I always have to chuckle when somebody uses the phrase denier/delayer to label somebody for even the slightest transgression on climate /action/justice/activism/alarmism/pick a word.
Briefly, this appeared on Google News:
That was the original title of the piece. Somebody must have complained, because it didn’t last long: Look what The Guardian changed the title to:
Whether the hopes are fading or in “tatters”, it seems that the hope and climate change movement is falling apart.
I just took a look at the Science Museum’s Prove it! poll. Currently it stands at about 60% not agreeing, which is fairly consistent with other opinion polls.
I also took a look at their proofs of AGW. In fact there’s no proof at all. It’s just a series of statements and claims, with absolutely no attempt to cite any scientific proof. As has been suggested, and confirmed by a UK legal ruling, AGW is more akin to a religious belief, and as such requires no proof.
But it’s shocking to see such a prestigious UK institution as the Science Museum descending to such depths. Needless to say, I gave them an ear-full in the comments section.
Chris
Politicization of science? The Goreacle gave the game-plan away when he declared that the aim of the AGW fraud was ‘global governance’.
Of course there is a crucial sense in which applied science interfaces with the formulation of policy, which means that there is an inevitable political dimension to many areas of scientific research. Man is a ‘political animal’ as Aristotle said, and even pursuits as seemingly remote as disinterested scientific inquiry from the tasks of governance cannot wholly be hermetically sealed off from more quotidian human concerns.
Matt (14:51:10) :
Why is political slanging being allowed on this forum.
IMO maobama comments should be snipped.
Yes Matt, Why not arrest anyone criticising the US government as they do in the UK. Remember the B-LIAR T shirts during Blairs PM time. These people were arrested and now have criminal records for protesting against the government lies.
Oh no, wait a minute that’s what they do in police states…..
Tor,
Presently, big government in america knows no party lines. Yep George drastically increased the government’s influence (‘conservative’ huh.. god damn neocons). But you’ve got the same thing with Obama now.
Michel, i agree, my comment was pretty ridiculous. Maybe it would be better worded if i said that I would like it if the left didn’t accept or encourage people who make the moon landing/”denier” remarks (Gore pretty much)
i’m very interesting in the science, but for some reason when a sheepish lefty posts on a message board, i get so pissed off :/
*deep breath*
Sorry
Tor Hansson (22:28:40) :
“Doug:
I don’t agree that the green economy is a Ponzi scheme, at least not necessarily. We are still running most of our cars on 130-year old”
Tor Hansson,
With all due respect but I don’t agree with a single word you wrote.
1. We have witnessed a fantastic evolution of the internal combustion engine to a level where it’s entirely clean and no threat to the environment.
2. We will have new technologies in the future, but only if they are better and more economical compared to the technology they replace, not by Government Dictate.
3. The so called “Green Economy” is a Ponzi scheme because:
1. The necessity for the introduction of the “Green conomy” is based on the CO2=AGW lies.
2. The so called “Green Solutions” are a hoax and a waste of money because they don’t deliver the power we need at very high costs. These costs are so high that a Green Economy can’t exist. It is a scheme directed at the continuation of a fossil fuel economy at much higher prices, only serving the fat cats that have stake in Carbon Trade.
3. The so called Green Economy is a front for the installation of a World Government gaining control over our resources, our financial Institutions, our markets and our lives. Green = a polished up version of communism.
About the Green Economy:
Wind Energy:
Is in need of conventional back up increasing your electricity bill by 500%
Besides that, wind mills kill birds and bats and (but this is personal) ruin the landscape.
Solar: amortization takes longer than the economic life cycle, how economical is that?
Besides that, solar only functions during day time and is in need of back up.
CO2 sequestration in coal plants:
Doubles the amount of coal per Kw energy delivered.
Triples the price of electricity and doubles the speed of consuming our resources which is a bad idea with an ice age around the corner.
Bio fuels:
Currently the biggest people killer:
Ethanol: Competes with the food industry causing irresponsible price hikes.
Before the financial crises 350 million people were living from 1700 calories per day, now 1.3 billion.
CO2 output his higher + huge amounts of water is needed.
The latest technology of ethanol production is based on the use of wood as a resource which will result in deforestation.
Diesel:
Jatropha Palm Oil, currently the biggest engine behind deforestation of tropical forests world wide.
There is only a single green fuel that could work and that is bio fuel from algae.
All others do more harm than good.
Please read Agenda 21 of the United Nations and http://green-agenda.com and wise up.
Interesting take in the Independent Mon 16 Nov 2009 by David Usborne, US Editor:
Leaders plan a ‘two-step’ environment deal
Gail Combs (03:40:07) :
Thanks for the links Gail.
Ron de Haan (21:49:16) :
In less than 45 day it’s going to be 2010.
How many spots did you see on the Sun yesterday?
I couldn’t find any, and I tried 3 times.
For anybody interested in the political aspirations of George Soros, Obama’s boss:
http://www.ft.com/cms/90bc6a02-bf0b-11de-8034-00144feab49a.htm?ftcamp=Feat_cta1/NL/USNov2009/Vanilla_gsoros/0/
Not again…UN IPCC issues yet another “10 year tipping point” warning.
The last one was in 1989 and it never happened.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3826/Not-again-Another-10year-climate-tipping-point-warning-issued–Despite-fact-that-UN-began-10Year-Climate-Tipping-Point-in-1989
The real question is not whether this particular part of climate history has human influence. The real question is whether or not this influence is dangerous or will become dangerous.
The AGW promoters have offered nothing, except fear and hype, to show that their apocalyptic predictions are valid.
In terms of energy -making it clean and efficient- the AGW community cannot come together behind nukes, and probably never will. They are stuck on medieval based wind technology: expensive, unreliable, and environmentally destructive.
Effective solar looks to only be better than fusion: never quite ready for actual usefulness.
So the AGW community is basically left with selling the idea that taxes can control the weather.
That is a tough sell.
Arthur Glass said:
” please explain to me how the Administration intends to shut down all dissenting media.”
Easy the guy who OWNS the press controls the news. This is from the U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917, page 2947
“Mr. CALLAWAY: Mr. Chairman, under unanimous consent, I insert into the Record at this point a statement showing the newspaper combination, which explains their activity in the war matter, just discussed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MOORE]:
“In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, ship building and powder interests and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press in the United States.
“These 12 men worked the problems out by selecting 179 newspapers, and then began, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press throughout the country. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers……” http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Morgan-Buys-Newspapers9feb17.htm
I have seen evidence of this control on a number of occasions. Dissenting views are ignored, ridiculed scorned or just not printed. This is true of other subjects besides Global Warming. I have been at ground zero as an eye witness on at least three issues where the “press” has published out right lies to further an agenda. On two issues the “lies” are now a part of the “official US history” and the truth is published no where. Only the Internet has allowed a dissenting voice to be heard on the subjects of “Global Warming” and “Global Food Regulation/Control”
There is more where this comes from.
http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/massive-election-fraud-threw-vote-count-against-hoffman/
“The real question is not whether this particular part of climate history has human influence. The real question is whether or not this influence is dangerous or will become dangerous.”
Are you incapable of rational thought?
If there is no influence then it cannot be dangerous, or become dangerous. The means any ‘danger’ remains hypothetical until human influence can be shown.
So the question is whether this particular part of climate history has human influence.
rbateman (04:51:29) :
Ron de Haan (21:49:16) :
“In less than 45 day it’s going to be 2010.
How many spots did you see on the Sun yesterday?
I couldn’t find any, and I tried 3 times”.
I agree,
But the message of th article is that if we want to stop Obama from adopting to Kyoto 2010, we have to elect people into office that oppose climate legislation.
That will be very difficult, not because of a lack of candidates but because of election fraud:
http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/massive-election-fraud-threw-vote-count-against-hoffman/
Tor Hansson (11:55:18) :
We are looking at pragmatism in action. Extricating themselves from AGW alarmism will take all the finesse the Administration can muster. They’re working on it. They know the data are against them.
And please, just can all this Maobama nonsense. The guy is actually pretty moderate”.
Tor, on what planet do you live?
Aligner (04:43:54) :
Interesting take in the Independent Mon 16 Nov 2009 by David Usborne, US Editor:
Leaders plan a ‘two-step’ environment deal
Right, first step, political frame work for a world government, second step, concrete CO2 reduction commitments and financial compensation schemes to screw the Third World.
Tom in Texas (00:34:07) :
Smokey, your rant sounds like that of a “rabid conservative”.
In the U.S., who is to the left of Obama?
Pelosi?
Reid?
Ted Kennedy?
Ralph Nader?
Off hand I can’t think of any others”.
Tom in Texas,
You ask the wrong questions!
You first have to look where the politicians you mention come from and which political or/and economic interests the represent.
So, take the list and check them.
Pelosi
Financial status:
The Pelosi family has a net worth of nearly $19 million as of 2007, largely from investments. In addition to their large portfolio of jointly owned San Francisco Bay Area real estate, the couple also owns a vineyard in St. Helena, California, valued between $5 million and $25 million. Pelosi’s husband also owns stock, including $5 million in Apple Computer. Pelosi continues to be among the richest members of Congress. So, Pelosi is on the Gore/Obama bandwagon and has sold out on the American People.
Reid: This guy is a real creep and in full support of the World Government, the transfer of power to the UN, Agenda 21 and population control/reduction. In the mean time he won’t miss out on opportunity to fill his pockets, even if the deal has a ratty smell: Harry Reid should have been kicked out of politics a long time ago and he certainly does not support the American People.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid
and http://green-agenda.com
etc. etc.
Just read about their past, their memberships, political idea’s, former statements etc.
It’s all available on the WWW.
Especially check the Czars, Obama’s Shadow Government.
Have fun.
The AGW behemoth is, thankfully, in its death throes, but that should not stop us from stomping on it as it thrashes about dangerously and continues to try to get back up.
It is funny how the beast can not even fathom what is happening to it, desperately searching for “explanations” such as: “we need to do a better job of getting the message out”, and “far right-wing talk radio shows and blogs, funded by Big Oil have stepped up their campaigns of dis-information”, and “the poor economy is forcing people to only care about their own pocketbooks, at the expense of the environment”, etc. etc. It couldn’t possibly be that the truth is getting out about the whole AGW fraud, or the fact that people are noticing that the weather hasn’t been cooperating with the AGW myth, which, oddly enough keeps getting changed so that in the end, AGW causes everything BAD, even completely contradictory things. No, it couldn’t possibly be that.
Dr. Roy Spencer is very mad, but he is also right!
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/11/roy-spencers-letter-to-editor.html
I nominate President Obama for the Senator Kerry “I was for it before I was against it” award.
“”” Tor Hansson (16:42:35) :
Iren, I am going to try to explain this as clearly as I can:
It is obvious that people who comment on this site have differing opinions on the Obama Administration. You have an opinion too, and that’s fine. Let me just say that it is not an opinion that finds favor with most people around the world, and it is not supported by the facts.
This site is doing a very good job of debunking AGW. If we mix the findings of fact we see on this site with politics, the findings are tainted.
We are all better off if they are not. We are fighting a battle for science and for facts. Once we bring political views into the picture the findings can be attacked as politically motivated.
That’s why it is better to leave the politics out of it. “””
“”” The Delayer in Chief? – Obama backs Copenhagen postponement “””
Well Tor,
just above is the top line heading for this thread. This thread is about POLITICS; after all this whole Copenhagen stupidity is about POLITICS; it doesn’t have ANYTHING to do with either science or climate.
Having said that, I am quite sure that the American Citrizens who vote in this country really don’t give a hoot what anybody else in the World thinks about our President. We here in America; whether citizens or non-citizens have to actually live with the consequences of having this man as our “leader” , and our children and grandchildren will have to live under, and bear the costs of his policies and his actions.
So IMHO, it is perfectly fine for you or anyone else around the world to have opinions about our President, and our other prominent leaders; but don’t expect us to pay much attention to thoise opinions.
After all, we do not try to inject our opinions of YOUR leaders into your daily lives.
Fortunately the great thinkers who constructed the hierarchy of our Governing system, and its checks and balances, provided means to circumvent dictatorship by a tyranical leader; and those checks are reasoned, and peaceful; and the American Electorate will ultimately deal with misguided leadership in the manner provider by our forefathers.
So it’s ok for you to be fascinated; just don’t meddle. Right your own ship before you complain about ours.
If you think Anthony started this thread with the idea that it would elicit learned climate science discussion; I think you read the heading incorrectly.
But there are plenty of other threads for you to participate in the science exchanges.
Well that’s just my opinion; I’m not speaking for anybody else.
Climate Heretic (19:02:18) :
“Democrats truly believe that Climate Change Legislation forcing money flows into bad ventures will save the economy and create jobs, it is a Party Policy Platform and will not be abandoned no matter how much science is used to disprove it, nobody in politics is listening to the science anymore.”
You make a point – but alarmists are caught with their pants down on global warming precisely because of the science. It is the science and the unflagging work of honest science-minded people here and elsewhere – that has brought alarmists to acknowledge failure of the climate change campaign. Simply, man-made CO2 plays no role in global warming.
While this is a crushing embarrassment to alarmists, they readily save face by rewriting the script. Climate change dogma is replaced with energy independence (green) dogma. Same jobs creation, efficiency, security, and enviro benefits to tout – just without the embarrassing “CO2 is a pollutant” foolishness. The transition to renewable energy doesn’t need the silly climate change cheer leader.
This new positioning is underway. It’s opponents are diehard alarmists who have counted on GHG taxes to line their pockets and fuel their vision of one world government. That will not happen. Those genuinely interested in helping emerging nations industrialize will need to revisit the concept of philanthropy and free market development.
Actually helping other people out of genuine good will and altruism would be a laudable goal for all sides in this debate.
Ron de Haan (05:54:16) :
“Tor, on what planet do you live?”
Thanks Ron,… for reading my mind exactly.