by Perry 372 Replies latest members politics
Journey On I am not to sure that on the same page with you politically, however your last post echoes many of my own sentiments.
One of the most compelling arguments for being energy efficient, apart from the waste, is that we decrease our dependency on imports from some of the most dubious regimes in the world.
David
By John Ingham
THE scientific consensus that mankind has caused climate change was rocked yesterday as a leading academic called it a “load of hot air underpinned by fraud”.
Professor Ian Plimer condemned the climate change lobby as “climate comrades” keeping the “gravy train” going.
In a controversial talk just days before the start of a climate summit attended by world leaders in Copenhagen, Prof Plimer said Governments were treating the public like “fools” and using climate change to increase taxes.
He said carbon dioxide has had no impact on temperature and that recent warming was part of the natural cycle of climate stretching over billions of years.
The problem is, "they" have spent decades turning this movement into a "religion" complete with zealots and their "scriptural" interpretations.
Like the JWs, it started out as a small cult with a few followers, then morphed into a fanatical religion. Don't tell them they were wrong all along! Gosh NO!! Don't tell them they might be misinterpreting the scientific "scriptures"! Don't tell them their "holy" leaders have had any agenda other than to "save" the world and turn it into a paradise! ......oh, wait!! That sounds good.
Makes me want to join! But, later when all the money and energy have been sucked out of me and I realize that the Al Gores of the world are still flitting around the planet in their big energy-eating jets and taxing us even more and putting more and more demands on us poor rank and file idiots, what if I want out?!!! Will they shun me? Will I even be able to get out!?
(Each one will sit under his own vine and fig tree. I think I'll just turn my own little world into my own little paradise, thank you very much!)
It's good to see Perry's retardedness branching out from his usual creationist ramblings. Gotta love Texas. Yeee-haw!
Excerpt from Bret Stephens' article in the WallStreetJournal 12/01/2009, "Climategate: Follow the Money"
.... But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps to turn the alarmists' follow-the-money methods right back at them.
Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s.
Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?
Thus, the European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.
And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.
Supply, as we know, creates its own demand. So for every additional billion in government-funded grants (or the tens of millions supplied by foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts), universities, research institutes, advocacy groups and their various spin-offs and dependents have emerged from the woodwork to receive them.
Today these groups form a kind of ecosystem of their own. They include not just old standbys like the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, but also Ozone Action, Clean Air Cool Planet, Americans for Equitable Climate Change Solutions, the Alternative Energy Resources Association, the California Climate Action Registry and so on and on. All of them have been on the receiving end of climate change-related funding, so all of them must believe in the reality (and catastrophic imminence) of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.
Professor Phil Jones absolutely denies any data deletion or manipulation. Read the CRU official comment here:
https://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
Noteworthy is the fact that 95% of their data is already in the public domain and has been for years. The remaining 5% is data supplied by other organizations which they are contractually forbidden to publish - the CRU are working with these other agencies to allow publication of these datasets.
Professor Jones also makes the point here that the science of human caused climate changed is supported by multiple other research establishments:
"That the world is warming is based on a range of sources: not only temperature records but other indicators such as sea level rise, glacier retreat and less Arctic sea ice," he said. "Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for Nasa and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/224178
Top NASA climate scientist was interviewed by Newsweek’s Science Editor last week. Sharon Begley talked to Hansen “on the eve of the publication of his first book, Storms of My Grandchildren, which he finished while recovering from treatment for prostate cancer and which will be published in December.”
SB: Last week, someone leaked e-mails obtained by hacking into the server at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Activists who have long denied the reality of climate change say they show that climatologists have engaged in a grand conspiracy to manufacture a case that global warming is occurring due to human activities. Do the hacked e-mails undermine the case for anthropogenic climate change?
JH: No, they have no effect on the science. The evidence for human-made climate change is overwhelming.
SB: Do the e-mails indicate any unethical efforts to hide data that do not support the idea of anthropogenic global warming or to keep contrary ideas out of the scientific literature and IPCC reports?
JH: They indicate poor judgment in specific cases. First, the data behind any analysis should be made publicly available. Second, rather than trying so hard to prohibit publication of shoddy science, which is impossible, it is better that reviews, such as by IPCC and the National Academy of Sciences, summarize the full range of opinions and explain clearly the basis of the scientific assessment. The “contrarians” or “deniers” do not have a scientific leg to stand on. Their aim is to win a public relations battle, or at least get a draw, which may be enough to stymie the actions that are needed to stabilize climate.
The so-called ClimateGate is simply a replay of denier PR tactics previously used successfully in pro-tobacco and pro-creationist agendas. They don't need to win any arguments - the goal is just to
Follow the money
Even scientists are members of the species "homo economicus."
BTS
Mining interests
Ian Plimer is a director of three Australian mining companies: Ivanhoe, [ 20 ] CBH Resources [ 20 ] and Kefi Minerals. [ 21 ] Plimer rejects claims of a conflict between his commercial mining interests and his view that man-made climate change is a myth. [ 20 ] Plimer has said that the proposed Australian carbon-trading scheme could decimate the Australian mining industry, [ 3 ] and probably destroy it totally, [ 22 ] as well as creating massive unemployment. [ 22 ]
Wiki on Ian Pilmer
follow the money = avoid the science
its a cheaply clad distraction from the facts from multiple sources, multiple scientific disciplines and every national association of scientists that human activity is causing the planet to warm
even the big oil companies agree that fossil fuel use is forcing climate change.
until an alternative theory to AGW caused by GHG gains any credibility the science is not in question
Gold, copper, silver mining. If participating in the real economy (which will get slammed by carbon regulation) creates a conflict of interest, then we are nearly all conflicted. Most of us don't shelve books on the public dime, Beks.
BTS
