• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why 'climategate' won't stop greens

Abdul Alhazred

Philosopher
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
Messages
6,023
Why 'climategate' won't stop greens
Toronto Sun

f you're wondering how the robot-like march of the world's politicians towards Copenhagen can possibly continue in the face of the scientific scandal dubbed "climategate," it's because Big Government, Big Business and Big Green don't give a **** about "the science."
Edited by Cuddles: 
Breach of rule 10 removed.

They never have.

...

Now they and their media shills -- who sneered that all who questioned their phony "consensus" were despicable "deniers," the moral equivalent of those who deny the Holocaust -- are the ones in denial about the enormity of the scandal enveloping them.

...

What about saving the planet, you ask? This was never about saving the planet. This is about money and power. Your money. Their power.

...

All it's done is make hedge fund managers, speculators and Big Energy giddy with windfall profits, while making everyone else poorer by driving up the cost of energy, and thus of most goods and services, which need energy to be lighted, heated, cooled, grown, constructed, manufactured, produced and transported.

What some of us have been saying all along.

It doesn't really the issue yet, but it all got a whole lot less inevitable just now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can it get any stupider than this?

I'm hard pressed to find a single correct assertion in the entire article.

First, there has been no robot-like march. It's been a tremendous struggle to get climate change action on the table, and it's still uncertain whether it will get off the table anytime soon.

Second, there is no profit motive behind climate change. Big business and big government have every reason to wish it away. The push for mitigation is only finally taking hold because a sizeable sector of "big business" has at last understood global warming as a serious risk.

Finally, "climategate" is a sham.

I tell you, what's going on now in American politics -- and apparently in parts of Canada, as well -- is difficult to believe even while you're watching it.

It's amazing how many people can convince themselves of things that not only don't match the facts, but don't even make sense.

It's one thing to believe in a coherent fantasy world. But to believe in a fantasy world that doesn't even add up... it's enough to make you want the seas to rise and swallow us all up after all.
 
How about storm in a teacup?



This storm in a teacup has:

- triggered calls for an inquiry by a former British Chancellor of the Exchequer

- caused fellow Leftist and warmist crusader George Monbiot to call for the resignation of one of the warmist scientists, and complain that fellow Leftists who ignore it are in denial.

- caused warmist crusader Tim Flannery to confess on ABC television for the first time that the world had indeed been cooling, and ”when the computer modelling and the real world data disagrees you have a problem” and “we have to understand why the cooling is occurring, because the current modelling doesn’t reflect it”.


source
http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...tegate_how_faine_censored_the_sceptical_news/

Get that? George Monbiot says the warmers are in denial.

I keep saying, this will take a year or so to sort out. Not a few days and the denials of the warmers about its severity are delusional.
 
Why 'climategate' won't stop greens
Toronto Sun



What some of us have been saying all along.

It doesn't really the issue yet, but it all got a whole lot less inevitable just now.

load of cobblers. The Australian governemnt is going to be handing over billions the to coal industry and other CO2 producers, not taking it from them.
 
It's really sad that so much trouble is coming from poor wording in a private email. I use lots of "tricks" in science, but not to obscure data, but rather highlight the trend that best reflects reality. If you want to talk about politicians not caring about science, climate change is a great place to look. Scientists have been trying to get climate change legislation pushed through for 40 years, and it is just now starting to catch. Scientists have been pushing for legislation because it is an actual problem. Finally, after a generation of public awareness campaigns, a few politicians realized that there is a substantive enough base to do what should have been done a long time ago. Now, they have a reason to back down from fixing the problem.

That being said, the problem of climate change is not going to destroy the planet. It's going to kill lots of people and cost trillions of dollars. In human terms, that's just as bad.
 
load of cobblers. The Australian governemnt is going to be handing over billions the to coal industry and other CO2 producers, not taking it from them.

The compensation will not cover the costs to the power and coal industries of the CPRS.
 
The compensation will not cover the costs to the power and coal industries of the CPRS.

The cost will be passed on to the consumers. Market forces will see that alternatives are used over time. As it is, the single biggest consumer of electricity is the aluminium smelting industry. The Liberal State minister who set that up said in hindsight it was a bad decision. We have subsidised them to the tune of billions and got nothing back. The sooner they leave the better.
 
load of cobblers. The Australian governemnt is going to be handing over billions the to coal industry and other CO2 producers, not taking it from them.

It's kinda hard to argue with you when you provide, well ... nothing actually in support of your claims.
 
The cost will be passed on to the consumers. Market forces will see that alternatives are used over time. As it is, the single biggest consumer of electricity is the aluminium smelting industry. The Liberal State minister who set that up said in hindsight it was a bad decision. We have subsidised them to the tune of billions and got nothing back. The sooner they leave the better.
The point about Portland is well made, but I think people overlook the export dollars generated by the smelter and its impact on the economy of the whole region.
 
The point about Portland is well made, but I think people overlook the export dollars generated by the smelter and its impact on the economy of the whole region.

The cost is still not worth it. We are still subsidising it. One of the major fresh water consumers in a state that is desperate for water is the coal fired power industry. It just doesn't make sense when you all it all up.
 
Oh, well. That makes it just perfect doesn't it? We pay for green idealism.
Of course, that was always the case. No one said it was a free ride. Most things you want you have to pay for. Schools, health, defence, the end of the use of CFCs. Why should doing what we can to prevent AGW be any different? Their will be a cost either way, so why not deal with it now.

And in the meantime, what do we use? All the alternatives are currently a joke (pun intended).

They aren't a joke, we have barely started with them.
 
Back on topic about the reaction of the green movement. Tim Flannery would have to be one of the spokesmen for the green movement in Australia in regard to AGW. His comments the other night on ABC TV:

You see these people work with models, computer models, right? So when the computer modelling and the real world disagree, you've got a very interesting problem, and that's when science really gets engaged. We don't actually know why the current cooling is occurring because the current modelling doesn't reflect it. We can't pretend we have perfect knowledge - we don't.

If someone like Flannery can express doubt about this, why is it so difficult for others on this forum to do the same?
 
If someone like Flannery can express doubt about this, why is it so difficult for others on this forum to do the same?

Maybe because this Flannery fellow is wrong to begin with?



There was no cooling this past decade, even if you cherrypick 98 as the starting point of the last trendline, as I did in this graph.

Moreover, the last 30 years are fully in agreement with the ~0.2 ºC per decade. Even more considering that 09 will probably land between 0.54 and 0.55.

And lastly, how anyone can start talking about cooling on the decade that saw the northern passage open for business is beyond me...
 
Last edited:
Maybe because this Flannery fellow is wrong to begin with?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2814accd954a88b5.jpg[/qimg]

There was no cooling this past decade, even if you cherrypick 98 as the starting point of the last trendline, as I did in this graph.

Moreover, the last 30 years are fully in agreement with the ~0.2 ºC per decade. Even more considering that 09 will probably land between 0.54 and 0.55.

And lastly, how anyone can start talking about cooling on the decade that saw the northern passage open for business is beyond me...

Flannery - I can tell you, is a sort of authority on AGW over here.

What about what Monibot said about the warmers in denial?

It appears to me (us?) that many of the warmer experts have questions, concerns and doubts now too. Your poster boys are saying these things and distancing themselves from comments, as well as their formerly held certainties.

It seems as though you are now prepared to eat your own.
Sounds a lot like the denial of which Monibot speaks imo.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom