The Great Global Warming Swindle

[JTrader]

Me too. That's a good link.

The Vatican's having a go too - http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2007/04/on-environment-vps-inconvenient-truth.html - "Every Catholic can do something about climate change by adopting a life of voluntary simplicity, the Vatican's U.N. nuncio believes. It comes down to "working less, wanting less, spending less," thus reducing the impact each person has on the environment, Archbishop Celestino Migliore told participants gathered in Columbus for the second in a series of regional Catholic conversations on climate change April 14."

Do some none CNN/fox/BBC/CBS/ITN research and learn about the vaticans role in world affairs & the current geo-political power structure .

 

[JTrader]

Who do you see as representing the opposite "side" to the sceptics? Presidents/PMs, backbenchers, policy makers, full-on environmentalists, the church, meteorologists, scientists generically, independent film makers, VPs of corporate/social responsibility in big corporations? There are enough to choose from - it seems most societies & institutions with a view accept the validity of AGW based on the large amounts of evidence discovered by large numbers of disparate bodies, funded in all sorts of ways.

Who would you put on the sceptics side of the debate? Vested oil interests, car manufacturers, independent film makers or who? There are precious few scientists to call on.

Be open minded, critically evaluate everything you hear, by asking who's actually saying this, whose interests does it serve?
Who pays them?
How "independent" are they?
Can i verify these claims for myself? If not, can I trust them?
Which side has the most to gain?
Which side wants to gain the least?
Is there a conflict of interests?
why is there no public debate between both sides on the issue/s? How come one side would relish a public debate, and the other side with the monopoly of power refuses to engage in such a debate, or even acknowledge the alternative view?

 

[blackcab]

Do some none CNN/fox/BBC/CBS/ITN research and learn about the vaticans role in world affairs & the current geo-political power structure .

I don't want to scare or depress myself enough to do that

As for CNN/Fox/BBC etc., I agree. I don't do much reading or research in this area but what I do I try and get from original papers, research where I can.

In all these posts I've forgotten your exact position. Do you accept or reject that human activity is causing climate change?

 

[JTrader]

In all these posts I've forgotten your exact position. Do you accept or reject that human activity is causing climate change?

FWIW

Six months ago, i didn't even question AGW. I simply soaked up what i heard on the news about GW like a typical mind control slave .

Now I am of the personal opinion that while ever the sun makes up around 99.9% of our solar systems mass, and the majority of the rest is Jupiter's mass, the contribution of man towards GW is likely minimal. http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/jupiter.html

Therefore the non AGW studies that suggest than man is at most 6% responsible for GW, seem to make sense to me.

Most scientists are agreed AGW or NON-AGW that the sun is heating up, expanding & will consume the earth one day. http://library.thinkquest.org/28327/html/universe/solar_system/sun/introduction_to_sun.html

To believe that AGW is the real cause of GW, just seems illogical IMO in the face of these statistics, the power of the sun & the alternative explanations.

 

[dcraig1]

Be open minded, critically evaluate everything you hear, by asking who's actually saying this, whose interests does it serve?
Who pays them?
How "independent" are they?
Can i verify these claims for myself? If not, can I trust them?
Which side has the most to gain?
Which side wants to gain the least?
Is there a conflict of interests?
why is there no public debate between both sides on the issue/s? How come one side would relish a public debate, and the other side with the monopoly of power refuses to engage in such a debate, or even acknowledge the alternative view?

The fact of the matter is the overwhelming body of scientific opinion is that

1) Global warming is occurring
2) It is highly probable that human produced greenhouse gases and in particular CO2 are responsible.

There is no hidden agenda and no vested interest here. It doesn't matter where the funding is coming from, which institutions are involved and what country the research is carried out in.

There are a few scientists who disagree with 2), but nobody disagrees that GW is occurring. There are always heretics in any field and very occasionally they turn out to be right, but much more frequently they turn out to be wrong.

Concensus scientific opinion may be proved wrong but it is looking increasingly unlikely as climate science develops.

The point is there has been, and there is an ongoing public debate about GW. And most people do accept that something needs to be done because they accept the validity of the science. This has nothing to do with some conspiracy by vested interests who will get their funding cut off if they don't say the right thing.

 

[JTrader]

The fact of the matter is the overwhelming body of scientific opinion is that

1) Global warming is occurring
2) It is highly probable that human produced greenhouse gases and in particular CO2 are responsible.

There is no hidden agenda and no vested interest here. It doesn't matter where the funding is coming from, which institutions are involved and what country the research is carried out in.

There are a few scientists who disagree with 2), but nobody disagrees that GW is occurring. There are always heretics in any field and very occasionally they turn out to be right, but much more frequently they turn out to be wrong.

Concensus scientific opinion may be proved wrong but it is looking increasingly unlikely as climate science develops.

The point is there has been, and there is an ongoing public debate about GW. And most people do accept that something needs to be done because they accept the validity of the science. This has nothing to do with some conspiracy by vested interests who will get their funding cut off if they don't say the right thing.

Hi dcraig

I've underlined your unsubstantiated/not backed up with evidence, statements.....

 

[dcraig1]

[/U]

Hi dcraig

I've underlined your unsubstantiated/not backed up with evidence, statements.....

Read the IPCC report. You have no idea how science functions.

 

[JTrader]

Read the IPCC report. You have no idea how science functions.

Wha' eva!!!

 

[dcraig1]

You will find here a long list, mostly of US national science academies and professional bodies. They all endorse the IPCC position except for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, and the latter are reviewing their position because it is out of whack with their members views

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#_note-5

The situation is the same with national science bodies in countries all around the world. Some conspiracy eh ?

 

[JTrader]

Are the consensus of climate scientists saying that because of AGW, the climate will continue to get warmer, presumably up to a maximum temperature at which it will level off at, and that from this point on there will never be another ice age? or that while man continues to exist, and using CO2, another ice age is impossible?

If so, why in the 70's were they claiming the world was heading into another ice-age? presumably because temperatures were getting colder?

I guess the general public tends to have short memories, and will easily believe whatever they are spoon fed. But such a wild swing in scientific opinion within the space of 30 years, has to raise doubts.

They certainly weren't talking about global warming in the 1970's were they.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

 

[dcraig1]

Are the consensus of climate scientists saying that because of AGW, the climate will continue to get warmer, presumably up to a maximum temperature at which it will level off at, and that from this point on there will never be another ice age? or that while man continues to exist, and using CO2, another ice age is impossible?

If so, why in the 70's were they claiming the world was heading into another ice-age? presumably because temperatures were getting colder?

I guess the general public tends to have short memories, and will easily believe whatever they are spoon fed. But such a wild swing in scientific opinion within the space of 30 years, has to raise doubts.

They certainly weren't talking about global warming in the 1970's were they.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

It is generally now believed that this cooling effect was due to sulphates released into the atmosphere though industrial pollution and for a while masked the longer term warming trend. Better control over industrial pollution has reduced emission of sulphates. Seems more like a reason to take action now on CO2 emissions than not.

 

[JTrader]

Weather modification - http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/weather/tribune-review.html

 

[JTrader]

To summarise & conclude my input into this discussion -

I do not have a clue whether GW is man-made or not. I am not a scientist.

I also doubt whether the scientists themselves can reach any solid conclusions.

Therefore i doubt i will ever learn for sure whether GW is man-made or not.

What is needed is an open, independent TV debate that lasts for about 34 hours, where both sides, are able to have an open & non-biased discussion on this subject.

Silence breeds suspiscions, and when an organisation (such as governement) is unwilling to even acknowledge opposition theories, let alone engage in open, non-controlled public debate, people are rightly suspiscious, as they sense that the organisation might have something to hide. This suggests a TOTALITARIAN style of government, or TYRANNY!!!

 

[fibonelli]

Read the IPCC report. You have no idea how science functions.

Hi dcraig,

The IPCC is a political organisation. The "I" stands for "Intergovernmental".

Fibonelli

 

[dcraig1]

Hi dcraig,

The IPCC is a political organisation. The "I" stands for "Intergovernmental".

Fibonelli

You can read the "Principles Governing IPCC Work" here

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/princ.pdf

It is NOT a political organization, it's role is to assess the scientific basis of risks associated with climate change, their impact and options for policies for adaptation and mitigation. The document specifically states that "IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy".

Various countries adopt various political positions within IPCC, but that is a different matter altogether.

 

[fibonelli]

You can read the "Principles Governing IPCC Work" here

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/princ.pdf

It is NOT a political organization, it's role is to assess the scientific basis of risks associated with climate change, their impact and options for policies for adaptation and mitigation. The document specifically states that "IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy".

Various countries adopt various political positions within IPCC, but that is a different matter altogether.

Hi dcraig,

'fraid I disagree

"The IPCC Panel is composed of representatives appointed by governments and organizations. Participation of delegates with appropriate expertise is encouraged.

Plenary sessions of the IPCC and IPCC Working Groups are held at the level of government representatives. Non Governmental and Intergovernmental Organisations may be allowed to attend as observers".

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

 

[Atilla]

Hi dcraig,

'fraid I disagree

"The IPCC Panel is composed of representatives appointed by governments and organizations. Participation of delegates with appropriate expertise is encouraged.

Plenary sessions of the IPCC and IPCC Working Groups are held at the level of government representatives. Non Governmental and Intergovernmental Organisations may be allowed to attend as observers".

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

To all the GW sceptics;

Given the situation we find our selves in - what kind of report, stats, observation or study carried out by who under what circumstances would lead you and the sceptics to consider seriously the threat:

- planet earth is warming up at such a dramatic rate of change as never before in the history of earth as far as we know it and that,

- man is directly responsible for this rate of change,

- what kind of disaster or catastrophy would cause you to reconsider your stand on GW to the point that you would change your behaviour - if any?

 

[dcraig1]

Hi dcraig,

'fraid I disagree

"The IPCC Panel is composed of representatives appointed by governments and organizations. Participation of delegates with appropriate expertise is encouraged.

Plenary sessions of the IPCC and IPCC Working Groups are held at the level of government representatives. Non Governmental and Intergovernmental Organisations may be allowed to attend as observers".

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

Who do you think should appoint reps ? Oil companies ? It is principally a technical body to focus expertise on the potential problems of climate change. It has no political charter. It's role is to provide the best informed advice by analysing the best scientific work available. It is NOT a political organization though political pressure is brought to bear on it.

Attempts to discredit the IPCC and in particular its reports by ascribing a political agenda to it's existence are ill founded and quite frankly ignorant.

 

[fibonelli]

To all the GW sceptics;

Given the situation we find our selves in - what kind of report, stats, observation or study carried out by who under what circumstances would lead you and the sceptics to consider seriously the threat:

- planet earth is warming up at such a dramatic rate of change as never before in the history of earth as far as we know it and that,

- man is directly responsible for this rate of change,

- what kind of disaster or catastrophy would cause you to reconsider your stand on GW to the point that you would change your behaviour - if any?

Hi Atilia

My own view is that GW believers and some sceptics are falling into the well laid trap of focusing on the minutiae of research.

The global warming issue is a means to an end of imposing a one world government. Seems that the fear of global terrorism just wasn't scaring the population enough. Not forgetting the other scare stories like flu pandemic, SARS, AIDS, Ebola and the green man from Mars

"Tucker writes that an essential means of achieving global government by consent over conquest, as has long been the ultimate goal of the elite, is by "fanning public hysteria" over climate change, encouraging further integration by forcing countries to adhere to international law on global warming. Such restrictions have prevented the development of third world nations and directly contributed to poverty, disease and squalor by essentially keeping them at a stone age level of progress, as is documented in The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary".
Source: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/280307globalistslove.htm

In terms of the minutaie of research, I 'd like to see detailed research on

The Sun and its warming of the planets in the planetary system
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

The purpose of Weather Modification Technology such as HAARP
"Weather modification is possible by, for example, altering upper atmosphere wind patterns by constructing one or more plumes of atmospheric particles which will act as a lens or focusing device".
Source: http://www.haarp.net/

 

[Atilla]

Hi Atilia

My own view is that GW believers and some sceptics are falling into the well laid trap of focusing on the minutiae of research.

The global warming issue is a means to an end of imposing a one world government. Seems that the fear of global terrorism just wasn't scaring the population enough. Not forgetting the other scare stories like flu pandemic, SARS, AIDS, Ebola and the green man from Mars

"Tucker writes that an essential means of achieving global government by consent over conquest, as has long been the ultimate goal of the elite, is by "fanning public hysteria" over climate change, encouraging further integration by forcing countries to adhere to international law on global warming. Such restrictions have prevented the development of third world nations and directly contributed to poverty, disease and squalor by essentially keeping them at a stone age level of progress, as is documented in The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary".
Source: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/280307globalistslove.htm

In terms of the minutaie of research, I 'd like to see detailed research on

The Sun and its warming of the planets in the planetary system
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

The purpose of Weather Modification Technology such as HAARP
"Weather modification is possible by, for example, altering upper atmosphere wind patterns by constructing one or more plumes of atmospheric particles which will act as a lens or focusing device".
Source: http://www.haarp.net/

Hi fibonellis,

EU can't even agree on a single common policy without infighting after 50 years and you believe climate controls are all about one World government? Even in the US a single country different states have different laws. I think that is a non starter. Like the federal eu it can be tried but doubt it will get there even after a 100 years.


Regarding third world countries - the reason why Africa and Latin America are so far behind is because for centuries whilst rest of the World was developing they had to endure slavery, explotation and colonialism. Centuries. Are you seriously proposing that they are behind because of the recent attempts to cut carbon emmisions they are being kept down? You gotta be in serious denial to believe such assertions. That's absolute rubbish. Believe me I studied development economics fwiw.



Regarding the research on the Sun and planetary system - which government, body, instititution do you propose carries out this task as you seem to rubbish or disregard just about everybody and everyone. How should they be appointed what should be their brief and how could they be financed? I take it your point is if Venus or Saturn is heating up too then it's not us on earth causing it. But how many years data would we need to collect and at what cost to satisfy your questions? I think this idea is a big time waster. It's almost silly to suggest it. You rubbish whole sets of data already here as some conspiracy yet you are quite ready to embark on some expensive data collection programme to what end - bewilders me. The integrity of that data will be given the same treatment by someone else just like you even then?


If weather modification technology was a serious possibility and no doubt it has been studied the US military or government ( and the Russians and Chineese ) would be on to it like flies to hot ****. They may have had limited success on small areas but at a global scale once again you are talking big studies with big indeterminate impact on weather that could be positive or negative. However, to this idea I would say yes lets learn and test as much as we can.


None of your points comes close to the credable 100s of studies by scientists and conclusive acceptance of 150+ countries minus the USA.


I don't wish to be impolite but this is so silly it's laughable.


I reckon the sceptics idea is there is no GW it's just a tax gimmick and we ain't paying cause we are smarter than you and we are on to your game. Rest of popullations are mugs playing the one World governments game.


Don't know what else to say with due respect I laugh at the sceptics...