not mean that the average temperature is lower GLOBALLY.
A warmer climate will bring about changes in weather...some places will get cooler (sometimes) and warmer other times.
Sorry JTS a good arguement you put forward, but it just does not have the truth factor, from the so called experts.
Turning my lights off or not running my car, is going to make no difference whatsoever to the global climate...my opinion. But until they can come up with stuff that can be 100% substantiated, then for me they are thieves and liars.
On the pretext of emissions they have now even banned 100 watt light bulbs fgs..another cranky European directive along with all the other crackpot mad ideas these wally come up with.
Monday morning brigade out in force.
Turning my lights off or not running my car, is going to make no difference whatsoever to the global climate...my opinion. But until they can come up with stuff that can be 100% substantiated, then for me they are thieves and liars.
On the pretext of emissions they have now even banned 100 watt light bulbs fgs..another cranky European directive along with all the other crackpot mad ideas these wally come up with.
Monday morning brigade out in force.
Sex God
Quote by JTS
The average temperature has been rising for many years now, we can safely ignore a ten-year average:
The picture shows the temperature over 300 years (ish) versus atmospheric CO2.
The next shows a globally-averaged temperature, with additions:
The black line is the average.....the TREND is rising even though the short-term is falling.
It just is NOT rising as fast as the "warmists" would have us believe.
Never mind that PARTS of January were COLDER than other Januaries, the AVERAGE is warmer !
And even though there is snow in all US states it does not mean that the average temperature is lower GLOBALLY.
A warmer climate will bring about changes in weather...some places will get cooler (sometimes) and warmer other times.
The problem is I do not believe it is a man made effect!
Quote by Bluefish2009
The problem is I do not believe it is a man made effect!
No, neither do I: And if my previous posts had been read that may have been obvious ?
But...
You are forgetting the "it may not be our fault but we can use it for our own ends" effect.
the FACTS may be wrong, but the scare-factor is being used to effect change.
Effectively, it is being used to degrade society to the point of regression.
Don't forget...the green agenda is to depopulate the UK to a sustainable 16 million.
In fact since only 5% (or less) of atmospheric CO2 is down to human activities it is hard to see where it is affecting the climate...
Which is why the AGW brigade evoke the "unknown forcing mechanism" to explain it....even though physicists have stated that the science of infrared absorption by CO2 cannot explain it...
Climateologists make poor scientists it seems.
Sex God
Quote by JTS
The problem is I do not believe it is a man made effect!
No, neither do I: And if my previous posts had been read that may have been obvious ?
But...
You are forgetting the "it may not be our fault but we can use it for our own ends" effect.
the FACTS may be wrong, but the scare-factor is being used to effect change.
Effectively, it is being used to degrade society to the point of regression.
Don't forget...the green agenda is to depopulate the UK to a sustainable 16 million.
In fact since only 5% (or less) of atmospheric CO2 is down to human activities it is hard to see where it is affecting the climate...
Which is why the AGW brigade evoke the "unknown forcing mechanism" to explain it....even though physicists have stated that the science of infrared absorption by CO2 cannot explain it...
Climateologists make poor scientists it seems.
I have read your previous post's, I was commenting on your last post, thats why I quoted it.
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
“The overwhelming growth in world population caused by the positive birth-rate loop is a recent phenomenon, a result of mankind's very successful reduction of worldwide mortality. The controlling negative feedback loop has been weakened, allowing the positive loop to operate virtually without constraint. There are only two ways to restore the resulting imbalance. Either the birth rate must be brought down to equal the new, lower death rate, or the death rate must rise again.”
Watch: 5:15 onward. 6 minute mark has an awesome bit.
Here's the chick doing the interview:
- Tons of publications in regards to Climate Change, man-made global warming, etc.
- PhD in Geology I believe
- Makes models which deal with global warming
- "An expert reviewer for the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"
- "From 2008 to 2009, she served as a lead author on the federal report, ?Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States,? a report commissioned by the Bush administration and released under the Obama administration."
why are people who have no degree/work experience debating a topic such as this... Y'all really have no basis for your argument, especially if you are telling the people who devout their lives to a certain area are wrong.
Here's the chick doing the interview:
- Tons of publications in regards to Climate Change, man-made global warming, etc.
- PhD in Geology I believe
- Makes models which deal with global warming
- "An expert reviewer for the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"
- "From 2008 to 2009, she served as a lead author on the federal report, ?Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States,? a report commissioned by the Bush administration and released under the Obama administration."
why are people who have no degree/work experience debating a topic such as this... Y'all really have no basis for your argument, especially if you are telling the people who devout their lives to a certain area are wrong.
The ONLY truth is that no-one really knows what is happening.
Until all of our 'experts' really know and agree, then it's all conjecture.
Incidentally, the same type of scientific arguments were made about the Earth being flat ......
What I DO know is that the current warming trend began 800 years ago.
If that truly is the case, then it certainly has nothing to do with anything we've done does it ?
And, we also know that the Earth has experienced many cyclic changes - some of them extremely rapid (faster than the current trend) and in both directions.
So..... yes there IS a warming phenomenon, and yes we can measure it.
Is it our fault ? probably not.
Are we influencing it ? A little (I stress LITTLE) bit yes.
Can we reverse it ? An emphatic NO.
Until all of our 'experts' really know and agree, then it's all conjecture.
Incidentally, the same type of scientific arguments were made about the Earth being flat ......
What I DO know is that the current warming trend began 800 years ago.
If that truly is the case, then it certainly has nothing to do with anything we've done does it ?
And, we also know that the Earth has experienced many cyclic changes - some of them extremely rapid (faster than the current trend) and in both directions.
So..... yes there IS a warming phenomenon, and yes we can measure it.
Is it our fault ? probably not.
Are we influencing it ? A little (I stress LITTLE) bit yes.
Can we reverse it ? An emphatic NO.
Crap.
Reliable temperature records show no appreciable warming for many decades, we can safely ignore the warmists research. If it was correct they would not have to deliberately falsify the data and suppress records that did not agree with their "make-me-millions" research.
We can also reliably ignore self-publicists as the one you gave above.
What you, and others are conveniently forgetting is that this planet should be about forty degress lower in temperature than it is....personally, I like warm.
I dislike funding "scientists" who deliberately alter facts to suit their pre-paid personal views.
In fact, since science is supposed to be the search for truth, I doubt if they deserve to be called scientists.
Oh, and here is another of MoonBats "stories":
Reliable temperature records show no appreciable warming for many decades, we can safely ignore the warmists research. If it was correct they would not have to deliberately falsify the data and suppress records that did not agree with their "make-me-millions" research.
We can also reliably ignore self-publicists as the one you gave above.
What you, and others are conveniently forgetting is that this planet should be about forty degress lower in temperature than it is....personally, I like warm.
I dislike funding "scientists" who deliberately alter facts to suit their pre-paid personal views.
In fact, since science is supposed to be the search for truth, I doubt if they deserve to be called scientists.
Oh, and here is another of MoonBats "stories":
"This is bigger than climate change. It is a battle to redefine humanity
This is the moment at which we turn and face ourselves. Here, in the plastic corridors and crowded stalls, among impenetrable texts and withering procedures, humankind decides what it is and what it will become. It chooses whether to continue living as it has done, until it must make a wasteland of its home, or to stop and redefine itself. This is about much more than climate change. This is about us.
The meeting at Copenhagen confronts us with our primal tragedy. We are the universal ape, equipped with the ingenuity and aggression to bring down prey much larger than itself, break into new lands, roar its defiance of natural constraints. Now we find ourselves hedged in by the consequences of our nature, living meekly on this crowded planet for fear of provoking or damaging others. We have the hearts of lions and live the lives of clerks.
The summit's premise is that the age of heroism is over. We have entered the age of accommodation. No longer may we live without restraint. No longer may we swing our fists regardless of whose nose might be in the way. In everything we do we must now be mindful of the lives of others, cautious, constrained, meticulous. We may no longer live in the moment, as if there were no tomorrow.
The angry men know that this golden age has gone; but they cannot find the words for the constraints they hate. Clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged, they flail around, accusing those who would impede them of communism, fascism, religiosity, misanthropy, but knowing at heart that these restrictions are driven by something far more repulsive to the unrestrained man: the decencies we owe to other human beings. I fear this chorus of bullies, but I also sympathise. I lead a mostly peaceful life, but my dreams are haunted by giant aurochs.
So here we are, in the land of Beowulf's heroics, lost in a fog of acronyms and euphemisms, parentheses and exemptions, the deathly diplomacy required to accommodate everyone's demands. There is no space for heroism here; all passion and power breaks against the needs of others. This is how it should be, though every neurone revolts against it."
Whether or not climate change is ultimately real, or not, it is interesting to see so many apparently opposing groups side up with the global warming scam because it suits their own financial agenda.
Furthermore, I think carbon trading will be seen as one of the great financial scams of the 21century if allowed to take off as planned. Already the EU pays billions for carbon offset credits to countries such as China. Do we really believe that a place like China which shoots its own people, stamps violently on political dissent is going to be honest about providing real offset activities - who will check? It's more likely the money is being spent on a new carrier fleet to threaten Taiwan sometime in the future. Who is going to protect them - certainly not the U.S. anymore who are in hock to the Chinese.
Just my 2 pence.
Jim
Furthermore, I think carbon trading will be seen as one of the great financial scams of the 21century if allowed to take off as planned. Already the EU pays billions for carbon offset credits to countries such as China. Do we really believe that a place like China which shoots its own people, stamps violently on political dissent is going to be honest about providing real offset activities - who will check? It's more likely the money is being spent on a new carrier fleet to threaten Taiwan sometime in the future. Who is going to protect them - certainly not the U.S. anymore who are in hock to the Chinese.
Just my 2 pence.
Jim
Much more to the point, industries are being closed down to collect the large amounts of dosh swilling-about in the bilges of carbon trading: Or maybe that should be SEWERS of carbon trading ?
And as for our "marvelous" "scientits" (no, the "s" was not forgotten):
And as for our "marvelous" "scientits" (no, the "s" was not forgotten):
It is a mainstay of the argument for action on climate change that the ‘overwhelming majority’ of climate scientists are in agreement on the need for it. Yet as the table above shows, there are just 94 authors responsible for compiling the report in which the case for alarm rests. ‘Ah, but…’, says the alarmist, ‘it’s the weight of evidence that counts’. Never mind that there is no evidence for something that hasn’t happened yet – the catastrophe which is the object of the alarmism – these 94 researchers do not draw from a wealth of research, but manage instead to cite themselves a whopping 317 times in a document that contains references to just 550 papers (including references to previous IPCC reports). If we excluded those papers in which the chapter’s authors were directly involved, there would be just 292. Just eight researchers manage to cite themselves no less than 110 times – over a third of the chapter’s self-citations, and a fifth of the total.
