Jump to content

Climate Change Consensus?


Recommended Posts

This doesn't mean all is lost. Obama should come home from the summit and announce that the U.S. is going it alone in carbon reduction. The big targets....Dirty coal and cars.

A plan to replace dirty coal fire factories(and there may already be one) with emphasis on nuclear.

Then the even more important one....electric vehicles(small fuel powered heaters and A/C may be necessary). Large amounts of money to continue to improve electric cars(perhaps already being done). Cross-subsidization on electric car sales from gasoline powered car sales. Initially it would just be a small amount extra to pay on a new gas powered car to subsidize the electric ones but as the number of sales of each decreased and increased respectively the amounts of extra money would increase on gas powered vehicles making them very expensive.

Along with this would be laws passed limiting gas powered vehicle sales with ever decreasing amounts until there were very few being sold at all. As less and less fuel was used in the states, oil prices would fall and if other countries followed, oil prices would fall dramatically. A huge strategic advantage to the Western world overall as billions stopped going to the Middle East, Russia, Venezuela, etc. Unfortunately, the oil sands would be one of the first to fall.

Low oil prices mean low gas prices but Americans and others following suit would not be able to take advantage and go back to gasoline vehicles as would be natural because of the laws disallowing new gas powered vehicles eventually, or the few that are allowed such as specialty sports cars would be very expensiv.

The exact details might have to be a bit different as it is just an idea but I think it is a realistic idea. And some of it may already be in process but it should be an overall strategic direction.

Less pollution, less carbon and hugely less money going to despicable areas from all areas of the world which is a strategic advantage in global politics and the importance of the power of the western world. Aviation would have a huge benefit from the low gas prices. And that would of course, benefit you.

Woxof......viable solutions for global problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Spectator

Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con trick

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/3755...con-trick.thtml

11 July 2009

James Delingpole talks to Professor Ian Plimer, the Australian geologist, whose new book shows that ‘anthropogenic global warming’ is a dangerous, ruinously expensive fiction, a ‘first-world luxury’ with no basis in scientific fact. Shame on the publishers who rejected the book

Imagine how wonderful the world would be if man-made global warming were just a figment of Al Gore’s imagination. No more ugly wind farms to darken our sunlit uplands. No more whopping electricity bills, artificially inflated by EU-imposed carbon taxes. No longer any need to treat each warm, sunny day as though it were some terrible harbinger of ecological doom. And definitely no need for the $7.4 trillion cap and trade (carbon-trading) bill — the largest tax in American history — which President Obama and his cohorts are so assiduously trying to impose on the US economy.

Imagine no more, for your fairy godmother is here. His name is Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at Adelaide University, and he has recently published the landmark book Heaven And Earth, which is going to change forever the way we think about climate change.

‘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.

To find out why, let’s meet the good professor. He’s a tanned, rugged, white-haired sixtysomething — courteous and jolly but combative when he needs to be — glowing with the health of a man who spends half his life on field expeditions to Iran, Turkey and his beloved Outback. And he’s sitting in my garden drinking tea on exactly the kind of day the likes of the Guardian’s George Monbiot would probably like to ban. A lovely warm sunny one.

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.’

What Heaven And Earth sets out to do is restore a sense of scientific perspective to a debate which has been hijacked by ‘politicians, environmental activists and opportunists’. It points out, for example, that polar ice has been present on earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time; that extinctions of life are normal; that climate changes are cyclical and random; that the CO2 in the atmosphere — to which human activity contributes the tiniest fraction — is only 0.001 per cent of the total CO2 held in the oceans, surface rocks, air, soils and life; that CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant food; that the earth’s warmer periods — such as when the Romans grew grapes and citrus trees as far north as Hadrian’s Wall — were times of wealth and plenty.

All this is scientific fact — which is more than you can say for any of the computer models turning out doomsday scenarios about inexorably rising temperatures, sinking islands and collapsing ice shelves. Plimer doesn’t trust them because they seem to have little if any basis in observed reality.

‘I’m a natural scientist. I’m out there every day, buried up to my neck in sh**, collecting raw data. And that’s why I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses. None of them predicted this current period we’re in of global cooling. There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase.’

Plimer’s uncompromising position has not made him popular. ‘They say I rape cows, eat babies, that I know nothing about anything. My favourite letter was the one that said: “Dear sir, drop dead”. I’ve also had a demo in Sydney outside one of my book launches, and I’ve had mothers coming up to me with two-year-old children in their arms saying: “Don’t you have any kind of morality? This child’s future is being destroyed.’’’ Plimer’s response to the last one is typically robust. ‘If you’re so concerned, why did you breed?’

This no-nonsense approach may owe something to the young Ian’s straitened Sydney upbringing. His father was crippled with MS, leaving his mother to raise three children on a schoolteacher’s wage. ‘We couldn’t afford a TV — not that TV even arrived in Australia till 1956. We’d use the same brown paper bag over and over again for our school lunches, always turn off the lights, not because of some moral imperative but out of sheer bloody necessity.’

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.’

Heaven And Earth is the offspring of a pop science book Plimer published in 2001 called A Short History of Planet Earth. It was based on ten years’ worth of broadcasts for ABC radio aimed mainly at people in rural areas. Though the book was a bestseller and won a Eureka prize, ABC refused to publish the follow-up; so did all the other major publishers he approached: ‘There’s a lot of fear out there. No one wants to go against the popular paradigm.’

Then someone put him in touch with a tiny publishing outfit in the middle of the bush — ‘husband, wife, three kids, so poor they didn’t even have curtains’ — and they said yes. Plimer couldn’t bring himself to accept an advance they clearly couldn’t afford. But then something remarkable happened. In just two days, the book sold out its 5,000 print run. Five further editions followed in swift succession. It has now sold 26,500 copies in Australia alone — with similarly exciting prospects in Britain and the US. There’s even an edition coming out in ultra-green Germany.

But surely Aussies of all people, with their bushfires and prolonged droughts, ought to be the last to buy into his message? ‘Ah, but the average punter is not a fool. I get sometimes as many as 1,000 letters and emails a day from people who feel helpless and disenfranchised and just bloody sick of all the nonsense they hear about global warming from metropolitan liberals who don’t even know where meat or milk comes from.’

Besides which, Australia’s economy is peculiarly vulnerable to the effects of climate change alarmism. ‘Though we have 40 per cent of the world’s uranium, we don’t have nuclear energy. We’re reliant mainly on bucketloads of cheap coal. Eighty per cent of our electricity is coal-generated and clustered around our coalfields are our aluminium producers. The very last thing the Australian economy needs is the cap and trade legislation being proposed by Kevin Rudd. If it gets passed, the country will go broke.

Not for one second does Plimer believe it will get passed. As with its US equivalent the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill, Kevin Rudd’s Emission Trading Scheme legislation narrowly squeaked its way through the House of Representatives. But again as in America, the real challenge lies with the upper house, the Senate. Thanks in good measure to the influence of Plimer and his book — ‘I have politicians ringing me all the time’ — the Senate looks likely to reject the bill. If it does so twice, then the Australian government will collapse, a ‘double dissolution’ will be forced and a general election called. ‘Australia is at a very interesting point in the climate change debate,’ says Plimer.

The potential repercussions outside Oz, of course, are even greater. Until this year, environmental legislation has enjoyed a pretty easy ride through the parliaments of the Anglosphere and the Eurosphere, with greener-than-thou politicians (from Dave ‘Windmill’ Cameron to Dave ‘climate change deniers are the flat-earthers of the 21st century’ Miliband) queuing up to impose ever more stringent carbon emissions targets and taxes on their hapless electorates.

In the days when most people felt rich enough to absorb these extra costs and guilty enough to think they probably deserved them, the politicians could get away with it. But the global economic meltdown has changed all that. As countless opinion surveys have shown, the poorer people feel, the lower down their list of priorities ecological righteousness sinks. ‘It’s one of the few good things to come out of this recession,’ says Plimer. ‘People are starting to ask themselves: “Can we really afford this green legislation?”’

Reading Plimer’s Heaven And Earth is at once an enlightening and terrifying experience. Enlightening because, after 500 pages of heavily annotated prose (the fruit of five years’ research), you are left in no doubt that man’s contribution to the thing they now call ‘climate change’ was, is and probably always will be negligible. Terrifying, because you cannot but be appalled by how much money has been wasted, how much unnecessary regulation drafted because of a ‘problem’ that doesn’t actually exist. (South Park, as so often, was probably the first to point this out in a memorable episode where Al Gore turns up to warn the school kids about a terrible beast, looking a bit like the Gruffalo, known as ManBearPig.)

Has it come in time to save the day, though? If there’s any justice, Heaven And Earth will do for the cause of climate change realism what Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth did for climate change alarmism. But as Plimer well knows, there is now a powerful and very extensive body of vested interests up against him: governments like President Obama’s, which intend to use ‘global warming’ as an excuse for greater taxation, regulation and protectionism; energy companies and investors who stand to make a fortune from scams like carbon trading; charitable bodies like Greenpeace which depend for their funding on public anxiety; environmental correspondents who need constantly to talk up the threat to justify their jobs.

Does he really believe his message will ever get through? Plimer smiles. ‘If you’d asked any scientist or doctor 30 years ago where stomach ulcers come from, they would all have given the same answer: obviously it comes from the acid brought on by too much stress. All of them apart from two scientists who were pilloried for their crazy, whacko theory that it was caused by a bacteria. In 2005 they won the Nobel prize. The “consensus” was wrong.’

Ian Plimer’s Heaven And Earth: Global Warming — the Missing Science is published by Quartet (£25)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would make a good gift to friends and family this Christmas.

Glad to be of help spreading the word. I can't wait to see professor Plimer win a Nobel Prize as well.

My favourite quote....."None of them predicted this current period we’re in of global cooling. There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are the last two paragraphs.....The link shows the rest.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...-uncovered.aspx

"I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. The surface temperature data is a contaminated mess with a significant warm bias, and as I have detailed elsewhere the IPCC fabricated evidence in its 2007 report to cover up the problem. Climate models are in gross disagreement with observations, and the discrepancy is growing with each passing year. The often-hyped claim that the modern climate has departed from natural variability depended on flawed statistical methods and low-quality data. The IPCC review process, of which I was a member last time, is nothing at all like what the public has been told: Conflicts of interest are endemic, critical evidence is systematically ignored and there are no effective checks and balances against bias or distortion.

I get exasperated with fellow academics, and others who ought to know better, who pile on to the supposed global warming consensus without bothering to investigate any of the glaring scientific discrepancies and procedural flaws. Over the coming few years, as the costs of global warming policies mount and the evidence of a crisis continues to collapse, perhaps it will become socially permissible for people to START THINKING FROR THEMSELVES AGAIN. In the meantime I am grateful for those few independent thinkers, like Steve McIntyre, who continue to ask the right questions and insist on scientific standards of openness and transparency."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history.

Tedesco M., and A. J. Monaghan, 2009. An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L18502, doi:10.1029/2009GL039186.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scam of the century is revealing itself more and more. The seasons are getting colder, ice is thickening, the report as shown in the link I posted a few days ago shows the science being found out to be based on faulty data. Even a credible man-made global warming scientist is now saying we may have an upcoming 30 years of cooling as the obvious reality shows itself(as dicussed earlier).

The advocates of man-made global warming....a group of faulty scientists, enviro-freaks, far left wing types who are more interested in weakening the America or just interested in tax raising make-work projects, etc respond with condescending insults or just plain silence as if they are too superior to respond as seen in this thread. A large percentage of society appears to be easily panick stricken by shrill predictions and join along.

When there is a busier than normal hurricane season in the Atlantic, it must be global warming. When it is quiet as it has been recently(NOAA revised their faulty hurricane forecasts this year at least twice), just silence. Just like there has been silence about the link I posted earlier about the now discovered faulty science about man-made global warming.

Fortunately, the cooling has come along at just the right time along with a recession and high deficits to finally start turning the tide. And Woxof will win much adulation in the long term for standing up to the global warming barrage. But will be despised by those who were proven wrong(even though they should be happy about all the terrible things not coming true).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There you have it folks. An article that legitimately questions the very core of the man made global warming theory and this is the response you can expect. As seen earler when I asked how many thousands of dollars each Canadian family can expect to pay each year to China, etc....there were similr responses. In other words.....no response.

Remember that when you vote. No wonder the opposition is sinking like the Titanic.

I'm hopeful that average hard working Canadians won't reward this kind of elitist behaviour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My response is why does the general public fall for this "sky is falling" crap every time. The media blows this all out of proportion which draws every "expert" in the world out for his moment of fame.

Fears sells. plain and simple. The public is scared for their children so they cough up money (to add to already rediculous taxes) to solve either a problem that doesnt exit or one we can do NOTHING about.

I have said since this whole thing started that it is a natural earth cycle.

This scam needs to be stopped and now. As it is just another Tax burden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting who walks the walk...and who doesn't.

Source: www.truthorfiction.com

The Truth:

The comparisons are fairly accurate, according to published reports.

LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU

CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.

HOUSE # 1:

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas.

Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated

by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the

average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for

electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural

gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property

consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home.

This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's

in the South.

HOUSE # 2:

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university,

this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction

can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and

is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central

closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water

through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67

degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The

system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes

25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling

system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000

gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets

goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The

collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers

and shrubs native to the are! a blend the property into the surrounding

rural landscape.

HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of

Nashville,Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist

(and filmmaker) Al Gore.

HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford,

Texas. Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private

residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irrelevant as usual.

J.O....nothing about Gore?

Rather hypocritical don't you think?

Relax man! Was I criticizing Bush? I don't think I was. It was just a comment. I was wondering what the old boys in the Houston petroleum club would think? If someone whose bed was made in the oil business owns an "off the grid" home, should that not be a hint to the rest of us that it's seriously time to break our addiction with oil? As for Gore, the stats on his home and his consumption habits speak for themselves, IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Relax man! Was I criticizing Bush? I don't think I was. It was just a comment. I was wondering what the old boys in the Houston petroleum club would think? If someone whose bed was made in the oil business owns an "off the grid" home, should that not be a hint to the rest of us that it's seriously time to break our addiction with oil? As for Gore, the stats on his home and his consumption habits speak for themselves, IMHO.

J.O. my reference to hypocrisy was about Gore, hope you didn't think it was referring to you. If that is what you thought, my apologies for not making it more clear.

And yes, I agree with your point about weaning us from our dependancy on oil.

Anyone take note of our new tourist attraction on Grouse Mountain?

Wind Turbine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone take note of our new tourist attraction on Grouse Mountain?

Tourist attraction ?? laugh.gif

Kingston Ontario, (Howe Island), is going to have 186 of those monsters going in the future...I believe they have about 85 up now and a good percentage of them are generating power at this time.

Some of the residents, (Howe Island), are for them and some are not...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J.O. my reference to hypocrisy was about Gore, hope you didn't think it was referring to you. If that is what you thought, my apologies for not making it more clear.

And yes, I agree with your point about weaning us from our dependancy on oil.

Anyone take note of our new tourist attraction on Grouse Mountain?

Wind Turbine

Oops, sorry Gatekeeper! Lesson learned, never respond with a bad headache!

As for the tourist attraction, I guess that since I don't live in a place where putting one of those up would be worthwhile, I shouldn't judge those who don't want them in their area. But sooner or later we're all going to have to make some sacrifices as we move from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. When you fly across many places in Europe, there are many areas where the tops of the high ground are lined with wind generators, not to mention the wind farms that are being built in the shallow waters of the English Channel and the Irish Sea. I heard recently that the UK intends to have 10% of their electrcity supplied by wind turbines by 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They basically ruined the skyline putting up that monstrosity.

They are the most inefficient and costly way of producing power.

In BC site C dam should be being built NOW.

In the rest of the country nuclear power plants should be built NOW.

IMHO of course. laugh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree completely. I posted an article on here a while back on the case for nuclear power and it seems to me to be the best way of producing electricity.

I agree as well, and here in Sask-a-Bush, the 'screaming minority' have caused the delay of our first nuclear plant. The province that supplies about 1/3 of the world's uranium can't even build their own reactor. rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...