Sian Jones Fri, 5 Dec, 2008
Climate change: axiom or con?
It’s been a while since I had to defend the existence of climate change
Perhaps for some the increasingly ubiquitous presence of green issues itself brings them into question. I think it’s not enough and not quick enough. But axiomatic phraseology has crept in, almost with a hint of Austen; “It is a truth universally acknowledged that man-made climate change poses the gravest danger humankind has ever faced and must be in want of attention.”
Enough butchering of classics.
It is healthy to question these things, however climate change has had a hard time getting taken seriously, and it is serious. Scientists and environmentalists have spent decades on very low budgets trying to inform the world about climate change and its dangers.
In the face of opposition from companies and governments with vested interests in energy and polluting industries, the science proving climate change has prevailed. See papers by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change among others for the stark scientific truth.
If you want to be cynical, question the companies that now claim to be sustainable or carbon neutral. Greenwash has replaced climate denying tactics for many companies. Investment in adaptation and R&D for green technologies is proof that climate change is taken seriously by most large organisations.
Climate change is with us.
Simon Hinds Fri, 5 Dec, 2008
Left should re-think global warming warns Simon Hinds
The Left is unwittingly being used to achieve the political climate change goals of the global elite.
Evidence the media ignores include:
- Arctic ice cover increased by 30 per cent between 2006 and 2007; http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/ goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/;
- Climate research papers published from February 2004 to 2007, showed that nearly half neither accepted nor rejected the consensus and 7% rejected the consensus,
- CO2 concentration is 15 times lower today than it was during a major ice age 450 million years ago, http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/
Questions the propagandists do not want people to ask -
1. What proportion of atmospheric gases is made up of CO2?
2. What proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere triggers catastrophic global warming?
3. How much has atmospheric CO2 increased by since the industrial revolution?
4. How much has the average temperature risen by since the industrial revolution?
The moneymen and power brokers behind the propagandists are an NGO for the global elite, the Club of Rome and the Council on Foreign Relations,
http://green-agenda.com/turningpoint.html and the US' foreign policy establishment.
One key person is Maurice Strong, a Canadian oil billionaire, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Maurice_Strong
Answers: 1. less than 0.5%; 2. not known; 3. 0.7%; 4. around 33%.
Ray Pearson Fri, 5 Dec, 2008
Blowing Hot and Cold.
One thing you missed is the fact that it is not us but a cycle the solar system goes through that causes global warming. Look on
So in the 1880’s when Niagara Falls froze over and they roasted an ox on the frozen Thames we were going through global cooling?
I believe that this is a ‘fear’ being stoked by the governments of the world. You see that when there are wars there is something to unite nations. Now there are no major wars and they want to deflect from the Afghanistan and Middle East problem. Therefore give the populace something else to worry about.
Why do I believe that it is all a con. Well if the government were serious they would do something about the lights left on in offices overnight. They would build more roads as traffic jams account for about 30% of carbon emission. Humans are only responsible for less than 5% of emission of which cars are 3 %. Eliminate all un requested mail which is dropped through the door as most it is thrown away. No it is the con for the century and we are wasting £Million on it which could be devoted to other more worthwhile causes. If the Government were serious they would plough money into research for an engine which does not emit carbon.
Most of all just consider the carbon footprint of all these international conferences to discuss the problem. Then every government goes home and has national conferences which develop into local conferences. All backed up by tons of print to tell every one!! There is video conferencing!!!
But oh! We are journalists and should get our facts right and I quote ‘CO2 concentration is 15 times lower today than it was during a major ice age 450 million years ago.’ 15 times lower – impossible. Times is a multiplication factor so how can anything be lower if it is more?
One fifteenth? Or only ??% of what it was in the ice age.
At last we have some sense being talked.
PS: A second thought also occurred to me in terms of this climate change fiasco. What a way to create jobs and a whole new industry and then have jobs for your political mates! Anything to distract the minds of the masses. Also why has David Bellamy, previously the doyen of BBC, not been invited to give a counter view of the situation. All we get is a one side view and good journalism should give a balanced view.
I was at Victoria station at 23.00 hr last week and every office block was lit like a Christmas tree. This included Government offices; and we are told to switch off the standby light because of the energy it wastes!