Global Warming - don't wait up!
perseus
Active member
In fact the media is heavily biased towards Business interests, and portrays Deniers as Davids against Goliaths. This is true as far as the science is concerned, but in terms of public relations and politics it is very much the other way around. Scientists naively keep using rational arguments, and expect the public to listen. The Denial industry is extensive but cunning and covert, cleverly hiding the links back to the fossil fuel industry and employing some of the best public relations experts, the same ones that delayed tobacco legislation. They only need to spread uncertainty, conspiracy and that climate change is another excuse to tax. You can guess who is really winning hands down.
senojekips
Active member
Yeah,... I'm secretly on the payroll of Allied and Pacific Coal. Just where do you dredge up this crap.
Wake up FFS, science doesn't have the answers, they can't even present reliable data, having to "finesse" it before they are willing to put it up for public scrutiny. Christ if they're worried about the "dopey uneducated" public seeing through their scam they haven't really got much going for them have they. Anyway, they are largely too late as people are waking up to them, as they always will.
Global Warming,... tell it to the Europeans where it was reported recently that 29 have died due to the unseasonably cold weather. It's NOT global warming,... it's Climate Change, where our weather patterns are moving (as they have since pre history) the net world wide effect being virtually nil.
Wake up FFS, science doesn't have the answers, they can't even present reliable data, having to "finesse" it before they are willing to put it up for public scrutiny. Christ if they're worried about the "dopey uneducated" public seeing through their scam they haven't really got much going for them have they. Anyway, they are largely too late as people are waking up to them, as they always will.
Global Warming,... tell it to the Europeans where it was reported recently that 29 have died due to the unseasonably cold weather. It's NOT global warming,... it's Climate Change, where our weather patterns are moving (as they have since pre history) the net world wide effect being virtually nil.
Isn't it now the case that vast global business interests are now hand in glove with man-created climate change scare industry and empire, with all the political opportunities for gigantic fortune making; just another great bubble to pump up and pump up until it bursts just like the stock market bubble -burst we have just encountered. Even now they are filling their boots with carbon permit shares trading at the expense of horrific tax impositions to be suffered by the tax-payer. Big Business, politicians, and the global warming tyrants - all tucked up in the same boat.
Is this not so?
In England 2009 I am experiencing nothing but the same ol', same ol', weather wise. In fact, it's bloody freezing, let me tell you - it was always thus. And yes - I have seen all this flooding etc. before : and the only hot summer I can recall was 1976! Definitely not 2009, to be sure.
Any heat is simply the rubbing together of the hands of the global warming tycoons, and their cohorts of career self-proclaimed experts.
Is that a rant??
Is this not so?
In England 2009 I am experiencing nothing but the same ol', same ol', weather wise. In fact, it's bloody freezing, let me tell you - it was always thus. And yes - I have seen all this flooding etc. before : and the only hot summer I can recall was 1976! Definitely not 2009, to be sure.
Any heat is simply the rubbing together of the hands of the global warming tycoons, and their cohorts of career self-proclaimed experts.
Is that a rant??
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
It makes more sense than your argument that almost every field of science is involved in a gigantic conspiracy to make up climate change in order to extract vast sums of money from the poor "uneducated" public and this only being exposed by the unbiased views of the very companies who have the most to lose if this "conspiracy" succeeds.
Can I suggest looking into the principle attributed to a 14th Century Franciscan Friar named William of Ockham, his principle has remained true right the way through to present times and I suspect will remain accurate for centuries to come.
PS. I take it "finessed" is the new buzzword of the week I guess if you say it often enough others will believe it.
Yes it is.
Are you sure? I like to know these things. If it is, it is an increasingly widely shared one.
And yes, it is a tax extraction project now that the possibilities have been recognised by the predators. Who can tell where the bandwagon will lead.
Is that another rant?
And yes, it is a tax extraction project now that the possibilities have been recognised by the predators. Who can tell where the bandwagon will lead.
Is that another rant?
Last edited:
senojekips
Active member
Only if you are one of their followers.
I dunno, it was how the scammers themselves described their fiddling of the data. I just repeat the facts as i read them. I don't make them up or attempt to misconstrue them like our more "learned" friends.
I form my opinions from what i see, I don't try to make the data fit my argument. It helps a lot.
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
So now I am in on the conspiracy as well, perhaps I need a few billion to research my involvement then.
The problem is that no one but you and Fox seems to believe there was any fiddling of the books but given that they are selling the same footage over and over again and calling them different events I am not sure anyone takes Fox too seriously.
As far as I can tell not one serious review of the data by the media or anyone else has uncovered anything more than the usual banter between an email group or are the media in on the conspiracy too?
But hey lets not let fact get in the way of dogma.
senojekips
Active member
I never saied that, but it appears you can see a connection, I'm not going to argue with you.
That would be fine if it were only Fox who reported on it, but it was featured in our state papers neither of which are scandal rags, taking their copy from AAP/Reuters etc.
But there was enough to arouse suspicions, and it was shown that the figures were fiddled for public consumption.
This was reported by a lot more than Fox News (Which we do not get here anyway) As I said earlier, that's not good enough because it doesn't suit your story.
perseus
Active member
Either the fossil fuel industry, their execs and shareholders wish to continue maximising profits by lobbying politicians and through employing fringe groups to do their dirty Public Relations work, or
its a conspiracy by several groups of independent scientists who have miraculously all fudged the data in the same way over many decades and arrive at the same conclusion.
Difficult one!
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Clearly you are in on the plot as well, see you at the next meeting I will bring the scones.
This whole thing reminds me of a Simpsons episode...
captiva303
Active member
well now... science is more than just facts,much more than just so called facts, it is infact more about interpreting these facts in a particular frame work...
your facts are fine but the frame work is flawed and how the frame work was come up with the frame work has been made to find your conclusion rather than testing whether it is true or not...
and awhile back someone made comment on logic in a story invloving arson and a pub...
well this is your logic...
knock knock...
a insurance salesmen comes to the door attempting to sell you insurance for arson he produces a series of graphs showing evidence that arson is increasing in your area.
however his graph is to narrow fielded to prove anything and he also does not inform you of contradictory evidence but he actively suppresses it. this sham would be obvious if you were willing to question him, but you prefer to take his assurances. he assures you that as long as you hand over your money all will be fine and you can have peace of mind...
and then you hand over your money with out question because it apparently makes sense for you to hand over your money unquestioningly to someone who seeks to profit from the perceived problem at hand...
your facts are fine but the frame work is flawed and how the frame work was come up with the frame work has been made to find your conclusion rather than testing whether it is true or not...
and awhile back someone made comment on logic in a story invloving arson and a pub...
well this is your logic...
knock knock...
a insurance salesmen comes to the door attempting to sell you insurance for arson he produces a series of graphs showing evidence that arson is increasing in your area.
however his graph is to narrow fielded to prove anything and he also does not inform you of contradictory evidence but he actively suppresses it. this sham would be obvious if you were willing to question him, but you prefer to take his assurances. he assures you that as long as you hand over your money all will be fine and you can have peace of mind...
and then you hand over your money with out question because it apparently makes sense for you to hand over your money unquestioningly to someone who seeks to profit from the perceived problem at hand...
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Umm and what is "sciences" profit from this perceived problem?
Research will make far more money from the debate over climate change than it will ever make from curing it as that role will invariably go to engineers and innovators.
If I were a money hungry scientist the last thing I would want is people to accept my word unquestioned.
perseus
Active member
the insurance analogy is one I often use. Do you insure your house? The Deniers are asking us NOT to insure the planet despite 97% of climate scientists telling us that we need to. You seem to be happy to risk your 'farm' on this, astonishing really!
Insurance? Don't make me laugh. Our Prime Minister aims to terrify us with the threat of increasing extreme high ocean sea levels around our coast; but does he allow defences to developed to protect us that ? No! He says we must accept it and move to areas more congenial. Are we allowed to finance increased coastal defences for our own properties? No! But he is happy to offer hundreds of billions for far off lands; our money; money he does have; money he will not be able obtain without destroying Britain; we are still trying to dodge the destruction reaped by his mickey mouse chancelllorship, but he wants to be seen as a world leader!!!:shock:
He has tried to use the credit crunch already to this end, and now he sees his opportunity in the Global Warming jamboree.
READ ALL ABOUT IT :-
CLIMATE NUT BROWN WILL RUIN BRITAIN.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/146922/Climate-nut-Brown-will-ruin-Britain
He has tried to use the credit crunch already to this end, and now he sees his opportunity in the Global Warming jamboree.
READ ALL ABOUT IT :-
CLIMATE NUT BROWN WILL RUIN BRITAIN.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/146922/Climate-nut-Brown-will-ruin-Britain
perseus
Active member
Well there is more than £400 million being spent on flood defences next year alone, and the Thames flood barrier is one of the most famous defences in the world. I suppose if he focuses on these he will be accused of dealing with the symptoms rather than cause of the problem, as well as being selfish. I think the UK is the third largest emitter of CO2 historically.
I'm not sure how far you can go especially if climate change leads to heavier rainfall as well. You can't dam up all the rivers and coasts indefinitely. Scientists believe that if we go over about 3C the change will become self sustaining.
Over the long term even small changes in temperature can be quite devastating in terms of land loss. During the previous interglacial period, about 125,000 years ago, the average global temperature was around 1.3 degrees higher than it is today, as a result of changes in the earth’s orbit around the sun. A new paper in the scientific journal Nature shows that sea levels during that period were between 6.6 and 9.4 metres higher than today’s.
I'm not sure how far you can go especially if climate change leads to heavier rainfall as well. You can't dam up all the rivers and coasts indefinitely. Scientists believe that if we go over about 3C the change will become self sustaining.
Over the long term even small changes in temperature can be quite devastating in terms of land loss. During the previous interglacial period, about 125,000 years ago, the average global temperature was around 1.3 degrees higher than it is today, as a result of changes in the earth’s orbit around the sun. A new paper in the scientific journal Nature shows that sea levels during that period were between 6.6 and 9.4 metres higher than today’s.
Last edited:
captiva303
Active member
so if tempretures were higher back then how come you have been claiming these are the highest ever?
was c02 the cause of all that back then??? if so where is it now?
and where werre the monsterous people to make all that happen?
was c02 the cause of all that back then??? if so where is it now?
and where werre the monsterous people to make all that happen?
Last edited:
The point I am making is that Brown is is warning of catastrophic sea level rises, but is not putting money where his mouth is, which makes his stance therefore suspect. We are an island with a big coast, and £400 million therefore pales into insignificance. The Thames water barrier may well be famous, but fame will avail us nothing in the face of the horrendous rises Brown threatens us with.
Those figures you quote are interesting in that they would appear to demonstrate results of external effects way beyond the meagre impact of man on our planet, does it not, as Captiva 303 points out.
On a general point of interest to me, when you quote 'scientists believe', are you referring to ALL scientists?
Last edited:
perseus
Active member
You know very well that we will never get ALL scientists to belive in anything because a few will be corrupt and take money from the fossil fuel industry to lie, such as the likes of Plimer, Singer etc. Wait of 100% and you wait forever, 97% of climate scientists is good enough for me.
Man is creating the latest surge not planetary configurations which take tens of thousands of years. Just look at the timescales
Where did you hear that temperatures have never been higher? Such a claim should be rubbished.
Man is creating the latest surge not planetary configurations which take tens of thousands of years. Just look at the timescales
Where did you hear that temperatures have never been higher? Such a claim should be rubbished.
Last edited: