Friday, July 10, 2009
|
|
Meet The Man Who Has Exposed The Great Climate Change Con Trick
|
|
Posted by:
Greg Hengler at
2:06 PM
|
 After reading this article, you may finally agree with Al Gore that "the debate is over." In a few pages, Australian geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, debunks all the sacred cows held by the global warming alarmists. Here are a few nuggets: The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology,’ says Plimer, and while his thesis is not new, you’re unlikely to have heard it expressed with quite such vigour, certitude or wide-ranging scientific authority. Where fellow sceptics like Bjorn Lomborg or Lord Lawson of Blaby are prepared cautiously to endorse the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) more modest predictions, Plimer will cede no ground whatsoever. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, he argues, is the biggest, most dangerous and ruinously expensive con trick in history.
[...] So go on then, Prof. What makes you sure that you’re right and all those scientists out there saying the opposite are wrong? ‘I’m a geologist. We geologists have always recognised that climate changes over time. Where we differ from a lot of people pushing AGW is in our understanding of scale. They’re only interested in the last 150 years. Our time frame is 4,567 million years. So what they’re doing is the equivalent of trying to extrapolate the plot of Casablanca from one tiny bit of the love scene. And you can’t. It doesn’t work.’
Hooked? Read this paragraph: One of the things that so irks him about modern environmentalism is that it is driven by people who are ‘too wealthy’. ‘When I try explaining “global warming” to people in Iran or Turkey they have no idea what I’m talking about. Their life is about getting through to the next day, finding their next meal. Eco-guilt is a first-world luxury. It’s the new religion for urban populations which have lost their faith in Christianity. The IPCC report is their Bible. Al Gore and Lord Stern are their prophets.’
|
|
"Did you know about this?"
Interesting. No, I didn't consider Peace Prize winners. However, it's a bit of a stretch to say that that woman is a "Nobel Prize Winner." She's a member of an organization that won, but so is every member of the UN, the Red Cross, and Amnesty International. It happens that I'm a member of Amnesty International, yet somehow I don't feel that makes me a Nobel Prize Winner. |
|
Bob Munck writes: Sunday, July, 12, 2009 1:54 PM
BK 11:06 AM
"Bwahahahahahahaha! I asked my neighbor who was a nobel prize winner in meterological science and he said the "true scientists" are not political at all."
Of course, there is no "Nobel Prize in Meterological Science;" physics, chemistry, and physiology or medicine are the only choices in the sciences.
Of those, the only prize in the last 30 years that is directly related to meterology is Crutzen, Molina, and Rowland in 1995, "for their work in atmospheric chemistry, particularly concerning the formation and decomposition of ozone."
Interestingly, all three of them are actively involved in the global warming campaign, and were in the list of 102 Nobel Prize winners who signed the "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity" letter presented at Kyoto in 1997.
Is one of them your neighbor? Molina's at UCSD, Rowland at UCIrvine, and Crutzen at Max Planck.
If your neighbor is a Nobel winner, what's he doing living in a trailer park?
Arch says
Munck. Maybe you should learn more about the Nobel winners before you post how ignorant you are!
Did you know about this?
http://www.radiowaves.co.uk/story/38452
You don't know much do you? |
|
Here's another source link.....
http://www.heritage.org/research/.../tst050709b.cfm
Still can't find the other link but Heritage & wall street have excellent articles about impacts and costs. |
|
|
Not just Mr.Ponzi, Al Gore, but how'bout the WORST PRESIDENT in American History(The Bamma has an excellent chance to jump out in front, however..), Jimmah Cawtah?? |
|
|
|
"In europe they established this process in 2005. Still no impact on the environment but a 5-10% increase in the cost of living."
Do you have a link for that? And does that figure account for the world economic downturn? (I don't mean that argumentatively; I've been looking for hard evidence of Kyoto's economic impact, and haven't found any yet) |
|
If your neighbor is a Nobel winner, what's he doing living in a trailer park?
___________________________________________
Nice try numbnuts......I could buy and sell you in a heartbeat! |
|
"Bwahahahahahahaha! I asked my neighbor who was a nobel prize winner in meterological science and he said the "true scientists" are not political at all."
Of course, there is no "Nobel Prize in Meterological Science;" physics, chemistry, and physiology or medicine are the only choices in the sciences.
Of those, the only prize in the last 30 years that is directly related to meterology is Crutzen, Molina, and Rowland in 1995, "for their work in atmospheric chemistry, particularly concerning the formation and decomposition of ozone."
Interestingly, all three of them are actively involved in the global warming campaign, and were in the list of 102 Nobel Prize winners who signed the "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity" letter presented at Kyoto in 1997.
Is one of them your neighbor? Molina's at UCSD, Rowland at UCIrvine, and Crutzen at Max Planck.
If your neighbor is a Nobel winner, what's he doing living in a trailer park? |
|
|
Personel observation only , I made a lot of money selling kneepads and lip balm to the nontenured . It's a growth market . |
|
I say: Review your logic to see ow you backed yourself up into a logic corner. Check mate. QED.
_____________________________________________
You sniffing glue this morning or what. You make absolutely no sense whatsoever. |
|
inthemajority asks:
BK -- do Nobel Prize winners deserve respect, or do you distrust your neighbor and call him an arse licker?
BK sez: Nope, I trust my neighbor. He didn't think Gore deserved it either and thinks he's a parasite.
I say: Review your logic to see ow you backed yourself up into a logic corner. Check mate. QED. |
|
BK -- do Nobel Prize winners deserve respect, or do you distrust your neighbor and call him an arse licker?
_____________________________________________
Nope, I trust my neighbor. He didn't think Gore deserved it either and thinks he's a parasite. |
|
Gore?
------------
Con sez: My neighbor, the Nobel Prize winner is the voice of all reason. But Gore, the most visible presenter of Nobel Prize winners' work and a prize winner himself deserves ridicule.
Do we really have to go over how you represent Con "logic"? Which is it BK -- do Nobel Prize winners deserve respect, or do you distrust your neighbor and call him an arse licker? Or are you sticking to Con "logic" and respect Rep/Con Nobel Prize winners only, which negates your other premise that real scientists do not have a political affiliation?
So much spin. Do you know Bill O'Reilly? Are you Bill-O? |
|
If you stick to the script, those prizes are awarded only to those who kiss up to those who vote (peer review be damned).
_____________________________________________
Gore? Bwahahahahahahaha! |
|
Agreed. So when can we expect the Reps/Cons to stop pretending that the consensus on AGW is not political?
____________________________________________
What consensus? |
|
Clay Allison writes: Sunday, July, 12, 2009 10:58 AM
soon to be the minority
Most tenured jobs go to libs because they are better suckups plain and simple .
----
Maybe we can get together and see where you went wrong with your research. Did you poll enough scientists? Were your questions loaded? I'm curious, and anxious to see your results.
Yours truly, InTheMajority |
|
"... the "true scientists" are not political at all. He said, that scientists deal strickly with the facts and if someone who is a scientists claims to be a party affiliated democrate, they are not scientists."
Agreed. So when can we expect the Reps/Cons to stop pretending that the consensus on AGW is not political?
So can we agree that real scientists (i.e., the top scientific bodies in the world) are acting on science and not politics? I'm with you on that.
And why all of a sudden is the Nobel Prize something that Cons recognize as important? I'm with you on that as well. but you seem to have alienated your peers with that statement. If you stick to the script, those prizes are awarded only to those who kiss up to those who vote (peer review be damned).
In summary -- your latest statements indicate that real scientists are not political when it comes to their research and results, and that the Nobel prizes are to be respected. I agree with both. Can we get most Con/Reps to agree? Maybe they would then see the obvious consensus on the issues Cons can't wrap their heads around. |
|
I sent my cousin the Pew research results.
_______________________________________________
Bwahahahahahahaha! I asked my neighbor who was a nobel prize winner in meterological science and he said the "true scientists" are not political at all. He said, that scientists deal strickly with the facts and if someone who is a scientists claims to be a party affiliated democrate, they are not scientists. |
|
|
Most tenured jobs go to libs because they are better suckups plain and simple . |
|
I sent my cousin the Pew research results. (scientist, professor at a major university, tropical rainforest research in Brazil & panama, Smithsonian researcher). He said that there are very few Conservatives in his division most likely because you need to actually understand science and stop believing in silly things like ID and Bible as science -- and believe in real science.
His response: Hmm, 6% - well that’s about the percent of scientists that don’t get tenure at the major universities.
I mentioned the Pew results to my wife, and she said the only professor in her division to NOT get tenure after several years of application and rejection, was the staunch Republican.
There's a glaring sense of entitlement by the Reps/Cons that they should be getting more positions. Maybe we should measure their cranial capacity and see if they are the inferior group, and model the results after their book The Bell Curve. I think Republicanism and Conservatism is a genetic disorder that should be researched by Liberals. (snark) |
|
And, it wouldn't a complete waste. If cap-and-trade cuts down on the use of imported oil, isn't that a good thing?
____________________________________________
But it won't. In europe they established this process in 2005. Still no impact on the environment but a 5-10% increase in the cost of living.
Cap & Trade is simply a tax. If I pollute then I'm taxed but free to continue to pollute. Great! |
|
|
So you're saying that just because they lean (sarcasm) left (not suprising: they know who butters their toast) they're just going to fall in line with the fu***ing LIE that is gorebull warming? How about they do some serious scholarship? That is what we (the taxpayers) are paying them for. Sheesh. Pitiful. |
|
"Cap and Trade would be a big waste of resources"
A fair point (and just about the only one that makes any headway with me), but what makes you think it would be so big? Five countries in the EU cut their emissions by over 10%, and their economies are still going strong. Even the most pessimistic estimates (Heritage Foundation) put the cost at less than 3% of GDP.
And, it wouldn't a complete waste. If cap-and-trade cuts down on the use of imported oil, isn't that a good thing? |
|
"81% of scientists lean lean Democratic
12% of scientists lean Republican
Nuff said."
A clear indication of the general law that Republicanism is inversely proportional to intelligence. If you're dumb enough to be a republican, you aren't smart enough to be a scientist. |
|
That's very true. That's why they're called "extremists."
Especially religionists like right-wing fundamentalists. |
|
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1549
According to Pew
55% of scientists identify as Democrat
52% of scientists identify as Liberal
14% of scientists identify as Very Liberal
81% of scientists lean lean Democratic
6% of scientists identify as Republican
2% of scientists identify as Conservative
12% of scientists lean Republican
Nuff said.
|
|
|
...specially extremist religionists like the lefty libs. They have embraced "saving" the planet like the Inquisitionists of yore wanted to "save" the pagans from themselves. Both love to use the coercive powers of Big Government to bring about their "saving" graces. It's their way, or no way. Under the dictates of their iconic gods, like pres. OMG ("Obama My God") and saint Gore, they will go forth and "save" the planet from The People - whatever it takes. |
|
|
You are such a tool. You cut and paste "Ian’s assertions about man’s role in climate change were naive, reflected a poor understanding of climate science, and relied on recycled and distorted arguments that had been repeatedly refuted" from a blog written by a hack. Please get out of the basement and see that, well never mind, You won't do that. |
|
|
|
"The only scientist that are successful, are the ones making money in a Free Market, the ones not dependent on donations from the Government."
Like all those "scientists" at the Tobacco Institute, who got paid to tell us cigarettes were safe? You honestly believe corporations are more interested in the truth than the government?
What about the scientists who developed the internet on the DoD budget? Pretty smart people, I would say, who did a good job. What about the researchers at the National Institutes of Health, who do all the legwork for pharmaceutical companies, so private business can go after only what's already been shown feasible? |
|
about the IPCC. It is the bible of an environmentalist. Totally not based on any scientific method, merely subjective data interpretation. Please. If a person who believes the globullshit warming story tells me they read the IPCC, I just laugh and ask them what the scientific method is. Then, refreshing their memory, I tell them what it is and why the IPCC is useless.
Global warming is happening, but not because we are living. Much of it is inherent change that cannot be prevented. |
|
Your points do not distiguish between AGW and GW.
Before the world spends all this money on the "A" part, it should be justified that early models are correct through field observation, and how to adjust accordingly if they are not. Unfortunately, that takes away from the arrogance and self importance of Al Gore and Princess Pelosi....I am a heritic for even thinking such thoughts.
Question? What if the earth if we discovered the earth was going to warm up and we had no control over it, i.e. a natural cycle. But the consequences of populations affected, etc. was inevidable? Cap and Trade would be a big waste of resources that should go toward adjusting to the results...like moving everyone out of Florida in the next 100 years.
Or...what WaydownSouth says. That ends a debate rather quickly! |
|
|
Thanks for that link. Now the libs have another reason to tell us what to eat...globull warming! But, what a dilemna--Coke has a very small carbon footprint but it's terrible for your teeth, bones and waistline! How will Vlad sort it all out? |
|
|
The Majority of people with Commonsense, have known for years that you couldn't trust anybody that has their hands out, waiting for the money, so they can experiment. The only scientist that are successful, are the ones making money in a Free Market, the ones not dependent on donations from the Government |
|
“What surprised me was how weak and uncertain the science was.”
(Lord Lawson referring to the anthropogenic theory.)
Lord Lawson of Blaby was Chancellor of the Exchequer under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. He has discussed at length how Maggie got the fine idea to finance the anthropogenic myth in order to break the power of the coal unions. Their strikes were paralyzing England. Thatcher desperately wanted to construct more nuclear power plants so that the country would be less coal dependent. Unfortunately, environmental wackos made construction of new nuclear power plants almost impossible.
At the time, almost no-one had ever heard of the notion that human emitted carbon dioxide could cause climate change. Even Bert Bolin, the Swedish scientist who was then propagating the theory, was uncertain as to whether or not it was possible. He said at the time, “We just don’t know.”
Thatcher really didn’t care whether the theory was valid or not. She needed a public relations push for her energy policy and she would take it from wherever she could get it.
The argument was very simple. Coal power plants emit large quantities of carbon dioxide. Nuclear power plants don’t emit carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide emissions from coal energy may eventually cause catastrophic global warming. This threat is far greater than that posed by nuclear power plants. Hence, we must build more nuclear power plants. In other words, nuclear power is better for the environment than coal.
She instructed Lord Blaby to funnel research funds to the Royal Society for anthropogenic research. The real goal of this research was to support nuclear power plant construction. She certainly never intended nor foresaw what a monster the theory would become. With this funding, a screwy idea became a religion.
I love you, Iron Lady, but you really screwed-up on this one. |
|
"Opposition to the global warming bunk is not caused by conservatism, it is caused by faith in science and FACTS. The fact that scientists who don't rely on federal grants tell us that Al Gore's science is bunk is more important than how we feel about the polar bears."
1. When did the right wing start placing such faith in SCIENCE? Aren't you the ones pitching creationism and intelligent design?
2. Some scientists disagree with global warming, absolutely. They're vastly outnumbered, and based on what I've read from Plimer, he's figured out that being a global warming denier gets him a lot more publicity than a federal grant.
3. I agree that some people are easily swayed by sentimental stories about polar bears, which distract from the real issues. The reality is that East Asian countries are preparing to open shipping routes north of Canada, something that's never been done before. Now, are these companies doing that just because it makes them feel good? Because they've been brainwashed by Al Gore? |
|
Why not read his book and come up with your own conclusions instead of relying on Google.Then we can debate the contents and expertise.
I am always open to reading new information, it doesn't mean I aggree with it. But it does solidify whether current thinking is heading in the right direction.
But hey, if you are totally onboard with AGW, its time you adjust your diet to reflect your stance, otherwise its a hypocritical stance;
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article63 50237.ece
Or...Just like Australia...time out before we possibly ruin our economy and make sure its all true. |
|
|
Remember: it's not about the environment. |
|
|
Opposition to the global warming bunk is not caused by conservatism, it is caused by faith in science and FACTS. The fact that scientists who don't rely on federal grants tell us that Al Gore's science is bunk is more important than how we feel about the polar bears. And by the way, the polar bear population is higher now than it has been for 60 years. Another liberal lie exposed. |
|
"More projection from the right-wing."
We're not the ones telling people what kind of car they should drive, what kind of fuel they must use to heat their homes, what kind of light bulbs they should use, and on and on ad infinitum, all based on junk science.
"Rabid objections to global warming are based on one simple truth: most environmentalists are liberals. All liberals are wrong, therefore global warming is wrong."
Well, I'd have to agree that a defective worldview results in wrong conclusions, but there are one or two things that liberals are right about. For example, it is wrong to hate people based on the color of their skin and...well, that's all I can think of for now. :) |
|
|
More projection from the right-wing. Rabid objections to global warming are based on one simple truth: most environmentalists are liberals. All liberals are wrong, therefore global warming is wrong. I guess that pretty much sums it up.sounds like how you feel about conservatives Vlad |
|
Google Ian Plimer (Greg spells his name wrong) for pages of refutations of his ideas.
"These false prophet are attempting to control the lives of billions of people the world over."
More projection from the right-wing. Rabid objections to global warming are based on one simple truth: most environmentalists are liberals. All liberals are wrong, therefore global warming is wrong. |
|
|
Is in its 5th or 6th printing. Hard to get a copy right now. Its a heavy read with lots of science to back up his arguments. Australia put their cap and trade plans on hold because of this new 'enlightment.' |
|
"Eco-guilt is a first-world luxury. It’s the new religion for urban populations which have lost their faith in Christianity. The IPCC report is their Bible. Al Gore and Lord Stern are their prophets."
So true. But, it's worse than that. These false prophet are attempting to control the lives of billions of people the world over, starting right here in America. And liberals accuse us of pushing our values on them, all the while using the coercive power of the government to force their values on us.
|
|
Wanting to protect the enviroment is a good thing. There are terrible threats facing some major ecosystems. But guess what, they don't involve global warming.
Overfishing is rampant. Many stocks are reaching the point of commerical extinction (and in some species like Bluefin Tuna and Swordfish actual extinction).
Desertfication in Africa and runaway logging in Asia is also very bad. There is also a wide spread problem of poaching and habitate protection in the third world.
But we are going to dump trillions into climate change schemes that will do nothing, and we could solve a host of real enviromental and health issues world wide for a fraction of that amount. That includes controlling malaria in Africa.
The key to saving the enviroment is raising human living standards and individual liberty. It is no accident that where living standards and liberty are high, the enviroment is better protected. Overfishing could be resolved with free market solutions that discourage unsustainable fishing.
We will end up causing more enviromental damage with climate change schemes. |
|
|
|