See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Facts conveniently brushed over by the global warming fanatics
Source:
SMH.com
URL Source: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit ... ng-fanatics-20100131-n6fr.html
Published: Feb 1, 2010
Author: staff
Post Date: 2010-01-31 12:23:41 by buckeroo
Keywords: None
Views: 2949
Comments: 115
Here are 10 anti-commandments, 10 selected facts about global warming which have been largely ignored amid the orthodoxies to which we are subjected every day. All these anti-commandments are either true or backed by scientific opinion. All can also be hotly contested. 1. The pin-up species of global warming, the polar bear, is increasing in number, not decreasing. 2. The US President, Barack Obama, supports building nuclear power plants. Last week, in his State of the Union address, he said: ''To create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.'' 3. The Copenhagen climate conference descended into farce. The low point of the gridlock and posturing at Copenhagen came with the appearance by the socialist dictator of Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez, whose anti-capitalist diatribe drew a cheering ovation from thousands of left-wing ideologues. 4. The reputation of the chief United Nations scientist on global warming is in disrepair. Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is being investigated for financial irregularities, conflicts of interest and scientific distortion. He has already admitted publishing false data. 5. The supposed scientific consensus of the IPCC has been challenged by numerous distinguished scientists. 6. The politicisation of science leads to a heavy price being paid in poor countries. After Western environmentalists succeeded in banning or suppressing the use of the pesticide DDT, the rate of death by malaria rose into the millions. Some scholars estimate the death toll at 20 million or more, most of them children. 7. The biofuels industry has exacerbated world hunger. Diverting huge amounts of grain crops (as distinct from sugar cane) to biofuels has contributed to a rise in world food prices, felt acutely in the poorest nations. 8. The Kyoto Protocol has proved meaningless. Global carbon emissions are significantly higher today than they were when the Kyoto Protocol was introduced. 9. The United Nations global carbon emissions reduction target is a massively costly mirage. 10. Kevin Rudd's political bluff on emissions trading has been exposed. The Prime Minister intimated he would go to the people in an early election if his carbon emissions trading legislation was rejected. He won't. The electorate has shifted. None of these anti-commandments question the salient negative link between humanity and the environment: that we are an omnivorous, rapacious species which has done enormous damage to the world's environment. Nor do they question the warming of the planet. What they do question is the morphing of science with ideology, the most pernicious byproduct of the global warming debate. All these anti-commandments were brought into focus this past week by the visit of the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, better known as Lord Christopher Monckton, journalist by trade, mathematician by training, provocateur by inclination. Last Wednesday a conference room at the Sheraton on the Park was filled to overflowing, all 800 seats sold with a standing-room only crowd at the back, to see the Sydney public appearance of Monckton, a former science adviser to Margaret Thatcher. At the end of his presentation he received a sustained standing ovation. Monckton is the embodiment of English aristocratic eccentricity. His presentations are a combination of stand-up comedy, evangelical preaching and fierce debating. Almost every argument he makes can be contested, but given the enormity of the multi-trillion-dollars that governments expect taxpayers to expend on combating global warming, the process needs to be subject to brutal interrogation, scrutiny and scepticism. And Monckton was brutal, especially about the media, referring to ''all this bed-wetting stuff on the ABC and the BBC''. There has also been a monumental political failure surrounding the global warming debate. Those who would have to pay for most of the massive government expenditures proposed, the taxpayers of the West, are beginning to go into open revolt at the prospect. Last week the Herald reported that Monckton told a large lie while in Sydney. On Tuesday it reported: ''He said with a straight face on the Alan Jones radio program that he had been awarded the Nobel, a claim Jones did not question.'' The Herald repeated the accusation on Thursday. It was repeated a third time in a commentary in Saturday's Herald. In 2007 the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the former US vice-president Al Gore. The prize committee, in citing its selection of the IPCC, said: ''Through the IPCC … thousands of scientists and officials from over 100 countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of [global] warming.'' Thousands of people were thus collectively and anonymously part of the prize process. So what lie did Monckton tell about the prize? Despite the gravity of the accusation, the Herald never published the offending remark. Here, for the record, is what he actually said: Monckton: ''I found out on the day of publication of the 2007 [IPCC report] that they'd multiplied, by 10, the observed contribution to sea-level rise of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet. By 10! I got in touch with them and said, 'You will correct this.' And two days later, furtively, on the website, no publicity, they simply relabelled, recalculated and corrected the table they'd got wrong.'' Alan Jones: ''But this report won a Nobel Prize!'' Monckton: ''Yes. Exactly. And I am also a Nobel Prize winner because I made a correction. I'm part of the process that got the Nobel Prize. Do I deserve it? No. Do they deserve it? No. The thing is a joke.'' Poster Comment: Still global warming phenomena is an undeniable FACT!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 113.
#13. To: buckeroo (#0)
I like this article and your comment didn't ruin it because I already knew your view. And still, although mankind's impact on the environment is undeniably bad, warming the earth a bit is one of the good things. It is also an undeniable fact that my house is too cold today despite full sunshine and running my wood stove.
Really? Name a few .. please place your ideas into bullet-item format with simplicity so that others can sense your personal viewpoints at a glance.
The biggest is cost savings, I live in Northern Virginia which is relatively mild, but I use $450 worth of wood in a season frugally (I cut about 1/3-1/2 of it). In contrast, I paid about $10 per month for A/C last July and less in June and August (my total electric bill is never over $35). Contrast that to a family nearby that just paid $700 for one month of electric heat with a relatively modern system. Here are some more items
Similar to yourself, I have taken advantage of alternate methods of energy for my home. In my case I chose methods not relying on carbon dependence or known further CO2 gas release into the ambient environment; my home is totally solar powered via photo-voltaic cells; it has fully double paned glass with little comfort leakage conditions requiring purchased energy of any sort. My attic is embedded with attic fans so as to release the heat particularly during a HOT Summertime day in Southern California. I generate about 35KWhours a day on a South facing roof on 2300 foot home with no known carbon emissions. In California, I am now being paid for the excess abundance I accumulate; we have ample solar capability as the sunlight shines more than many other areas of the nation. Thank you for your observations concerning global warming. Your comments are encouraging to me; we need intelligence, such as yours to help change the world around us; and with that same compliment towards yourself, I want to challenge your earlier remarcks. So, here goes: There is plentiful fact about your point. But I want to remind you that photo-synthesis requires ample clean water to ensure the same; clean water around the globe is decreasing. And the hotter temperatures are creating diminished crop production because of further infestation of annoying insects. There is some truth (also) about great technological strides in chemical engineering for and about water-tolerant and insect resistant crops. So far, the measured abundance in recent times is about spindly plants not capable of the nutrients that mankind requires for dietary needs. And the cost per acre is going up and as a result the cost per nutient is going up to feed a worldwide increasing population base that is striping away at the environment. This is a common claim. It is unfounded as the natural environment is jam-packed with humans, all competitively achieving the demise of the same. Not true. The tundra is eroding. Bark Beetles are migrating Northward eliminating vast swaths of forests as the ambient temperatures are heating up. That may happen as Everyone's quality of life is diminished and the affordability for private and mass transit transportation methods creates very inexpensive alternative methods. You will have to explain this one. Not true at all. Global Warming phenomena is removing clean, natural water capabilities and capacity around the world. Why on Earth do you see more world-wide desalination techniques? Like what? Are you saying that a denser population group distribution creates additional personal liberties and freedoms? Please discuss this issue because you are diametrically opposed to the truth about this same perspective.
the hotter temperatures are creating diminished crop production as a result the cost per nutient is going up to feed a worldwide increasing population unfounded as the natural environment is jam-packed with humans further infestation of annoying insects. Are you saying that a denser population group distribution creates additional personal liberties and freedoms? You won't have to worry about that when the oceans rise and So. Cal. goes underwater. Actually GMO crops are diminishing crop production around the world. Nutrients are decreased via GMO frankenseeds. The nutrients would return with small scale organic farming. Again, the insect infestations are increasing due to GMO crops that are chemical altered to deter both insects and weeds. It has been proven that the weeds and insects evolve and become more sturdy in response to attempt to annialate them. Again the problem is over population then, not global warming. Mother Earth has her own ways to curb the population problems and no amount of expensive intervention will stop her Buck. Invest in clean water, maybe the anti depressant market would be good to curb all the worries about global warming. You keep interchanging your worries about over population and global warming. If, in fact, your global warming theory is correct we can rest easy that the population of the planet will be culled, which may result in MORE personal liberties and freedoms for the lucky who survive. Either way, it's a win with a decrease in over population, right?
They are intertwined factual concerns; so, you are correct. As a simple example, do you note that the US government continues to clamp down on personal liberties and freedoms while the population base is soaring? And this is true around the world.
It is only soaring because the goobermint refuses to address the illegal alien plight. Send them home and we will have instant population decrease along with massive tax savings. Win-win. The birth rates are decreasing for all ethnic groups in the US (not all over the world). What we have is an INCREASE in life expectancy. People aren't allowed to die like they used to Buck. The base would stop soaring if we could increase those death rates. I think Obama has a plan to decrease life expectancy and cull the numbers. Personally, I don't think that the decrease in personal liberties and freedoms is due to an increase in population. IMHO, it is due to an increase in apathy and ignorance.
That is only one of the issues confronting Americans. You haven't addressed the continuing rape of our tax-payer dollars which is a MUCH larger issue: the goobermint as you call it, must limit natural resources through common distribution methods thus appeasing the greater masses.
The two are interlinked. The illegals sucking off the taxpayer teat is just one of the many ways that We the People allow for a continually raping of our taxdollars. Globally, the empire is culling the masses on a regular basis Buck.....of course that requires a massive waste of resources too. Oh, and a massive waste of tax dollars.........but we allow it to go on year in and year out. Seriously, the goobermint MUST limit natural resources? Look at the track record on that one Buck. The goobermint has ENCOURAGED waste of natural resources throughout history, subsidizing massive waste to line corporate profits. Now, you want to trust them to "limit natural resources through common distribution methods"? Do you invite burglars to housesit when you take a vacation?
Yes. At one time the California Central Valley was the hallmarck of agricultural accomplishment for the world; it was popularly said, California feeds the World. Today, this isn't so. Why? Let me tell you why. The US government has limited the fresh water supply and this same action has reduced the Central Valley to a dust bowl. Ask farmfriend as she fully understands this issue. But, beyond the FACTS, why is government limiting natural resources? To be objective on these issues you must reflect about the under-currents within the natural resource capabilities America has at it's disposal. America's natural resource capabilities are stripped away.
Oh Carry_Okie answered that question quite nicely: The key to cracking the Constitutional system was international law, a loophole in Article VI Clause 2 of the Constitution, governing the adoption of treaties and the scope of their powers (IMO the rat Patrick Henry and others smelled only too clearly; if you want a good chuckle read Hamilton's defense of the manner of treaty ratification in Federalist #75). To implement the plan European investors needed a foothold in the US before they could get into the market. Until the Civil War, corporations were haltered in the US because they were not allowed to own land and were not protected under the Constitution in a manner co-equal to citizens. After the Civil War the US was deeply in debt to that very European investor class. The 14th Amendment changed that balance of power between the individual and corporate. Once the appropriate Supreme Court cases were in place interpreting persons "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as including corporate persons, corporations then derived equal protection under the laws and could own property, the investment floodgates opened, and that not only created an American industrial colossus, it produced an American investor class owning enormously influential private tax-exempt foundations. So it isn't exactly by coincidence that it is those same colossal foundations that are making all those "charitable" donations to those icky Greens. The Environmental Grantmakers Association? That's Rockefeller. The Pew Charitable Trusts? That's Sunoco. W. Alton Jones? That's Citgo. The World Wildlife Fund? BP and Shell. You do see a pattern, don't you? These are more than investors in energy, their assets include timber, mining, banking, food production… They aren't fools. They use the same simple and ancient recipe as did their European forbears by which to manufacture a predictable return: Kill the competition with regulations, create a shortage, and cash in. It's become so common there is even an excellent book out on the topic that I suggest you read, . It's a simple process that has accelerated over the last five decades. It's a vertically integrated racketeering system that extends over the entire planet. American investors in multinational operations are perfectly happy taking a hit on US operations destroying domestic production because their investments abroad get the business. They either convert domestic resource land to real estate or mothball it under tax exempt conservancies, Federal monuments, and such.
So far I'm reading here that you're unhappy because the environmentalists aren't as effective as they should be with regard to protecting the environment. Are you saying we should be protecting more natural habitat, or less? Are you saying more farmers should be able to guzzle water resources, or less? Which is it? How to get there from here? I do not happen to believe that the free market will solve this problem. If we hadn't nationalized our parks and our national forests, things would be a lot worse.
Would they? You haven't read Carry's book. Or the stuff on his web site. Even reading that one post in its entirety would open some eyes. Remember the polluting of our water by MTBE? Brought to you by the NRDC. Even the beetle problem buck brings up was caused by the environmental movement.
You bring up MTBE. What about leaded fuel? Just when were we going to stop using lead without the EPA? These are not reasons to privatize our natural resources.
You're not really reading what I post are you?
You're used to foruming with people who are sympathetic to your cause, aren't you?
Not at all but I see no reason to continue a conversation with someone who isn't going to even look at the material provided.
You're expecting me to take an off-site link as your argument? You've got to be kidding.
No but I can't explain to you in a short post what it took him a whole book to explain. The post of his at FR I linked to is a good start even though it is about energy not water. Same arguments apply but you won't even go read that. So again, what is the point in even having a conversation with you?
You want me to visit Free Republic?
Painful as it may be, yes, just that one post. It is worth it. OR you can go here and read a synopsis of the book:
Why wouldn't privatization be just as corrupt as what we have is today? If the government is corrupt, private control could be just as well.
Third party verification and liability insurance.
How would third party verification and insurance be better than congressional oversight and executive authority? Who appoints the third parties? Who keeps them from profiteering from collusion with the corporations? This is corporatism.
This is corporatism. No, what is going on now is corporatism. Kill the competition with regulations, create a shortage, and cash in. Is that really what you are advocating? It is exactly what the environmental movement has given us.
Says the former lobbyist. I'm not buying it. We have national forests, protected water tables, clean air, good wetlands. Some could be better. Things would be a lot worse if they were privatized. What we need to do is get our governments cleaned up. You won't have any better situation without doing that, no matter what you're proposing. Protecting the common good is always going to require sound government, which we lack. But at least citizens take interest in the environment, and it's not on the other side of the planet (unless you count the carbon dioxide situation).
Like that has anything to do with it. I lobbied Grange policy. As I said, that was grassroots. I take it you have never watched Overview Of America. Your collectivism is disgusting.
You're the one lobbying for corporate control, which is one step removed from the people, of our entire set of environmental resources. As even a good Bircher can tell us, corporations are now part of the communist control over America. So you're arguing for completing the cycle. I'm saying we're lucky that we have any control at all over our natural resources, and that resulted from a tug-of-war between the corporatists and the people who actually care about the environment.
Already stated at least twice that I did not. Your insistence otherwise is suspect at best. You want to know what I lobbied? Read Grange Policy No, that's what you are doing. Sadly you can't see it.You think the environmental movement actually cares about the environment? You really didn't read my posts at all did you. I'll post it again just for your benefit. The key to cracking the Constitutional system was international law, a loophole in Article VI Clause 2 of the Constitution, governing the adoption of treaties and the scope of their powers (IMO the rat Patrick Henry and others smelled only too clearly; if you want a good chuckle read Hamilton's defense of the manner of treaty ratification in Federalist #75). To implement the plan European investors needed a foothold in the US before they could get into the market. Until the Civil War, corporations were haltered in the US because they were not allowed to own land and were not protected under the Constitution in a manner co-equal to citizens. After the Civil War the US was deeply in debt to that very European investor class. The 14th Amendment changed that balance of power between the individual and corporate. Once the appropriate Supreme Court cases were in place interpreting persons "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as including corporate persons, corporations then derived equal protection under the laws and could own property, the investment floodgates opened, and that not only created an American industrial colossus, it produced an American investor class owning enormously influential private tax-exempt foundations. So it isn't exactly by coincidence that it is those same colossal foundations that are making all those "charitable" donations to those icky Greens. The Environmental Grantmakers Association? That's Rockefeller. The Pew Charitable Trusts? That's Sunoco. W. Alton Jones? That's Citgo. The World Wildlife Fund? BP and Shell. You do see a pattern, don't you? These are more than investors in energy, their assets include timber, mining, banking, food production… They aren't fools. They use the same simple and ancient recipe as did their European forbears by which to manufacture a predictable return: Kill the competition with regulations, create a shortage, and cash in. It's become so common there is even an excellent book out on the topic that I suggest you read, . It's a simple process that has accelerated over the last five decades. It's a vertically integrated racketeering system that extends over the entire planet. American investors in multinational operations are perfectly happy taking a hit on US operations destroying domestic production because their investments abroad get the business. They either convert domestic resource land to real estate or mothball it under tax exempt conservancies, Federal monuments, and such. It is these corporate owned NGOs that are funding the environmental movement. They force regulations that kill competition for their investments. Wake up and smell the coffee, the environmental movement is NOT about the environment.
You're surely not going to tell me that the blue helmets are coming to get me if I don't sign up for your multi-level forest management system?
what the hell are you talking about now?
You're the one talking about NGOs and the UN. If there is an elaborate mechanism as you describe it, how would privatizing it break the links? That's unclear. Links would be very easy to recreate with corporate control as well.
You seem to have no concept of what I'm talking about.
Desperately in need of a clue but it's raining and no bucket - or even a teaspoon.
What is required to get into your thick skull that the world is not all about government? Although the government can make up just about anything, there is truly and realistic truth about the world around us.
I see your point. More Mad Dog?
#114. To: Original_Intent (#113)
? I can only suppose you caught me making posts towards that insipid low-life.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestStill global warming phenomena is an undeniable FACT!
#29. To: purpleman (#13)
warming the earth a bit is one of the good things.
#30. To: buckeroo (#29)
#36. To: purpleman (#30)
* longer growing season
* along with more CO2, increased crop yields
* more game and fish
* more use of unusable Canadian land (since GW favors colder climates)
* more people walking and biking to work since it won't be too cold
* reduced risk of catastrophe if there is cooling (e.g. large volcano)
* less strife over water resources (GW = more precipitation)
* best of all, more comfort for a greater number of people
#40. To: buckeroo (#36)
to release the heat particularly during a HOT Summertime day in Southern California.
#41. To: abraxas (#40)
You keep interchanging your worries about over population and global warming.
#43. To: buckeroo (#41)
(Edited)
As a simple example, do you note that the US government continues to clamp down on personal liberties and freedoms while the population base is soaring?
#44. To: abraxas (#43)
It is only soaring because the goobermint refuses to address the illegal alien plight.
#45. To: buckeroo (#44)
That is only one of the issues confronting Americans. You haven't addressed the continuing rape of our tax-payer dollars which is a MUCH larger issue: the goobermint as you call it, must limit natural resources through common distribution methods thus appeasing the greater masses.
#46. To: abraxas, farmfriend (#45)
Seriously, the goobermint MUST limit natural resources?
#59. To: buckeroo, abraxas, Original_Intent, Deasy (#46)
(Edited)
But, beyond the FACTS, why is government limiting natural resources?
The supply regulation game is at least as old as the Dutch East India Company's manipulation of coffee prices by controlling access to the plants. Understanding that sorry history of economic tyranny by European corporate royalty, the founders of this nation tried to design a limited government, one that didn't have the power to control private property or have control of resources. Control of access to resources is too much temptation for the wealthy to purchase corrupt influence that depresses everybody else. They Founders failed.
1. Foist the necessary treaty law via (primarily American) NGOs at UN environmental agencies (largely funded by the US government).
2. Get the implementing legislation through Congress.
3. Use lawsuits by those same NGOs in federal courts to alter the meaning of the law.
4. Overwhelm the agencies with graduates brainwashed by professors who subsist of government and foundation grants.
5. Establish the regulatory power on the local level to control the decision-making with the cheapest politicians money can buy.
#60. To: farmfriend (#59)
#61. To: Deasy (#60)
I do not happen to believe that the free market will solve this problem. If we hadn't nationalized our parks and our national forests, things would be a lot worse.
#62. To: farmfriend (#61)
#64. To: Deasy (#62)
These are not reasons to privatize our natural resources.
#76. To: farmfriend (#64)
You're not really reading what I post are you?
#77. To: Deasy (#76)
You're used to foruming with people who are sympathetic to your cause, aren't you?
#78. To: farmfriend (#77)
#81. To: Deasy (#78)
You're expecting me to take an off-site link as your argument? You've got to be kidding.
#83. To: farmfriend (#81)
#84. To: Deasy (#83)
You want me to visit Free Republic?
This book proposes a free-market environmental management system designed to deliver a product that is superior to government oversight, at lower cost. It provides examples illustrating how the system might work and proposes an implementing legal strategy. Though environmental in origin, the principles this book describes are applicable toward privatizing nearly any form of government regulation.
#86. To: farmfriend (#84)
#88. To: Deasy (#86)
Why wouldn't privatization be just as corrupt as what we have is today?
#91. To: farmfriend (#88)
Third party verification and liability insurance.
#96. To: Deasy (#91)
How would third party verification and insurance be better than congressional oversight and executive authority? Who appoints the third parties? Who keeps them from profiteering from collusion with the corporations?
#100. To: farmfriend (#96)
It is exactly what the environmental movement has given us.
#101. To: Deasy (#100)
(Edited)
Says the former lobbyist.
#103. To: farmfriend (#101)
Your collectivism is disgusting.
#104. To: Deasy, buckeroo, Original_Intent (#103)
(Edited)
You're the one lobbying for corporate control,
So you're arguing for completing the cycle.
The supply regulation game is at least as old as the Dutch East India Company's manipulation of coffee prices by controlling access to the plants. Understanding that sorry history of economic tyranny by European corporate royalty, the founders of this nation tried to design a limited government, one that didn't have the power to control private property or have control of resources. Control of access to resources is too much temptation for the wealthy to purchase corrupt influence that depresses everybody else. They Founders failed.
1. Foist the necessary treaty law via (primarily American) NGOs at UN environmental agencies (largely funded by the US government).
2. Get the implementing legislation through Congress.
3. Use lawsuits by those same NGOs in federal courts to alter the meaning of the law.
4. Overwhelm the agencies with graduates brainwashed by professors who subsist of government and foundation grants.
5. Establish the regulatory power on the local level to control the decision-making with the cheapest politicians money can buy.
#105. To: farmfriend (#104)
1. Foist the necessary treaty law via (primarily American) NGOs at UN environmental agencies (largely funded by the US government).
#106. To: Deasy (#105)
You're surely not going to tell me that the blue helmets are coming to get me if I don't sign up for your multi-level forest management system?
#107. To: farmfriend (#106)
(Edited)
#108. To: Deasy (#107)
#109. To: farmfriend, Deasy (#108)
You seem to have no concept of what I'm talking about.
#110. To: Original_Intent (#109)
Desperately in need of a clue
#113. To: buckeroo (#110)
Replies to Comment # 113. Mad Dog?
End Trace Mode for Comment # 113.