Why global warming is a global scam

Badger0-0

So, as a neutral, can I ask you Steve.J.Davies and leedswillprevai
if you have any remotely vested interests in your views?

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

Stephen Wilde

Doing something for the wrong reasons is always wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

The trouble is that in economics a problem deferred is a problem enhanced.

johntheexpat

I think you will find that these days fuel companies are considered to be central to the CC conspiracy.
Along with bankers, the media, governments, universities, charities etc etc

richardb70

Great, just what we need, another thread started by a stooge from an energy company. Yes, a "stooge", whether you know it or not.

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to this, I can't for the life of me understand why denialists keep peddling misinformation that can easily be refuted, even by using Google? Do they not even bother to look beyond the "it's all a conspiracy" sites? That shows mind-blowing naivety and arrogance. It's like "flat earth" all over again, except for the consequences of inaction.

leedswillprevai

Again the throwaway ad hominem of "conspiracy theory" which isn't the least bit surprising. It's at the very least lazy to dismiss something without first disproving it. Now as for the seeds of doubt, first of all I have no vested interest, I am a tax payer who knows that all of this is leading only one way and that's to massive leaps in centralisation and taxation. So the very notion that the oil companies are the only vested corporate interest in this is the biggest betrayal of honesty. I have already outlined who the vested interests are on the other side of the issue and why.

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

If you can't, then you are the one who is in denial. Furthermore though it's important to remember that every treaty that is signed, makes any future governments powerless to stop it or amend it. The state is recognised as a legal personality so any moves now can not be stopped. That to me is extremely dangerous and in the interests of "saving the planet" can be abused.

richardb70

I'm sorry if my post was misunderstood, and kudos to the OP who at least didn't trot out something like "It must be rubbish cos there saying that its all the cows" (misspellings are deliberate, you can find this kind of post on numerous threads).

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

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

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

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

Anyway, nobody stepping up and answering my question?

leedswillprevai

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

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

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

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

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

In this regard, we are already seeing the very beginnings of this, with the recent statement from the health czar of this country who stated we should all give up meat to save the planet. This is the type of centralisation and control, which is surely dangerous and the implication if we simply end up saying okay do whatever you deem is necessary, is every aspect of our lives is dictated to us.

Palladio

I'm sure most readers here saw the great PR stunt where the Government of the Maldives held a cabinet meeting under water to highlight rising sea levels but I don't suppose many saw this response from a former lead reviewer for the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), Nils-Axel Mörner who was head of Geodynamics at Stockholm University until his retirement in 2005.

Why the Maldives aren't sinking | The Spectator

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

johntheexpat

Because the Maldives not sinking in the next 100 years isn't very interesting.  It may be true, but it ain't interesting.  
Now, the Maldive Parliament having a session on the beach while the world's last polar bear floats by on the world's last iceberg, that would be headlines.  A complete set-up and a pack of lies, but everyone would report it.
CC, the media and politicians, not a happy combination.

Steve.J.Davies

no vested interest at all.

why on earth go off topic like this ? oh yeah...