The Great Global Warming Swindle

[fibonelli]

What on earth has global warming got to do with this ? A realistic assessment of the risk of global warming depends on climate science. The validity of the science is not dependant on whether a bunch of lunatics might want to hop on the bandwagon or not.

The stuff on eugenics conflates mutiple issues (very badly) and appropriately is posted on a web site devoted to consipracies.In particular attributing advocacy of sex education for children to a consipracy driven by eugenics is downright peculiar to say the least.

dcraig,

can you tell me what was the climate science propaganda that was deemed as the "consensus" in the 1970s?

can you also tell me how accurate this "consensus" prediction was 30 years later?

I am puzzled how you cannot understand the link between the current AGW propaganda and depopulation/eugenics. The following quotes should clarify matters:-

".......Man-made global warming feeds into humanity's arrogant self-importance in thinking that it has become the master and therefore the decider of the earth's destiny. On an individual level, it also helps a person stroke their ego and feel good about themselves for recycling a few beer cans or wine bottles in the belief that they're saving the planet, and also gives them the excuse to exercise their judgment against anyone who doesn't do likewise........".

".......The extremist wing of the environmentalist movement, characterized by people like Dr. Erik Pianka, advocate the mass culling of humanity via plagues and state sanctioned bio-terrorism, in order to "save" the earth from the disease of humanity. Nazi-like genocidal population control measures and the environmental establishment have always held a close alliance.....".
Source:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/130207globalwarming.htm

"..........Forrest M. Mims III has reported in a Special Feature in The Citizen Scientist ("Meeting Dr. Doom," 31 March 2006) on a lecture he recently heard at a meeting of the Texas Academy of Science. The Academy chose to honor one Professor Eric R. Pianka, an eminent ecologist who studies desert ecologies, with its 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist Scientist award. Professor Pianka used the occasion to champion the notion, apparently without sanction of the Academy, that the Earth can only be saved if ninety percent of the human beings alive today are purged form the planet. He championed airborne Ebola as the most efficient virus to accomplish this. And while he stopped short of calling for terrorist action to bring this result about, he clearly implied that this was a right and proper future for our species and our planet. Astonishingly, after advocating for a future in which more than 5,000,000,000 persons would die a slow and agonizing death, many members of the Texas Academy of Science stood to their feet and applauded".............

Source:
http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/editorial-p/index.html

 

[Atilla]

Yes it's been scientifically proven.

It would be interesting to carry out a survey of the flooded areas asking the question:

Do you believe in global warming is contributing to climate change?

Be interesting what % would say YES and NO.


The point being, people will change their minds only when they have had an impact due to change in the weather.

So all you sceptics out there. You wait your turn... :cheesy:

 

[dcraig1]

dcraig,

can you tell me what was the climate science propaganda that was deemed as the "consensus" in the 1970s?

can you also tell me how accurate this "consensus" prediction was 30 years later?

The issue of perceived global cooling in the '70s has been extensively dealt with. If you would care to chase it down, it is now accepted that the effect was due to sulphur particulates emitted into the atmosphere due to vast expansion of industrial production from WWII onwards. This has been reduced by much better industrial emission controls. If anything, the reduction of sulphur emissions should be taken as a success for environmental controls not as an argument against them.

In any case it is just not true that there was anything like the real concensus that exists today in climate science in the '70s. Repeating lies does not make them true.

 

[dcraig1]

dcraig,

I am puzzled how you cannot understand the link between the current AGW propaganda and depopulation/eugenics.

And I'm puzzled at how anybody can believe this crap. What some professor may or may not have said as stated in a third hand report of some lecture does not interest me particularly. It is quite clear that forcible population culling is not advocated by climate scientists or environmentalists. A ridiculous and stupid lie. End of story.

 

[dcraig1]

"Humanity is rapidly turning the seas acid through the same pollution that causes global warming, the world's governments and top scientists agreed yesterday. The process – thought to be the most profound change in the chemistry of the oceans for 20 million years – is expected both to disrupt the entire web of life of the oceans and to make climate change worse.

"The warning is just one of a whole series of alarming conclusions in a new report published by the official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)"

Alarming indeed .....

http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article3172144.ece

 

[Splitlink]

And I'm puzzled at how anybody can believe this crap. What some professor may or may not have said as stated in a third hand report of some lecture does not interest me particularly. It is quite clear that forcible population culling is not advocated by climate scientists or environmentalists. A ridiculous and stupid lie. End of story.

It's not the end of the story. The professor's story is extreme, perhaps, and very unpalatable. I don't like it, so don't lump me in with the nazis, please.

However, I have heard a scientist commenting on the melting of the polar ice caps and he said that the only way to stop global warming and general global contamination is to reduce the population. The way he said it, though, was in a way that suggested that it was an impossibility and to do it deliberately was against general human decency. Nevertheless, global population is the only problem, in my opinion.

When I first went to sea we used to lift 15,000 tons of oil at a time. These ships were twice as big as the average dry cargo freighter. When I left the sea, we were lifting ten times that. It was obvious to any thinking person that this had to stop. That was in the sixties.

We are on a self-destructive course and my opinion is that it is inevitable. Our money is becoming useless because of the scarcity of fossil fuels and minerals. What do we do? We increase the prices and then give higher wages to the workers so that they can pay them. Does that make sense to you? It's just not facing the real problem. There isn't much of anything left and devaluing the currencies is not going to solve that.

Split

 

[dcraig1]

Splitlink,

No disagreement from me. It must be obvious to anybody that doesn't have some peculiar political or ideological axe to grind that the world's population cannot continue to expand indefinately without some very serious and quite probably disasterous consequences.

It remains to be seen whether it has reached that point already. With anticipated rates of economic development and industrial growth, it is hard to be optimistic.

However cheap propaganda from the anti global warming mob remains just that - cheap and crude propaganda.

 

[Splitlink]

Splitlink,

However cheap propaganda from the anti global warming mob remains just that - cheap and crude propaganda.

Governments cannot get their acts together. Plenty of talk about agreements but they don't know how to put it into action. Can't say I blame them, we'd have to have a Putin here to do it, Parliaments and Congress will not want to rock their political boats because whatever they do, in a democracy, it will be unpopular.

Split

 

[dcraig1]

Governments cannot get their acts together. Plenty of talk about agreements but they don't know how to put it into action. Can't say I blame them, we'd have to have a Putin here to do it, Parliaments and Congress will not want to rock their political boats because whatever they do, in a democracy, it will be unpopular.

Split

I think public opinion is way ahead of governments on this. A fairly recent opinion poll here in Australia found that over 80% of the population agreed that GW needed to be urgently addressed and over 70% agreed that it needed to be addressed even at significant economic cost. This in a country that is probably the biggest emitter of CO2 per capita in the world.

Seriously addressing global warming is certain to ruffle some feathers, but mostly the feathers of fairly easily identified vested interests. It is a matter of the will of the majority being asserted and that is what democracy should be about.

 

[the blades]

I think public opinion is way ahead of governments on this. A fairly recent opinion poll here in Australia found that over 80% of the population agreed that GW needed to be urgently addressed and over 70% agreed that it needed to be addressed even at significant economic cost. This in a country that is probably the biggest emitter of CO2 per capita in the world.

Seriously addressing global warming is certain to ruffle some feathers, but mostly the feathers of fairly easily identified vested interests. It is a matter of the will of the majority being asserted and that is what democracy should be about.

the problem is, IMHO, people will claim they are prepared to pay to reduce global warming when asked. Most / many will vote exactly the opposite in reality. These things are always palatable, providing someone else picks up the bill.

UTB

 

[Trader333]

the world's governments and top scientists agreed yesterday

Actually that is not the case. The worlds top scientists agreed but there is still a long way to go to get the worlds governments to agree as well and especially the USA and China. Without their agreement then the whole thing is pointless as they contribute more to the problem than almost everyone else put together.

I agree with the fact that if this problem is human induced then it is entirely due to the number of people we have in the world and to make things worse it is estimated that the population will increase by an additional 50% in the next 40 years. The result of this can only make things even worse again in my view.

There is one assumption in all of this though and that is that the planet is not capable of balancing itself up without our involvement. This also presumes that the planet is not a living entity which is something that is not proven. After all every living thing on the planet relies on some other living thing for its own existence. If you take this to its logical origin then the planet would have to be a living entity to be able to continuously support life.

If the planet is a living entity then it may also be possible that it is heading towards an evolutionary step in its own development. The melting of the polar ice caps and raising of temperatures will throw a lot more water into the atmosphere the consequences of which would at least be interesting in my view.


Paul

 

[Splitlink]

Paul, 40 years is just around the corner. I've lived in Spain that time, it seems like yesterday. We should be considering 100 years. What will it be like, then?

The planet has taken millions of year to create oil that we have consumed in the last century. Living animals' natural food has been eliminated by us. When I came out here hake cost about one GBP per kilo. I remember beautiful, fat, mussels at 15 pesetas per kilo. The hake we get today--the whole damned thing does't weigh much more than a kilo, head and all.

This just makes me miserable---I'm off!!!

Regards Split

 

[barjon]

It's not the end of the story. The professor's story is extreme, perhaps, and very unpalatable. I don't like it, so don't lump me in with the nazis, please.

However, I have heard a scientist commenting on the melting of the polar ice caps and he said that the only way to stop global warming and general global contamination is to reduce the population. The way he said it, though, was in a way that suggested that it was an impossibility and to do it deliberately was against general human decency. Nevertheless, global population is the only problem, in my opinion.

When I first went to sea we used to lift 15,000 tons of oil at a time. These ships were twice as big as the average dry cargo freighter. When I left the sea, we were lifting ten times that. It was obvious to any thinking person that this had to stop. That was in the sixties.

We are on a self-destructive course and my opinion is that it is inevitable. Our money is becoming useless because of the scarcity of fossil fuels and minerals. What do we do? We increase the prices and then give higher wages to the workers so that they can pay them. Does that make sense to you? It's just not facing the real problem. There isn't much of anything left and devaluing the currencies is not going to solve that.

Split

split

I may be a fatalist, but I think nature itself is the only thing to take care of the problem ( not that I think the case for global warming is fully proven yet). We humans have only been here for a flea-bite in the overall scheme of things and like the dinosaurs we will most likely succumb to the forces of nature sooner or later.

With a bit of luck, should the human race survive that long (which is pretty long odds), we might have found somewhere else in the universe to colonise before the earth dies and it's to be hoped that those colonists take with them any lessons to be learned about whether humans caused or hastened the death.

cheers

jon

 

[Splitlink]

split

I may be a fatalist, but I think nature itself is the only thing to take care of the problem ( not that I think the case for global warming is fully proven yet). We humans have only been here for a flea-bite in the overall scheme of things and like the dinosaurs we will most likely succumb to the forces of nature sooner or later.

With a bit of luck, should the human race survive that long (which is pretty long odds), we might have found somewhere else in the universe to colonise before the earth dies and it's to be hoped that those colonists take with them any lessons to be learned about whether humans caused or hastened the death.

cheers

jon

Are you thinking of that faraway place where only the gooduns go, like me, for example?

Split

 

[fibonelli]

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

THE GLOBAL WARMING FRENZY
Have a look at the chart named "The last thousand years in Europe - climatic changes" and if you still believe in man made global warming please explain why the medieval period was much warmer than today and the reason(s) behind this warming.

 

[Splitlink]

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

THE GLOBAL WARMING FRENZY
Have a look at the chart named "The last thousand years in Europe - climatic changes" and if you still believe in man made global warming please explain why the medieval period was much warmer than today and the reason(s) behind this warming.

You are on about global warming and it is possible that you could be right, although I disagree. Do you think, though, that we should simply stand back and see what happens?

My concerns are about the above but, in addition, the contamination of air and water, the chemicals that are killing all the fauna and flora in the sea and everywhere else. We can't go on the way we are.

Split

 

[dcraig1]

There is one assumption in all of this though and that is that the planet is not capable of balancing itself up without our involvement. This also presumes that the planet is not a living entity which is something that is not proven. After all every living thing on the planet relies on some other living thing for its own existence. If you take this to its logical origin then the planet would have to be a living entity to be able to continuously support life.
Paul

Whether the planet is a "living entity" or not, the idea that it will "heal itself" is misplaced as used by the GW skeptics. They very incorrectly equate evolution with a crude view of "survival of the fittest" - and assert this to be the mechanism by which the planet will heal itself. But evolution is much more correctly paraphrased as the survival of the fittest mutations and proceeds over many generations - it takes time and sometimes lots of it.

But time is the resource that is most lacking when the human induced rate of climate and other environment change takes hold. Evolution is short circuited, and the adaptaion of life to change may in many cases just not be feasible over the time frames involved. The consequences are at best unpredictable.

This is treading on very dangerous territory.

 

[laptop1]

I just don't believe CO2 is responsible for global warming, if it were, there would be no reason to play politics, the science would stand on its own.

I still hold my view, its a New carbon Tax and an excuse to put some sanctions on the developing country's, they want to keep them subdued and not to mention China, the USA will put the breaks on China through the UN sometime in the future..just my opinion

 

[the blades]

I just don't believe CO2 is responsible for global warming, if it were, there would be no reason to play politics, the science would stand on its own.

I still hold my view, its a New carbon Tax and an excuse to put some sanctions on the developing country's, they want to keep them subdued and not to mention China, the USA will put the breaks on China through the UN sometime in the future..just my opinion

I'm not convinced by the science, but it's surely a risk not worth taking?

UTB

 

[Hook Shot]

Swindle ? lets make money....

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

THE GLOBAL WARMING FRENZY
Have a look at the chart named "The last thousand years in Europe - climatic changes" and if you still believe in man made global warming please explain why the medieval period was much warmer than today and the reason(s) behind this warming.

Climate Exchange.... now halved..
http://www.sharecrazy.com/share2607share/share.php?disp=share&epic=CLE

Swindle ?
Goldman's - the epitome of "dumb money" went large at 293p (late sep 2006)
getting a lovely 6 bagger......inside one year.

This enviro game is not over and I suspect this exchange will be worth a billions in years to come .... so this pbk is great opp..... The lads expect the rest of the world to catch the enviro bug ..... carrot and stick !

Nevertheless this stock is a nightmare to value.......