Really great blog posting with loads of links to sources about cap & trade, derivatives, and the disaster they could be. Whether you believe in man-made global warming or not, you need to understand the folly of carbon derivatives. More and more experts–both scientific and economic–are coming out against this system.
Al Gore and his pals in the science establishment want us to totally change our lives because of a theory that might not even be true. Have the sacred cows of global warming been gored beyond repair?
It was good to be Al Gore in the last part of the last decade. In the year 2000 he was the world’s biggest loser. By 2009 he was one of the world’s biggest winners after becoming the master of disaster. Flummoxed by his noninvention of the internet and his nonelection as president of the United States, Gore found a winning hand in predicting the end of the world. In the process, he received an Oscar for his film An Inconvenient Truth, the Nobel Peace Prize, and millions of dollars through his interests in companies that dealt in “carbon credits.” Gore became more of a “Comeback Kid” than Bill Clinton ever was. For most of 2009, it was still good to be King Al. But late in the year, Al Gore’s beloved internet betrayed him.
Somehow the tables have turned. For all the smears of big money funding the “deniers”, the numbers reveal that the sceptics are actually the true grassroots campaigners, while Greenpeace defends Wall St. How times have changed.
Sceptics are fighting a billion dollar industry aligned with a trillion dollar trading scheme. Big Oil’s supposed evil influence has been vastly outdone by Big Government, and even those taxpayer billions are trumped by Big-Banking.
The big-money side of this debate has fostered a myth that sceptics write what they write because they are funded by oil profits. They say, follow the money? So I did and it’s chilling. Greens and environmentalists need to be aware each time they smear with an ad hominem attack they are unwittingly helping giant finance houses.
“If people knew just how deep and dark this conspiracy is — yes, conspiracy — they’d be amazed,” he explains. “More and more academics are standing up to refute climate-change theories, but it’s still dangerous to do so. It can mean the end of a career, the targeting of someone by well-organized fanatics.”
I rather doubted this man who is arguably Canada’s leading scientific opponent of climate-change fundamentalism until the e-mails poured in after his television appearance. People wrote that he was in the pay of big oil, was a simple high-school geography teacher, was insane and worse. In fact, he is a university academic with impressive graduate degrees and doctorates and, unlike so many global warming advocates, is not in the pay of anybody.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
The crazy thing is that while admitting all this, Jones still holds to the notion that the science behind AGW theory is sound. Meanwhile, Obama has decided to set up his own group to promote the man-made global warming myths since the IPCC is being found more and more fraudulent. He’s desperate for the income from cap and trade legislation.
Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the environment ministry, who chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002, was speaking after more potential inaccuracies emerged in the IPCC’s 2007 benchmark report on global warming.
How could I not be disappointed by the seemingly endless news stories about climate science being – well, less certain than we had previously been assured? By the implication that the sainted IPPC has taken a bit of a punt in arriving at some of its conclusions?
This statement is from Times writer John-Paul Flintoff . He’s been writing as a “green” advocate (still does) and supporter of man-made global warming theory for at least 5 years. The Times has long been a supporter of the theory as “settled science”. However, in Britain the public opinion has shifted dramatically as every revelation comes in, one after the next, showing the flawed and deceptive “science” so wrapped up in politics. The Times has felt the burn. The comments sections are filled with people fed up with being lied to. So The Times is pivoting it’s position–trying to stand back and see where this leads–afraid of losing their own credibility along with the IPCC.
Contrast it with wattsupwiththat.com, a site founded in November 2006 by a former Californian television weather forecaster named Anthony Watts. Dedicated at first to getting people to photograph weather stations to discover how poorly sited many of them are, the site has metamorphosed from a gathering place for lonely nutters to a three-million-hits-per-month online newspaper on climate full of fascinating articles by physicists, geologists, economists and statisticians.
This is a wonderful short piece about the real debunking of man-made global warming theory. Even if you don’t believe the skeptics you should read this because you probably have been wondering why so many people you would normally think rational have “fallen for the big oil propaganda”. This article is about the real skeptic movement that comes not from well-funded naysayers, but from thoughtful people who have found a myriad of flaws in the “accepted” science. It is about little guys. These are the people that have forced so much of the British and Australian press to begin airing contrarian views. Not the big oil companies.
The 2035 claim originated in an article published in New Scientist magazine which even the author has admitted was based on “speculation” rather than formal research.
Greenpeace is asking Pachauri to step down so the IPCC can replace him with someone the public can trust, but GP is not exactly trustworthy on this topic either:
Of course we need cleaner air, more energy efficiency, etc. But the warming alarmists are a cult who will say anything to get their way. This is not healthy for politics or science.